Will a 3rd. party solve anything in the long run?
Here in Norway, we have no less than 10 - ten different parties covering the whole spectrum from ideological Communists to semi-libertarian right wingers. Yet the complaints about things always turning out the same whoever is in power and dominate the parliament could be copied verbatim from Daily Paul and be equally valid over here. So I think perhaps you ought to focus on other circumstances than creating a 3rd. party to solve "the 2-party problem". A 3rd. party won't solve anything by itself, in the long run. You'd probably just get "Norwegianized" and end up with a political stew, more hopeless than the present. So my advice is to stick to the 2 party system, but to try and clean out the power hierarchy from one or both of them, and rebuild it/them from scratch. Perhaps with stronger ties to your constitution and clearer election rules that can be monitored by impartial election law enforcement agencies, Now the party elites seem to be the ones picking the presidential candidates rather than the voters. At least in the republican party.
The goal should be to avoid keeping up prof. Carroll Quigley's "Kick the bastards out" charade. Easier said han done. But that's where the root of the problem is. Both in Norway and the USA, I believe.
I think that a third party could be viable if we were to
develop it starting right now and be very visible and let people know that it is being formed to fill in the vacuum left by the GOP. Now we know what obstacles we must overcome to get complete ballot access. If we developed it just like the other 2 parties (with a main branch that actually has funds) we could be ready for the next elections. (2010) It should be a party that is based on RP's principles. Done right, we can be bigger than any of the current 3rd parties who have too specific an agenda. If we do not develop a third party, we will be struggling against the incumbents of the current party system for a long time. We need to take advantage of the internet while we still can. Once our freedom there goes away, we will be able to do little. This is just my opinion.
Your "conscience" is the measure of the honesty of your selfishness. ~Author Unknown
~Your perception becomes your reality~
3rd parties are like asparagus lol
takes a few seasons to get yeild- if ya dont plant em because they wont be harvested this year- youll never have asparagus. If we dont support 3rd parties now- we'll never break the duopoly. Wed all love immediate results- but its just not in the cards. Still...we press on.
Live Free or Diebold
bump for relevant posts!
bump for relevant posts!
No
if it was viable, then Ron Paul would have run third party from the beginning for the 08 election.
when he ran as a republican, interview after interview after interview....he explained why third party wasn't an option for him.
think about it people, the whole point of running as an underdog is to expose people to a new (to them) way of thinking.
ron paul has run several times now, and he uses his campaigns as a platform. pure and simple.
cause he's known for a long time, what i only recently have figured out:
-the president shouldn't be king, and therefore elections that put the office of president IN THIS LIGHT, are ruining this country
-the president isn't a super hero to save us. all these pleas of "ron paul save us", are missing the point entirely. we're supposed to save ourselves, by embracing the principles he's exposing us to.
-the real problem is us. the real change has to happen in us. if half of the citizens of this country embraced truly small constitutional federal government, and strong state's rights, and were heavily participating in local/state politics, encouraging those local and state politicians to keep the budgets fiscally conservative, and government intervention minimal, and disallowing federal intervention in state/local matters.....we would have constitutionally aware, minimal government politicians FALLING FROM THE SKY!!!!!
step-1 educate yourself on politics, history and role of government
step-2 when you think you know it all, go back to step-1
step-3 teach your friends and family, they start at step-1
step-4 get politically active at the local & state level
step-5 encourage your family & friends to go to proceed to steps 3,4,5
that's it. it's a slow process.
ron paul has been doing this for decades.
educate self
educate others
engage
I'm not saying that a third party run isn't an opportunity to educate. I'm just saying that it's not critical to fixing this country. Fix people, one at a time is the only way to fix this country.
bump for relevant posts!
bump for relevant posts!
I'm starting to believe not
It's a complex topic. If you've got the time, I highly recommend watching this set of videos on the topic:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9B883EE065DC5B8C : Ron Paul and Personal Liberty
If you want something shorter, this mostly sums it up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB6uQcGo60I : Freeing Yourself from Politics
BTW, I have a Rapa Nui uncle
BTW, I have a Rapa Nui uncle running for mayor of Easter Island, his name is Hugo Edmunds and he's running for the Humanist Party. He also ran for City-Council a few years ago but didn't make it. Talk about politics in the family. A Gorman who was U.S. Senator from Maryland, 2 Edmunds that have been mayor of Easter Island (the current one, my uncle Petero edmunds). Knock, knock! If you've probably figured it out, I'm planning on running for office once I'm back home in the USA. I just hope there's still a home in a few years though ;(
Interesting to hear a different perspective here...however, the
problem with the Republican party is that they do not want to change. I have witnessed this first-hand. Even though they ARE collapsing, they do not understand WHY and they refuse to allow anyone with new thoughts or ideas to join them. And I think that is a major stumbling block here.
I'm a girk! Chatta me kort please!
New math!
Rolling money bomb
https://www.coasttocoastmoneybomb.com/JONES_SODA-MONEY_BOMB.php
What are you fightin' for?
Caught in the middle?
Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!
I'd love to see the USA have
I'd love to see the USA have some sort of mixed electoral system. Here in Chile, they use different systems. For city council (called concejales down here), each township gets 6,8 or 10 members, according to population; they use the D'Hondt method and parties usually form lists. For mayor (alcalde), they use a simple First past the post system. For Senate and House, they use a system called the binominal system. Lists field 2 candidates. The country is divided into 60 House districts and 19 Senate districts. Each district elects 2 candidates. The first candidate goes to the list with the most votes; the second seat is interesting: if the winning list has votes that are at least twice as greater as those for the list coming in 2nd (for example: 60% for the winning list and 30% for the 2nd list), the winning list elects both candidates. If not, the most voted candidate in the 2nd list is elected. For the Presidency, they use the Two-round system. A candidate needs an absolute majority of the 1st round vote to win. If not, 2 weeks later there's a run-off between the top 2 candidates. There, a plurality is enough.
Hmm. I actually tend to use
Hmm. I actually tend to use Norway’s electoral system as an example of a nice compromise between America’s first past the post, and the pure (or at least purer) PR systems in places like Italy and Israel, where it seems the parties are on a steady march towards 1 representative each, with gigantic, unwieldy coalitions being the norm.
Norway’s system of multi seat regional constituencies and national leveling seats, does provide a compromise, where the larger, regionally broader based, parties have an advantage, but where there is still room for smaller party voices in the national debate.
For a country as large and diverse as America, retaining its current system, but in addition allowing, say, a quarter of the representatives/electors, to be elected via Norway style leveling seats, would ensure people like Nader, and some Libertarians, would always have some, however miniscule, access to the halls of power. Considering how many Americans have supported them over the years, I can’t help but think that would be a good thing. And we would still be a lot closer to our current system, than the one Norway uses, where, if I understand correctly, even non leveling seats are elected from multi seat PR constituencies.
Anyway…. As a movement focused on restoring the republic our founders’ intended, not the one the Norwegians intended, none of this ought to be considered any more than trifle academic diversions.
For an example of what I was
For an example of what I was talking about above, consider the 2000 election; by many considered to be ‘spoilt’ by Nader, since he supposedly ‘stole’ votes that would otherwise have been cast for Gore. Hence, Nader voters, likely those most opposed to Bush out of the entire voting population, gets (somewhat correctly) blamed for enabling him to win the presidency.
If all the votes cast for Nader, even if in no individual district enough to pick up an Electoral College vote, had enabled him to get nationally apportioned leveling electors; those electors could, likely with Nader’s consent, have voted for Gore, hence preventing a Bush win. It would very much surprise me if those voting for Nader in 2000, would not have preferred that outcome to the one that actually came to bear.
In scenarios like this, a system comprising a pool of nationally apportioned leveling votes, would make people freer to vote their conscience, with less of an eye towards tactics and to gaming the system.
You are absolutely correct.
The media tells us who the 'front runners' are, and people in America want to think they are winners by backing a winner. Most people in America don't think very clearly. To maintain a Republic we need a just and virtuous people. We are not. We have been trained to be selfish and greedy and single-minded (stubborn). Elitism abounds, everyone thinks they are better than everyone else. Thanks for your post.
bump
bump
Google+ Account: www.jmariano.com
About Me:
Filipino|Non-Religious|29yrs. old|Male|Straight|Business Owner
It seems no amount of corrupt people can be trusted..
.. no matter what country they're from.
I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...
I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...
Is Norway on Proportional Representation?
PR encourages small parties, and it sometimes leaves the balance of power with those minor parties.
There is a tendency to end up with a "Left Coalition" and a "Right Coalition", but that can hardly be worse than the current US duopoly (Republican and Democrat) or UK triopoly (Conservative, Labour and Lib-Dem) who all look and sound identical.
http://www.mises.org/Books/mysteryofbanking.pdf
Would you trade your liberty for a flying car?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsFfBB2W7IA
What if World War 2 was fought by today's teenagers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by33gZv8_BA&feature=relat
The Flying Car?
Ha ha that was very funny and a real good skit!
Weeeeeeee
" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~
" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~
If you liked The Flying Car...
...you'll love The Donkey Show. It has the same characters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wtZX1i6OYc
WARNING: Off-topic. Contains adult themes and bad language.
http://www.mises.org/Books/mysteryofbanking.pdf
Would you trade your liberty for a flying car?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsFfBB2W7IA
What if World War 2 was fought by today's teenagers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by33gZv8_BA
One multi party system
On October 26th, 2008 Brit4RonPaul asked:
Is Norway on Proportional Representation?
Yes:
Norway has proportional representation in multi-seat constituencies. The Storting (Parliament) is for legislative cases divided into the Lagting (1/4 of its members) and the Odelsting (3/4).
Norway has a multi-party system, with numerous parties in which no one party often has a chance of gaining power alone, and parties must work with each other to form coalition governments and/or minority cabinets.
In Norway, elections are held every second year, alternating between elections for the Parliament and local elections, both of which are held on a 4-yearly basis.
Which is probably more than most of you guys ever wanted to know about the Norwegian electoral system :-)
There's even more here though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Norway
I'm so glad you asked
I just launched a gizmo to show how alternate-party candidates serve to steer the direction of government.
http://www.inductionworks.com/iw/form/qamap.php/VoteCount
Ron Paul said that it's easy to get them to change direction because they have their fingers to the wind.
IMissLiberty
IMissLiberty
no, a third party run solves nothing
what we need is for our government to respect us, it's citizens, and the power which WE are supposed to wield which WE ELECT to allow them to use on OUR behalf for OUR benefit and OUR protection.
Right now, it's the other way around. We fear our government, they wield the power which we forfeit, and they most certainly don't use that power on our behalf for our benefit or protection.
We could add 10 parties and still have more of the same.
A third party provides
A third party provides clarity---if it's done right.
If it's just a "me too" party, "vote for us, because we aren't the other guys", it achieves nothing, but a party with a strong ironbound platform would potentially be a great source of strength for principled people.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Interesting perspective!
Thanks Norway! I once seen a lady give a speech on how if we had a 3rd party, or more, we'd end up with having to form coalition governments that would end up being ineffectual just as you described, because not one would have over a 50% majority to get their program through, and on any 1 issue by the dominant party, you might have 2 other parties that oppose, so nothing gets done. On the flip side though, we need a government that does less, not more, so I could see what is currently a bad deal for you folks, end up being a short term gain for us if implemented here. If nothing else, just to stop the hemorrhaging cause by unrelenting gov't interference.
Also, how often do you hear people squak the same old line "We have to get rid of the electoral college"? Many do not realize that the founders put the electoral college in as a means to insure we remain a Republic, and not fall into total democracy, something they abhorred. The electoral college was great, when we had "no parties" as was intended, and when individuals did not seek office, but the office sought individuals. In the old days, it was considered ungentlemanly to campaign for office, you had to be nominated and others campaigned for you because they wanted YOU to lead them, not because you wanted the people to vote for you to give yourself more power.
Now, we have corrupt parties, and power hungry people running for office, and the system has broken down. Maybe the answer is to get rid of all parties, no one be allowed to declare themselves for candidacy, no campaigning, and end all corporate campaign donations, only individuals may donate up to the current maximum of like $2400 durring the primaries, and $2400 during the main elections.
I would argue that the Electoral College system contributes to keeping the country whole and united because it requires a distribution of popular support to be elected president. Without it, presidents would be selected
either through the domination of one populous region over the others or
through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones. If that happens, as it often does today, that presents a scenario where those in rural areas do not benefit from equal protection of the laws, and the majority can run rough shod over the rights of the minority, or of the individual. This happens a lot in Washington State, where Puget Sound interests dominate and tax the crap out of Eastern Washington and all other rural areas of the state. It is exactly this kind of framework that keeps us a Republic, and not a full democracy where majority rules and liberty suffers.
If we accomplished getting back to how we did elections in the old days, and did away with all parties, this is yet another way we could return to the dreams the founders envisioned for America.
Great post Norway, thx for the suggestions :)
Why a multi party system should be avoided
On October 26th, 2008 Kelldor said:
Having to form coalition governments end up being ineffectual because not one party would have over a 50% majority to get their program through, and on any 1 issue by the dominant party, you might have 2 other parties that oppose, so nothing gets done.
A very precise description of how it often works here, Kelldor. So a 3rd. party may perhaps not be quite the panacea, many seem to think.
Although it may be required for a short while to get the "RonPaul revolution" going? But after that, it should be dismantled.
A Third Party GIVES US
A Third Party GIVES US CONTROL.
The Two Party system GIVES THEM CONTROL.
You decide which is best...
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
A Third Party GIVES US CONTROL.
I agree that it might indeed be a neccessary tool to start changing things Kevin, but it will hardly keep American politics on the straight and narrow by itself, Just like our 10 different parties have not helped much in that department over here.
No, but we still need a
No, but we still need a starting point, so we can take action.
How compromised a third party can be, if run by the intellectually lazy, can be summed up in two words: "Bob Barr".
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
kevin read my long post at
kevin read my long post at the top. i'm not against third party, it's a useful tool to educate. focusing on the national third party though tends to stop people from doing what they really should be doing.....
educating themselves
educating others
engaging - all year, every year, engaging in state and local politicians
we have to encourage states rights, and deemphasize nationalism.
it's that simple. and probably near impossible to do.
nationalism is at an all time high. ww2 sealed our fate.
but if we're going to try, there's no shortcuts, putting in a 3rd party president, if it could ever be done, will accomplish nothing unless a notable percentage of the constituency is educated.
and if that notable percentage IS EDUCATED
then it really won't matter if there's a third party or not
if you build it they will come
i.e. if you educate say, 40% of the people to desire smaller, more constitutional government, then every party out there will be affected and shifted. a ron paul would sweep the republican party in that type of environment.
do you understand? the president and parties are the symptom.
the disease is the people.
cause and effect.
fix the cause.
the effect will happen naturally.
Chuck Baldwin kicked ass at the C-SPAN third party debate.
Nader was pretty good, but Baldwin was awesome. What issues are holding you back from the Constitution Party?
http://www.mises.org/Books/mysteryofbanking.pdf
Would you trade your liberty for a flying car?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsFfBB2W7IA
What if World War 2 was fought by today's teenagers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by33gZv8_BA&feature=relat
I have no issues on a
I have no issues on a personal level with an evangelical Christian platform, but many people do, and I think that severely hampers the party.
Otherwise, the CP looks very good, especially with Baldwin as point man.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States