Does America Need a Third Political Party?

[Coldcall]

I notice there is no option for those of us that think the party political system in general is bankrupt from a democratic perspective.

Political parties represent their party, not the PEOPLE. Here in the Uk this is most obvious with the sick whip system, where backbenchers are forced to vote as to the wishes of their party.

My view is we need a new democratic system which disables the political careerists many of whom have never held a normal job in their whole life.

Personally I'd ban all political parties, they are focking evil.

 

[Benedict]

Political parties represent their party, not the PEOPLE. Here in the Uk this is most obvious with the sick whip system, where backbenchers are forced to vote as to the wishes of their party.

Really? I think the UK manages a much better level of voting against party lines than many places.

And I think there's nothing wrong with the idea that you can just vote for a party and know that the mps will generally follow party lines. There is no way that I'd bother to find out that much about my mp or that I'd vote against my national party preference for the sake of a particular mp.

 

[mudsling3]

If you look at the corporations who fund these presidential campaigns you'll notice that not only are these corps more economically powerful than most other countries, (eg. walmart is more powerful than Greece), but its largely the same corporations that fund BOTH campaigns. In the end theres no point adding a 3rd to the mix because it would cost too much for these corps to fund theirs too and make no real difference to anyone. There might as well just be one party, but that would break the illusion that you actually have a say in it.

You hit the nail on the head, We just want a real "second" party. Ha Ha Ha...

check out this brand of conservatism/libertarianism
"Whether Denmark Vesey or Harry Truman--both Left and Right make ideological excuses for their favorite terrorists." Jack Hunt AKA "southenavenger"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVztmtQX104

 

[Thrasher]

Yep, that was exactly my point days ago, another party can be bought out just as much as the others (or ignored by the corrupters and made too weak).

 

[magerette]

This seems the best thread for this article at the NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28rich.html
Frank Rich is a lefty of course, so there's quite a bit of anti-conservative drama and the usual Party of No stuff for the righties to have to tolerate in this piece, but it's an interesting if not especially deep attempt to tie the Stack IRS suicide and the MCVeigh Murrah Building bombing to elements of the amorphous Tea Party, and paint them and some of the participants at CPAC as a radical minority that in sucking all the oxygen away from the traditional GOP is bringing a rather ugly aspect of the far right to center stage. I tend to agree, but I'm willing to hear any other takes. I do understand though if it's a bit much for our resident repubs.

snip:

the unhinged and sometimes armed anti-government right that was thought to have vaporized after its Oklahoma apotheosis is making a comeback. And now it is finding common cause with some elements of the diverse, far-flung and still inchoate Tea Party movement. All it takes is a few self-styled “patriots” to sow havoc…

…most Tea Party groups have no affiliation with the G.O.P…The more we learn about the Tea Partiers, the more we can see why. They loathe John McCain and the free-spending, TARP-tainted presidency of George W. Bush. They really do hate all of Washington, and if they hate Obama more than the Republican establishment, it’s only by a hair or two. (Were Obama not earning extra demerits in some circles for his race, it might be a dead heat.) The Tea Partiers want to eliminate most government agencies, starting with the Fed and the I.R.S., and end spending on entitlement programs. They are not to be confused with the Party of No holding forth in Washington — a party that, after all, is now positioning itself as a defender of Medicare spending. What we are talking about here is the Party of No Government at All.

The distinction between the Tea Party movement and the official G.O.P. is real, and we ignore it at our peril…

 

[dteowner]

I get the point, and there's a hint of validity hiding in the weeds, but there are so many flaws in logic in that piece that I don't even know where to start, Mags.

I have to step lightly here, since I've said on here more than once that I ascribe to Grandpa dte's prediction that we'll have have another civil war over taxation. It's too soon, though. The nation's financial ruin might be in sight, but it's simply not here yet. As long as we can continue to borrow more and more money, the really tough decisions that would prompt a broader reaction simply won't happen. The first time we have to choose between a 50% rate on everyone that pays taxes (aka everyone but the uber-rich and the folks already on the dole) and missing a round of entitlement payments, iz gonna get dicey. Perhaps the Tea Partiers are the first ripples of a tidal wave we can't see yet, but Grandpa predicted (and I agree) that "his" revolution would be led by the overtaxed tatters of the middle class, rather than the "militia right".

I have to admit I got a good bellylaugh out of this line though--

In the heyday of 1960s left-wing radicalism, no liberal Democratic politicians in Washington could be found endorsing groups preaching violent revolution. The right has a different history.

Ummm, our president is taking tea with a violent revolution proponent (remember Ayers?). Denial much, Mr Rich?

 

[magerette]

I'm glad you found something amusing there, dte—I'm sure reading that was heavy going. And yeah, he was talking about the Yippies, and conveniently missing the Weathermen. Nice catch.

If you can ignore the somewhat hyperbolic presentation, I think he does hit on a worrying trend toward at least 'fantasy violence' in the Tea Partiers, though—carrying handguns to rallies, hanging people in effigy, etc—and as we've touched on before, I think the question of how much this enables already unstable people to act out Timothy McVeigh-ish plots is the real conundrum.

I'm totally with you on the serious unlikelihood of the entire Tea Party 'movement' suddenly marching on Washington in armed rebellion. I think only people who have nothing to lose do that—and I can see that kind of situation coming to the fore if your 50% taxes v no medicare for grandma comes to pass—though I suppose you could make the argument that GothicGothicness made—that people can accept a high level of taxation if they also recieve a high level of government service in return (in the form of education, eldercare, healthcare, etc.)

Whether our current political system could ever produce that kind of social safety net for the endangered middle class is the question.

 

[dteowner]

It's OK, Mags, it appears y'all are fighting back with your own 3rd party movement.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/27/f...rty-to-challenge-tea-party-calm-nerves-video/

 

[magerette]

Hey, I actually saw some people linking to that over at Huffpo and wondered what they were gassing about. Very cool—I do like Cappicino Party better for the elitist ring, however.

Just to strike yet more terror into your heart we also have the Bold Progressives (Progressive Change Campaign Committee) happening, too.
Death to all the fascist yellow running dog corporatists, I say!

Edit: Well, perhaps *Death* is a bit harsh--but *Major Inconvenience* just doesn't have the same ring to it.

 

[aries100]

I feel that if the left wing og the Democratic Party were to be split from the existing Democratic Party, and if the rightwing were to be split from the Republican party, then deals would be made much easier in US politics. I also feel that maybe the religious right movement should have their own political party, and the very left wing people should have their own party, as in political party, that is.

As it is now, it is the more voiced and vocial people on both sides that gets the attention, not the pragmatic middle. I do feel, however, this would demand a reform of the voting system in the US, maybe it could be a system like France where you'll need more than 50% of the votes to win a seat, or a second round is required. Or it could be more like the Danish system (maybe state wise?) where the political parties gets seats according to their popular vote e.g. 10% of the vote get your politiacl 10% of the seats (for say California). Or maybe a system like Germany's where you have 2 votes, 1 for the seat, and another one for the political party. This could also be done state wise, I find.

As said, the two political parties in the US needs to split their left and right wing off their 'bodies' (if I can use that word?). I'm quite sure this would mean that 80% in the middle (just a qualified guess, though) would agree on almost everything (or nearly everything) and simply pass bills and laws that will be good for the US - not only today, but also tomorrow.

As for Denmark, I think we have 7-8 political parties in the Parliament (Folketing) and maybe 4-5 more that's trying to get in the door (to the Folketing). Unfortunately, the press have gone the US route in recent years, talking about two blocks, using metaphors from sports, particularly boxing, to describe the political process.

Just as a FYI: In Denmark a political party needs 2% of the votes also to gain entry into the Parliament, Folketinget.

 

[dteowner]

http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/09/spitzer-madam-kristin-davis-busts-into-new-york-governors-race/

Here's a 3rd party candidate for you. Rith will be very pleased if he makes it to page 2.

 

[Rithrandil]

Legalize pot and prostitution? Sold. Tax the hell out of them. Additionally the cost you save on criminal proceedings/jail sentences against these former criminals would take away from budget expenditures, too.

 

[dteowner]

I was referring to her stated love for Barry Goldwater.

 

[Rithrandil]

Oh my god I missed that line! ::swoon::

 

[dteowner]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20100311/pl_politico/34244

This is really sad, and really exemplifies how our government is bought and sold. Both parties are whores.

 

[Thrasher]

So there you have it. More reasons for campaign finance reform.
- Reduces a source of corruption
- Encourages congressmen who like to serve the people, rather than those that beg to be served by corporate pimps
- Allows congressmen to actually work on legislation rather then their pimping skills

 

[dteowner]

You do realize that the last legitimate effort for real campaign finance reform was part of the Contract With America and got shot down by your dems. The plan was to eliminate corporate and union contributions so only individuals could give, and the dems shot it down because "republican individuals had more money".

I would very much favor real reform.

 

[Thrasher]

Yeah, that was an "almost" solution. I'd prefer NO campaign financing from private sources. Only public and equal.

 

[magerette]

Since this appears to be the limp-wristed liberal alternative to the Tea Party and thusly appropriate to a 'third party' thread, here's an interview at 538.com with some more information on the Cappucinno...er, Coffee Party:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/03/coffee-party-founder-disappointed-in.html

 

[Zaleukos]

Yeah, that was an "almost" solution. I'd prefer NO campaign financing from private sources. Only public and equal.

I dont think that is very realistic, and it would have some nasty side effects. Our campaign financing is largely public, and the obvious effects are:

a) it favours political insiders and established parties, as you need to have gotten a certain number of votes in previous elections to qualify
b) parties use the public funding for other causes than campaigning. The line between that and corruption/embezzlement is thin in deed.

Tuning public campaign contributions is a nightmare of a balancing act. Lowering the bar for public funding will reduce problem a, but increase problem b...

I am quite cynical about campaign financing rules. There will be dodging of whatever rules you set up. Demanding full disclosure of where the money comes from is probably the best and "fairest" solution, however imperfect.