Reply With Quote
Because moderates are not passionate enough about the issues to contribute money to the cause. And you need lots of money to fund a large political campaign.
I've been reading these political posts for quite some time now and never posted but I can no longer help it. A political scientist could use this website as a microcosm to describe what is wrong with the American government. "It's the left's fault", "it's the right's fault". Nothing but blame, blame, blame and in the meantime, absolutely nothing gets done in government. I pay too much for gas, too much in taxes (especially property taxes, but that's a different subject, thank you texas), my friends are fighting overseas and yet nothing is accomplished. My question is this then, why in God's name can't there be a third party that consists of a little bit from A and a little bit from B? I personally think that 95% of Americans can pull beliefs and political ideology from both parties and that no one can possibly believe ALL the crap that comes spewing out of one or the other parties. I may be wrong on that one, but , both parties are ing jackasses.
Because moderates are not passionate enough about the issues to contribute money to the cause. And you need lots of money to fund a large political campaign.
One problem with our political system is that it all revolves around money. A third party can't come up with enough of it to be taken seriously nationally.
Another problem with our political system is that you can have one party get 34% of the vote, another get 33%, and a third get 32%, and the third is guaranteed nothing. There is no proportional representation in the House or Senate, so again it's much harder for a nascent party to get anyone into Congress (etc.).
The incredibly long campaign period forces those running to have to spend lots of money and increases voter fatigue. A short, well-defined election period as some other countries have would reduce both problems.
As a result, everyone throws their lot in with one of two bad alternatives. Maybe if someone like Bill Gates wanted to start the Rational Party, it would have a chance, but rich people generally are pretty happy with what the Repubs are doing. Gates seems to be the only one with enough concience to fight that, but his energies seem to be focused on world health issues and not American politics. Pity.
Because of the way most elections are set up, where the winner only needs a plurality of the vote, a lot of potentially good 3rd party candidates don't run because it will pull votes away from whichever of the two parties is closest to their platform... essentially, it helps the party that is furthest from your set of beliefs.
Run-off elections can be expensive and drawn out. I think a "rank the candidates" style of voting system would encourage more diverse options. Or, at least, allowing voters to choose "Top choice" and "2nd Chioce".
That way, if no candidate receives a majority, the "run-off" between the top 2 is whichever candidate has more "2nd Choice" votes. Which means I don't have to be afraid of voting for Ross Perot or Ralph Nader.
That's a typical Republican strategy. Wanna make a race compe ive? Run a Green. That's what the wingnuts are doing in Santorum's race so they can pimp that he has improved in the polls over his Demo opponent. No he hasn't, the Demo just lost voters to the Green, paid for by the Republican Party.Because of the way most elections are set up, where the winner only needs a plurality of the vote, a lot of potentially good 3rd party candidates don't run because it will pull votes away from whichever of the two parties is closest to their platform... essentially, it helps the party that is furthest from your set of beliefs.
Because we do not live in a democratic nation, it’s a plutocracy. Government made by the wealthy, not the people. It doesn’t matter if you’re a dem or a repub. It’s all bull . “Hug a tree” or “tax breaks” it doesn’t matter because the minute either party is in office the issues they all champion for go away for their own aspirations. If we do have another party it should be a centrist party. Not a party who’s for this or that. It should be about the problems at hand in our country. I’m so jaded with politics I’ll end with this note. THE DEMS AND THE REPUGS. The blame should fall on the people for not paying attention to who we put in office.
Agreed.
Actually, I live in PA; I didn't even know there was a green in the race. Santorum has been some effective Anti-Casey adds as of late. Casey is not a particularly strong candidate. THAT is why Santorum is gaining ground.
Why is it that 3rd party seems to hurt the democrats? Why do we never hear of a 3rd party taking republican votes? I think the main problem is that democrats don't necessarly have a strong base of their own as much as the fact that they are not republicans. That is why the 3rd party appeals to these people.
I agree that moderates are not passionately vocal enough. There needs to be someone who can rally them all up and give the american people a new option instead of candidate Coke vs candidate Pepsi. I think another problem is most people who claim to be moderates are in truth just apathetic and/or lazy and have no interest in fighting the 2 party system.
Because we weren't paying attention in 1992?Why do we never hear of a 3rd party taking republican votes?
1992 actually was taking down both parties (i will stand corrected that republicans lost votes there as well, but they weren't the only ones to suffer).
I don't believe that Perot was ushered in by Democrats though, as the claim above was that republicans insert a 3rd party to hurt dems.
The Democrats won that election because of Clinton, not because of the 3rd party taking Republican votes, IMO. Until Perot dropped out, returned, etc, he was the leading candidate. I believe if he hadn't quit and then re-entered he would have won.
Two Party system....
Sucks. Next question.
Which ethnicity is the majority in this country? Which ethnicity is the fastest growing? Which way, percentage wise, do both these groups vote?...generally speaking.
The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people. The people vote for the lizards because they are afraid that if they don't vote for their lizard, the wrong lizard will get in.
--Douglas Adams
Many countries in Europe have 10 or 15 serious political parties in ONE country. They aren't much better off.
I blame money.
I blame idiot voters who won't inform themselves, but are swayed by partisan political adds.
I blame people.
This guy is smart, I thought I was one of the only people who felt this way. Most people are either hardcore republicans or democrats, not in between.
I agree.
Apathy is the problem.
One does get a lot of polarization these days, though. Those who really care tend to be a bit, um, fervent in their views.
Unfortunately, too many people limit their knowledge to the little (R) or (D) after someone's name, and don't bother to consider anything further. Meanwhile, the lawyers are writing their way into absolute power.
I think the party label is often a sign of laziness. Instead of taking the effort to be informed about any given election, it is easier to cast one's vote with a party that they generally believe in.
I used to be an independent, but the extremist direction that the GOP has gone in has forced me to what I see as the only viable option, taking part in the Democratic party, with all its warts.
As I mentioned above the polarization is disturbing though. Americans have too much of a "I win/you lose" mindset and they take that into politics.
Reason and comprimise are seen as weaknesses that can be exploited, and often is.
Look what happens to moderates that catch grief from both ends.
Not sure what to do about that though, except reward those willing to go out on a limb and talk to the other side.
Joe Lieberman found out the hard way what happens when you disrespect the party. I'm sure the Republicans would have done the same thing in a similar situation. I've heard zero democrats speak up for Lieberman, so the odds aren't good that rewarding those on a limb will ever happen. It's a safe bet that people, by nature, spend more time voting against one guy than they do voting for the other guy. With career politicians, the whole process has devolved into the lesser of two evils much of the time. Term limits would be a great answer, but the laws have gotten so complex that you wouldn't be able to keep up. Everyone just seems to reward their in bent for the pork he can bring home.
The Imperial Judiciary; the Impotent Congress.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
