Speak Out: Third Party Opinion

Replies (18)

• I am (as previously mentioned) a Political atheist and part time Anarchist slash Revolutionist. And I think when it comes to political parties they are all the same old frauds with brand new names. It all comes down to money and power in the end. It's all about "Who has it, Who wants it, and how they are going to get it, or keep it." FED Central Banking Families run all the Political Parties that matter. It is this group that runs what all the parties say and do, in effect running the country at large. It doesn't matter what Party is in office, or who the President is, it will still be business as usual. And nothing will really change. They use the election process as a way to keep us all blinded and distracted. If we are busy watching those guys we are too busy to look at what's going on else where. Old Pirate trick, start a fire on the left side, so that no one is looking to the right.

  -- Posted by timexx on Sun, Jun 26, 2011, at 6:44 PM

• Timex,

  I wish I knew who 'they' were so I could keep an eye on them.

  Freedom Man, I can see good things with both the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. However, power is always a corrupting influence and even those who start out with the best intentions are influenced by the power of the office and the opportunity to use the office for personal gain.

  The Democrat Party and the Republican Party have made use of their power and position to stack the deck against any third party. It is difficult for a third party candidate to even get on the ballot, much less win an election. So many voters would like a change but are unwilling to vote third party because they fear their vote will be wasted. I feel continuing to vote for the same two parties and expecting change is a waste of my vote!

  -- Posted by Robert* on Sun, Jun 26, 2011, at 9:26 PM

• It's not so much as the party as it is the administration. This one is bleeding us to death.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jun 26, 2011, at 10:50 PM

• Freedom Man- I'm not up on them much, but I've heard of them. And as a life long Metalhead I'm always up for some good killing. I'll check them out, thanks for the info.

  -- Posted by timexx on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 2:27 AM

• I fuly agree Rick. If people had to do atleast a little research to determine which candidate was in line with the voters beliefs, many uninformed voters would not waste their time.

  -- Posted by Joe Dirte on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 9:06 AM

• I'm not sure the Founders wanted us to have political parties.

  The major parties' national and state committees function with a "top-down" philosophy, brooking no dissent from the grassroots over whether an encrusted incumbent should be retained despite the gargantuan ideological divide between that incumbent and the "party" voters. Representation fades into the background, as consolidation of power becomes the prime objective.

  I wish "my" party would wake up and smell the coffee.

  -- Posted by Givemeliberty on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 9:47 AM

• Every once in a while, a third party candidate will show up that actually looks like he has some merit. Generally, they exist as 'spoilers'. Most 'third parties' aren't even on the ballot in enough states to garner the electoral votes necessary to win.

  I'm dissastified with the leadership of both major parties. However, I think the T.E.A. Party is going about reform the correct way, by trying to change the make-up of the extant parties rather than trying to deal with the disadvantages of being a 'third party'.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 9:52 AM

• Rick,

  If all candidates were listed without noting party affiliation there would be mass confusion at the voting booths! I like the ideal. It would shake up the voting process.

  Shapley,

  The two major parties have used their influence to make it almost impossible for a third party to mount a credible challenge to them. I also like the way the TEA Party is working to change the Republican Party from within but I would like to see the voters change the system and allow third party candidates to become credible.

  What we have now is an either/or choice and the two parties dictate the choices available to the electorate. We must make the ballot more friendly to third party candidates and give the electorate a real choice.

  -- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 10:31 AM

• It was proposed some time ago to have a 'none of the above' option at election time. If 'none of the above' wins, or if sufficient votes for 'none of the above' results in none of the other candidates achieving a clear majority, the election is nullified and another must be held.

  I kind of like the idea, although the expense of holding multiple elections would be hard to justify - the primary process is supposed to weed out the unqualified and leave us with the best that the parties can offer.

  I'm all in favour of abolishing the roadblocks to 'third' parties. The afford to the two primary parties an unfair advantage, as was their intent. I even heard a politician a couple of years ago refer to "a two-party system, just like our Constitution requires". I had to wonder to whose constitution he was referring. I recall no mention of a two-party system in the one the United States is supposed to use (and to which our elected officials take an oath to uphold).

  The Libertarian Party has a decent platform, but they rarely have good candidates that reflect that. Also, they seem to be dominated by the 'legalize marijuana' crowd, leaving them with a poor group of spokespeople in the eyes of most Americans. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to a healthy debate on legalizing marijuana. I'm just saying that if your party appears to be the party of 'potheads', then you aren't going to win a lot of hearts and minds in the general populace.

  The Constitution Party is, in my opinion, a 'fourth party', in that they have never really garnered the national support needed to get on the ballot in a majority of states. They are currently on the ballot in only about 20 states.

  The Green Party is a single-issue party, and is usually a home for disaffected Democrat-leaning politicians. It is the far-left equivalent of the far-right's Constitution Party. Much like Ross Perot's 'Reform Party', it is personality-driven. If it has a credible or a colourful candidate, it might garner some news coverage and increase its ballot access. In 2008, Green Parties were on the ballots in 32 states, I believe. However, not all of these parties were affiliated with the U.S. Green Party.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 11:10 AM

• I like the idea of the 'none of the above' option and would feel the need to use it often, especialy in 2008 POTUS election.

  -- Posted by Joe Dirte on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 11:33 AM

• I would definitely go for 'none of the above'. Would it not be interesting to watch the politicians try to figure out why the voters rejected all their candidates?

  -- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 11:05 PM

• Some wise apple is sure to change his name to "None Above".

  On state and county contests with democrat clerks the ballot would be arranged in to columns, say D on the right and R on the left, with None Above on the lower left. :)

  -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 11:18 PM

• Nil, I think I agree with the first part of your post. On the second part, why not go back to where the legislature elects the folks to represent us in DC.?

  -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 12:55 AM

• I wouldn't consider them frauds.

  But they are hard to follow.

  For instance, I am a Southpark Republican/conservative democrat. I like the libertarian party in theory, but the practice becoumes cloudy.

  for instance, how do you protect rights, but have less regulation and goverment involvment.

  Lots of people want to say they are Libertarian, yet want to define mariage. Lots of people say they are libertarian, yet support not only a minimum wage, but increasing it.

  -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:06 AM

• "(for example instead of running 8 separate elections in 8 separate districts we would have one election in which the voters would vote for 8 different candidates and the top 8 would represent us)"

  -- Posted by Nil on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 12:39 AM

  Would seem to me that this might concentrate all of the power into the heavier populated areas? I would be really concerned with too much power being concentrated in the two major population centers in Missouri.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:25 AM

• Wheels wrote:

  "Would seem to me that this might concentrate all of the power into the heavier populated areas? I would be really concerned with too much power being concentrated in the two major population centers in Missouri."

  Indeed, it would. All of our representatives would be chosen by St. Louis and Kansas City. The current system of representation is best, since it permits rural people to safeguard their interests and city folks, theirs, with roughly equal leverage.

  The Senators, elected at large, are supposed to represent the state as a whole in that body. However, I think we would be better served if they were still appointed by the State legislature rather than elected by popular vote. With both the House and the Senate elected by popular vote, methinks the rights of the states gets lost in the shuffle.

  Granted, I was not around for the debates on changing the original system, so I am not sure what problems or perceived problems there were that led them to abolish it in favour of a popularly-elected Senate. It is entirely possible that the problems extant at the time were greater than the problems with the current system.

  I, however, tend to believe it was just another step in a long process aimed at centralizing power in Washington and reducing the authority of the states.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:38 AM

• I think you are right about it being just another D.C. power grab. However, alot of the problems that led to the 17th ammendment are some of the same I believe we would see today.

  Senators had to be chosen by a majority. Especialy after the civil war, with all the problems facing the states and the country, the was so much inner turmoil with in the parties themselves in many cases nobody could get a majority vote and because of this many states went without representation in the Senate, sometimes as long as two years.

  With the ultra left/right wing factions putting up their guy, the moderates of both parties with their guy, and then throw in your Tea Party, Libertatrians and Enviro-nuts, it would be hard to get any candidate over that 50% margin in any state legislature.

  Not to mention all the state politicians who would love a Blago type payday for "helping" send someone to D.C.

  -- Posted by Joe Dirte on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 11:01 AM

• Politically, I have to admit, I am not as savey as maybe I should be, but having grown up in SEMO and living in the St. Louis Region, I am not comfortable with all candidates being elected to Washington on a state wide basis.

  I do believe, as bad as our system of government is, I do not know of one on earth that I would want to trade it for at this moment. Not all that many years ago as history goes, our forefathers came from mostly Europe, but a lot of other places as well, to escape something or to have a better life. I see no reason to go back to a European style of government. Some of them still support a monarchy, even though it is mostly powerless.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 11:14 AM