New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Would a Four (or More) Party System be a good thing?

CFMPP

Council Member
I'm not talking about wacked out parties. I'm talking about a party that really is for the people and by the people like the 2 bought and paid for parties say they are but are full of @$%6. The word Politician is an ugly word where I come from (everywhere USA). MADE THAT BECAUSE OF NO REAL CHOICE AND YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS OF NOT CARING ABOUT OUR COUNTRY JUST THERE FOR LIP SERVICE.PAID FOR BY EVERY SPECIAL INTEREST $$$$$$$$ GROUP.IT IS NOW UGLY TO BE A MUSHROOM DOING THE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATS BIDDING.
 

Lobato1

Mayor
What makes you think Germany, Italy, France & the UK don't follow 50%+1 rule?

In spite of having multi-parties, but being democracies like our country, those multi-parties all gravitate into two groups; the left & the right.

Best Regards
Lobato1

No...it wouldn't. There's a reason why the United States of America, and not Germany, or Italy, or France, or Great Britain...or Russia or China for that matter, is the greatest nation on earth. It's because although we allow voice to the wackjobbiness of the likes of Paul, Kuccinich, LaRouche, and Palin...we demand that they earn the consensus respect of 50%+1, before we allow them to make actual policy.
 

CFMPP

Council Member
Why do we make the consensus respect of 50% - What are we afraid of and nobody is more a wackjob than the people who vote for bought and paid for candidates.
 

counterintuitive

Council Member
Uh

No...it wouldn't. There's a reason why the United States of America, and not Germany, or Italy, or France, or Great Britain...or Russia or China for that matter, is the greatest nation on earth. It's because although we allow voice to the wackjobbiness of the likes of Paul, Kuccinich, LaRouche, and Palin...we demand that they earn the consensus respect of 50%+1, before we allow them to make actual policy.
You forgot Biden
 

degsme

Council Member
Given how well Ron Paul has been doing this year and how important Ralph Nader was in the 2000 elections, I am wondering whether it might be useful to have a well-established "Paul" Party (Libertarian) and a "Nader" (Green/Socialist) Party as well as the traditional Republican Party and a traditional Democratic Party.

The "Paul" Party would be a "niche" conservative party. The "Nader" Party would be a "niche" progressive party. The Republican Party would remain the "general/big tent" conservative party and the Democratic Party would remain the "general/big tent" progressive party.

I have a feeling that the Democratic and Republican Parties would remain the largest parties (at least for the foreseeable future) and be the major parties in any governing coalition. However, the "Paul" Party and the "Nader" Party would play important roles. In particular, I expect that both a "Paul" Party and a "Nader" Party would be more likely to "think outside the box" and come up with more "radical" ideas and voice them in public forums. I suspect that they would also be more open to "populist" voices from the bottom and more challenging to "elitist" voices from the top.

In the old days (meaning pre-Internet), I think that this would have been hard to do. But I think that the Internet has changed the possibilities for organizing that "niche" parties on a national level are actually conceivable. (I think that the Tea Party and OWS may both be early mainifestations of this sort of thing.)

The other advantage of having more than two parties is that I think that it is likely that more people would have an incentive to participate in the political process than they do now because they would have more choices and would be more likely to find a party that they actually felt that they fit in.

This won't happen in 2012. But perhaps by 2016? Interesting to think about.
Nah... the reason the system rapidly coalesced to a 2 party system is because of the mechanics of the system. In a Parliamentary system, if you can build a majority coalition you get the Primeministership. That means that cabinet departments end up being poltiical patronage within the Legislature. the British series Yes Minister http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/yesminister/index.shtmldoes a brilliant job of showing how this works.

But in the US System, you don't get any such power even if you win the WH. There is no incentive for the Elected POTUS to share Cabinet positions with other parties, so minor parties really don't score. And the larger your party, the more likely you are to win the WH.


Meanwhile in the Legislature, because of the Winner Take All Rules and the lack of political punishment that the WH can directly inflict (it cannot demote say committee chairs that mis-behave), the legislative bodies operate internally only on a "winner take all" system. That in turn rewards party discipline to the extent that if you want to be an effective legislator for your constituency, you don't have any avenue but the largest coalitions. And that rapidly collapses to a 2 party system fighting back and forth.

You basically cannot imagine a "Paul Party" that would side with Dems often enough that it makes it worth the Dems while to support ANY of the "paul party" ideas.

Same goes for the Nader Party....


So the very mechanics of the system, the "separation of powers" actually leads to a less dynamic and responsive system than parliamentary systems. About the only way this might change is if a significant number of states were to go to a "proportional representation" voting system for Congressional representation. IE all House members from a state are elected "at large" (nothing in The Constitution precludes this) and allocated based on the proporiton of the electorate they turn out. For example since the CA delegation has 53 seats, Ron Paul winning 10% of the electorate would give him 5 seats.

But that's not likely to happen.
 

degsme

Council Member
There should be no parties just americans with different personalities and veiws , not clinging to some wacked out ideals like all parties platforms are. Politics is NOT religion and should be fluid and malable.
That was the ideal the Constitutional Framers thought they were designing for.... but in reality they designed a system that within 3 elections was solidly 2 party system.
 

YJ02

Council Member
I am all for a new party, if its the "Commonsense-ican" party

Maybe could be started by people like Gabbard, Kasich, Yang ,etc?

I really do not know why people like Gabbard and Kasich stay in their parties. the whole idea of changing/correcting to middle, a party from inside only seems to work when the move is to be more extreme
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
I am all for a new party, if its the "Commonsense-ican" party

Maybe could be started by people like Gabbard, Kasich, Yang ,etc?

I really do not know why people like Gabbard and Kasich stay in their parties. the whole idea of changing/correcting to middle, a party from inside only seems to work when the move is to be more extreme
Kasich is an idiot. Gabbard is too good looking to take seriously and Yang should be running a Chinese food Restataurant.
 

YJ02

Council Member
Kasich is an idiot. Gabbard is too good looking to take seriously and Yang should be running a Chinese food Restataurant.
i take that as a disagree then? :)

the actual ppl dont matter--they are examples

the two parties need a wake up, they are getting too cozy for too long in their political class and they develop a sense of entitlement

the entitlement is when the old dog of the party gets their chance to run for president, just because it is seemingly their turn

Ted Kennedy, Sanders, Biden, Dole... do/did they run because they actually had something to offer or just because they felt it was their turn?
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
i take that as a disagree then? :)

the actual ppl dont matter--they are examples

the two parties need a wake up, they are getting too cozy for too long in their political class and they develop a sense of entitlement

the entitlement is when the old dog of the party gets their chance to run for president, just because it is seemingly their turn

Ted Kennedy, Sanders, Biden, Dole... do/did they run because they actually had something to offer or just because they felt it was their turn?
Okay, then I'll buy a pound of that.
 

YJ02

Council Member
Kasich is an idiot. Gabbard is too good looking to take seriously and Yang should be running a Chinese food Restataurant.
just saw this

telling dems to wake up and remember why Trump won..and it wasn't because of Russia, etc,etc

surprised they didn't take him off stage :)

 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
just saw this

telling dems to wake up and remember why Trump won..and it wasn't because of Russia, etc,etc

surprised they didn't take him off stage :)

While it's different and refreshing to hear a Democrat actually speak truth and common sense, reality is the Democrat Party will never embrace such an agenda.
I have to wonder if Yang would actually adopt policies similar to Trump's, that would bring similar results that Trump has achieved.
My first thought is that it's a campaign strategy he's using to draw in dissatisfied Democrats who are ready to vote for Trump but might vote for a level-headed Democrat, if such a creature exists. Yang might be trying to fill the role of the elusive level-headed Democrat.
I still remain confident and hopeful that Joe Biden will be the eventual nominee for president of the Free Cheese Party.
 
I have no problem with parties, I just do not think party affiliation should appear on a ballot in a general, a closed primary for a party nomination would obviously be another thing altogether.
The 2 main parties are like the Crips and the Bloods. Our founding fathers warned us about dominant political parties early on. Look at this crap between Pelosi and McConnell. All of our elected officials should be free of any affiliations and make their decisions based on their judgement of what is in the best interest of their constituents. The two party system is a miserable failure in my opinion.
 

YJ02

Council Member
the Free Cheese Party
ah, your old enough to remember this too? :)

i have had younger ppl all but tell me i'd made it up ..."trust me" i'd say" my imagination is not that expansive"
While it's different and refreshing to hear a Democrat actually speak truth and common sense, reality is the Democrat Party will never embrace such an agenda.
I have to wonder if Yang would actually adopt policies similar to Trump's, that would bring similar results that Trump has achieved.
My first thought is that it's a campaign strategy he's using to draw in dissatisfied Democrats who are ready to vote for Trump but might vote for a level-headed Democrat, if such a creature exists. Yang might be trying to fill the role of the elusive level-headed Democrat.
Yes, this is what I see in him as well

like Gabbard, once upon a time the two would have been seen as 'liberal republicans' or moderate

another thing ppl today think are akin to unicorns

The 2 main parties are like the Crips and the Bloods. Our founding fathers warned us about dominant political parties early on. Look at this crap between Pelosi and McConnell. All of our elected officials should be free of any affiliations and make their decisions based on their judgement of what is in the best interest of their constituents. The two party system is a miserable failure in my opinion.
yes, and i see no easing up of it-these divides have been growing, in this manner, since the early 90's

nearly everything in govt has become reactive and combative rather then interactive and collaborative as it once was.

why we need a level headed, common sense based, and populated by moderates from both dems and republican party's to give it name recognition-- new third party

my other suggestion, which I personally would find much better-although needing an constitutional amendment, that will never happen, I put in my 'representation by lotterization' thread

so many people in america fail to realize the political party's have no basis in the constitution or B.O.R.'S--No one article that says they must exist
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
ah, your old enough to remember this too? :)

i have had younger ppl all but tell me i'd made it up ..."trust me" i'd say" my imagination is not that expansive"


Yes, this is what I see in him as well

like Gabbard, once upon a time the two would have been seen as 'liberal republicans' or moderate

another thing ppl today think are akin to unicorns



yes, and i see no easing up of it-these divides have been growing, in this manner, since the early 90's

nearly everything in govt has become reactive and combative rather then interactive and collaborative as it once was.

why we need a level headed, common sense based, and populated by moderates from both dems and republican party's to give it name recognition-- new third party

my other suggestion, which I personally would find much better-although needing an constitutional amendment, that will never happen, I put in my 'representation by lotterization' thread

so many people in america fail to realize the political party's have no basis in the constitution or B.O.R.'S--No one article that says they must exist
The longer I live, the dumber the younger generation gets. I used to say the schools were turning out educated idiots. I don't think they are educating the idiots anymore.
 
I have a problem with political parties, they destroyed the republic, just like George said they would.
Representation Is a Re-Presentation of and by the Original Tyranny

The republic, which means representation taking away the right of the people to vote through national referendums, is as bad as the bickering political cliques it inevitably creates. Everyone knows it is a failure, but people are so brainwashed by the enemies of democracy, they expect it to change by dividing up these enemies but still keeping power in the hands of a frew.
 
The longer I live, the dumber the younger generation gets. I used to say the schools were turning out educated idiots. I don't think they are educating the idiots anymore.
The Masochistic Republic

Why have so many of the posters in this older thread left pj? Do they like the ban-happy Mods on the other embees?
 
Top