The need for a strong 3rd political party in the US?

[Vanya]

I was meditating about the problem with Congress being so slow and divisive. And it came tome that (from the Legend of Zelda of all places) thet the key to having a stable and productive congress is to have a strong Independent part to balance it out.

Thoughts?

[LastingDawn]

I disagree, the situation is already partisan and divisive enough with two competing powers, a third one wouldn't strengthen anything, if anything it would weaken what is already in place. Because when there are three, two of them are bound to team up to try and take on who they percieve is their main adversary at the time.

[Vanya]

That would be the point. There is a big difference between 2-way partisanship and 3-way. That's why the military uses a tribunal system. You are much more likely to have a decision at the end of the day than a stalemate. Besides that there isn't enough representation of the independent middle. The problem with the process is deeper than the number of parties, because no system will be any different without the exclusion of the capitalistic lobby system that is in place.

The other option is to abolish all parties. George Washington actually advocated the idea on a no-party system. This has it's merits as well. Either way we really need some change that is substantial.

There are also those that think that abolishing the Senate would hep things greatly. Given the crazy notion that this is supposed to be a Republic, it makes sense to have fair representation in government. Right now the Senate is killing health care reform, and that wouldn't be the case if we only has the House which already passed their bill.

But back to my argument for a strong third independent party. The two party system we have has proven time and again that it is inherently divisive. It is bogged down in party politics in a ridiculous struggle between the red and blue sides. With a medium party added into the mix that is representative of what is really the great majority of American views it would bring focus back on policy making and less on us vs. them. The reasoning behind that is that an independent middle could swing either way thus taking away emphasis from just trying to beat the other guy.

To a large degree this could also be accomplished by eliminating the parties altogether, but people seem to me to be more readily apt to gather around organizations with a purpose. Where the red right is largely for the power of the people through the chaos of deregulation and the blue left is largely for the wisdom of the people through the order of careful regulation; the green middle should be in it for the courage of the people through a mix of the best ideas for the good of the majority. The government has a triple system of checks and balances, why not for the internal workings of Congress?

[LastingDawn]

You know, I never thought about it like that... that does actually sound very appetizing Vanya, but which party would it be? Is there any political party that is gaining steadily increasing popularity in America? It sounds a fine idea, but is it possible?

[Samuraiblackbelt]

Is there any political party that is gaining steadily increasing popularity in America?

the communist party

[Vanya]

Anything is possible! Einstein said so! =P

But seriously, there isn't really any party to the effect that I stated yet. It would have to be a new deal.
There are an increasing number of voters and Congressmen/Senators registering as Independent. So that would be a good starting point.

Edit: Ninja'd by the the Black Knight!! LOL

[LastingDawn]

I really do hope that's a joke... since normally "communism" nowadays is brought up by people who oppose Obama, it's really just Right propaganda, if it wasn't a joke, I feel sorry for you, that you would be so lead astray by raving lunatics...

[dwib]

LD just proved his own argument of the extent of partisanship between the 2 sides by automatically assuming someone was brainwashed by right wing lunatic propaganda.

[Zero-Machine]

Just because he makes an Obama joke, does not mean he believes it to be true. However, it is bad to spread such a claim.

[philsov]

Being a largely two-party country is a result of the election process/system.  In order to introduce smaller voicers something somewhere would have to change first -- dare I suggest a unionization of things instead of a regional-based, winner-take-all pyramid layout.  

Sweden for example, on electing members of its congress (I believe), has all citizens literally vote Party (not person), and then all votes are tallied and each party then has (pre-decided, up to a point) representatives they place up. Pulling numbers out of my ass, say we had an election and the Democrats won 51% of the votes, Republicans got 36%, Libertarians got 10%, and then a few oddball ones like the Socialist Party or the Greens got 1%.  So the Democratic party would select 51 senators to be put up, Rebulicans would pick 36, and then the Libertarians would get 10 seats, and so forth.  Because while 10% will never win against a single candidate in a single region, if you add up all those voices it's large enough that it would finally get some legislative muscle, for better or for worse.

There's several flaws with this, of course, but the mindset is more on the political ideology than the exact candidates (less smear campaigning!) and is nothing else reducing the godawful "us or them" mentality helds by nutjobs on both sides of the spectrum.

Buuuut, like I said, the US has a regional-based winner-take-all system, going all the way up to the electoral college (except maine, I love how they do it by relation), so the only thing that'll happen is either or both of the main parties will pander to the moderates and independants and special interests and try to sway them to their side and away from the other guy.

And asking politicians to give up power and strongholds... lol...

[Vanya]

Eventually somethings gotta give or it could end up real bad...

[DarthPaul]

Eventually somethings gotta give or it could end up real bad...

We need another plague.

[Samuraiblackbelt]

Eventually somethings gotta give or it could end up real bad...

We need another plague.

swine flu

[Samuraiblackbelt]

I really do hope that's a joke... since normally "communism" nowadays is brought up by people who oppose Obama, it's really just Right propaganda, if it wasn't a joke, I feel sorry for you, that you would be so lead astray by raving lunatics...

it wasn't really meant as an Obama joke but it was a joke

[Dominic NY18]

Aside from the effects of the winner-take-all system prevalent here in the U.S., it doesn't help that third parties often have some of their stances co-opted by one of the major parties.

[Kaijyuu]

1-winner-takes-all systems will always only have two factions. When's the last time you heard of a 3 way war where all 3 sides were roughly equal?

Personally I think people should have 1 vote for every seat available. For every seat your state has in the House, for example, you'd get 1 vote which you could cast for that many number of candidates. You could vote for the guy you like, the guy you tolerate, and the guy you hate less than the rest. Or you could vote for the guy you like, and not vote for any others and leave fate to decide which of the other candidates you hate takes the remaining seats.
(the only reason I'd still split this stuff up by states is that I don't think anyone wants to vote 435 times)


1 vote, yes/no elections are obviously going to be 2 party, all the time.

[DarthPaul]

Eventually somethings gotta give or it could end up real bad...

We need another plague.

swine flu

No I mean a pandemic that wipes out a large portion of the population.

After the black plaque so many people where killed that people could choose what jobs they wanted to do. This lead to higher wages which in turn lead to a better standard of living.

Soon after was the start of capitalism and the Renaissance. The entire reality of today's society stems from the disaster. I think it's time we had another one.

[Mental_Gear]

Okay.

You are the first to die.

[Pickle Girl Fanboy]

Term limits and salary caps for congress.

Senate serves 6 year terms, so a limit of 2 terms.
The House serves 2 year terms, so maybe they should get 4 terms in office.
And they should both recieve a salary equivalent to working 40 hours a week on, lets say, 2 times the minimum wage.
Weekly Salary = 40(2*MinimumWage)

Minimum Wage is 7.30 right now...
40(2*7.30) = $584.00/week
I think that comes out to about $25,000-27,000.  Is that below the poverty line?

Also, does anyone else think that lobbying = institutionalized corruption?

[LastingDawn]

Indeed it does Death, Lobbyists mostly control everything and they play our government like puppets on strings. Haha! Though I really like your idea of the Minimum Wage deal, there's a saying...

"When the coffers are empty and the state impoverished, with their people begging for food, while the leaders of the land feast upon rice (a delicacy in Ancient China), and fine wines, they are Bandit Kings, not fit to rule the land they respresent."

At least Obama did cap their salaries, at the beginning of his term, but to have the government work for only minimum wage... that would really weed out the dirty politicians who are in it only for the money, hehe.