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?

imreallyperplexed

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.
 

fairsheet

Senator
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.
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
Yes, I'd like to see 12 political Parties, Republican; Democrat; Communist; Green; Occupy Wall Street; Gay and Lesbian; Potheadocrats; Crackheadocrats; Lulac; Holocaust Deniers; Moon Landing Deniers; and The Rent is too Damned High Party.
 

gabriel

Governor
thats not the reason at all. britain did just fine with her multi party system until she got old and tired. just like you are becoming.
 

Huskyoverlord

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.
 

CFMPP

Council Member
It is the republicans and the democrats who are taking this great country down because neither party represents the majority. Like coke and pepsi they bully anyone who isn't bought and paid for.Every pure politician is a wackjob my friend. As for your consensus theory. If no-ones going to vote for a different parties candidate what are you afraid of. You know the American people are fed up still you give us rich boys that do not represent the majority. Run another party who represent me the man who's not entitled because he's rich and not entitled because he's poor.
 

CFMPP

Council Member
We'll at least need 5. I'm for a working poor and working middle class party where government stays the hell out of my business all together.
 

imreallyperplexed

Council Member
Do you want government to do anything for you? Do you want them to stick their nose into your neighbor's business when your neighbor's are doing some damn stupid thing? Just curious.

We'll at least need 5. I'm for a working poor and working middle class party where government stays the hell out of my business all together.
 

CFMPP

Council Member
Among a lot of other things, build and maintain the Interstate Highway system. Lots of stuff. Maintain the FBI. Can the local police do everything the FBI can do?

I'm talking Federal Government and the answer is no.Me,the state and county police can handle anything my neighbor is doing.What does the government do for me now?
 

Dino

Russian Asset
Absolutely.

Who here can say that the party they associate with so closely reflects his values and preferences? I know I can't. I can't be pigeon-holed as to my beliefs just looking at the ideas and actions of the Republican Party.
 
G

Greenridgeman

Guest
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.
 

NightSwimmer

Senator
Funny you'd ask such a question. We have long had multiple political parties in the US. There are currently more active parties that I can list from memory. There is no reason for anyone to avoid joining one of these alternative parties. Apparently, the American people simply have no interest in doing so. What would you suggest be done to change that?

I'm not prepared to support forced membership in an alternative political party. How would such mandated party membership be apportioned? Would we have our courts set up arbitrary party assignment districts based upon the location of one's residence? Perhaps people could be assigned to different parties based upon their level of income or education?
 

imreallyperplexed

Council Member
NS,

I believe that there are some administrative (and perhaps organizational) barriers to "alternative" parties getting on the ballot. In any case, I certainly wouldn't force anybody to join an alternative party.

Funny you'd ask such a question. We have long had multiple political parties in the US. There are currently more active parties that I can list from memory. There is no reason for anyone to avoid joining one of these alternative parties. Apparently, the American people simply have no interest in doing so. What would you suggest be done to change that?

I'm not prepared to support forced membership in an alternative political party. How would such mandated party membership be apportioned? Would we have our courts set up arbitrary party assignment districts based upon the location of one's residence? Perhaps people could be assigned to different parties based upon their level of income or education?
 

CFMPP

Council Member
Equality for all parties

Yeah we have all these parties that no one gets to hear. If you think there are more than 2 parties in this country you're nuts. If you think those 2 parties are not bought and paid for you're twice as nuts.







Funny you'd ask such a question. We have long had multiple political parties in the US. There are currently more active parties that I can list from memory. There is no reason for anyone to avoid joining one of these alternative parties. Apparently, the American people simply have no interest in doing so. What would you suggest be done to change that?

I'm not prepared to support forced membership in an alternative political party. How would such mandated party membership be apportioned? Would we have our courts set up arbitrary party assignment districts based upon the location of one's residence? Perhaps people could be assigned to different parties based upon their level of income or education?
 

ya-ta-hey

Mayor
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.
Mr. Perplexed,

Currrently, the United States has a 40 party system.
 

CFMPP

Council Member
CFMPP or CFNPP

I'll take it either way. No political parties or at least more parties on a level playing field.There is no difference between a monopoly of 1 or a monopoly of 2 if neither represent the people.Money controls both of the existing parties.
 

NightSwimmer

Senator
NS,

I believe that there are some administrative (and perhaps organizational) barriers to "alternative" parties getting on the ballot. In any case, I certainly wouldn't force anybody to join an alternative party.
Heh... Nor did I suspect that you would. I was being a bit facetious. The Parties, however, are there if anyone cares to join them.
 
Top