We need "Change" alright, A Third Political Party

mikeandgerry wrote:There is no third party.

People are either left wingers or right wingers in varying degrees.

Someone please describe what a third party could be like and what its platform would entail. Are we talking Ross Perot? Jon Andersen? or like some personality more radical?

Are we talking a party that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal? I doubt that is the answer. For those who haven't noticed, fiscal conservatism didn't cause all the changes we have experienced in the last 150 years, liberal social policies did!

Pick a party and get active.

R's and D's are two sides of the same bad penny. No matter how hard we try, they keep showing up.

I know the Constitution Party is a little "religious" for many, myself included. But I know for a fact that it is not a "firm" platform among all members of that party.

So if you "need" a party, then that might be the one.

I prefer to think of myself as an "American" and have little use for "party".

jpete wrote:
R's and D's are two sides of the same bad penny. No matter how hard we try, they keep showing up.

I know the Constitution Party is a little "religious" for many, myself included. But I know for a fact that it is not a "firm" platform among all members of that party.

So if you "need" a party, then that might be the one.

I prefer to think of myself as an "American" and have little use for "party".

Politics requires flipping that bad penny. As a result of a seemingly random choice, every platform has loose planks that never get replaced and strong ones that get changed out often. Negotiation and compromise is the nature of politics. It has never been avoided in all of history.

While I love your economic viewpoints and recognize them as historically workable, your notion of multiple party politics is fleeting in practice though quite idyllic. Unfortunately, birds of a feather flock together. Parties exist whether you want them to or not. They always form alliances and recombine. The fact is, there are really only two. Neither has a lock on morality. If there is a viable third party to balance the others, rest assured it has religion associated with it.

For an explanation of the two parties, read the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15). Especially compelling is the explanation of it by Timothy Keller in his book, The Prodigal God. Both are a quick read at less than a page and 134 pages respectively. Then let me know what you think of the third party.

mikeandgerry wrote:

jpete wrote:
R's and D's are two sides of the same bad penny. No matter how hard we try, they keep showing up.

I know the Constitution Party is a little "religious" for many, myself included. But I know for a fact that it is not a "firm" platform among all members of that party.

So if you "need" a party, then that might be the one.

I prefer to think of myself as an "American" and have little use for "party".

Politics requires flipping that bad penny. As a result of a seemingly random choice, every platform has loose planks that never get replaced and strong ones that get changed out often. Negotiation and compromise is the nature of politics. It has never been avoided in all of history.

While I love your economic viewpoints and recognize them as historically workable, your notion of multiple party politics is fleeting in practice though quite idyllic. Unfortunately, birds of a feather flock together. Parties exist whether you want them to or not. They always form alliances and recombine. The fact is, there are really only two. Neither has a lock on morality. If there is a viable third party to balance the others, rest assured it has religion associated with it.

For an explanation of the two parties, read the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15). Especially compelling is the explanation of it by Timothy Keller in his book, The Prodigal God. Both are a quick read at less than a page and 134 pages respectively. Then let me know what you think of the third party.

With all do respect, you are wrong about a 3rd party option. Just ask Abraham Lincoln when this third party option called the Republicans was formed. As history shows, platforms do have loose planks, but sometimes you throw away the platforms because they refuse to get fixed.

http://flhspatterson.pbworks.com/f/poli ... 5B1%5D.htm

You had better check your facts again. Multiple party systems always come back to the equilibrium of two parties. There are basically two schools of thought: the glass is half full/half empty, aka, progressives/conservatives; left wing/right wing; liberals/conservatives; communists/anarchists; atheists/theists; left brain/right brain; yin/yang etc, etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

The third party either dies or becomes dominant and displaces another party. Rarely do multiple parties co-exist. When they do survive in plurality with relative parity they are variations of the same thinking to the exclusion, or near exclusion, of either left wingers or right wingers (as in Europe).

I am not against a third party. I am just saying that third parties merely represent a re-arrangement of the living room of politics. Once the new couch is brought in it, either there is no room for the old couch or the new couch makes the old couch look so bad the old couch is abandoned.

Your correct with equilibrium of two parties. I'm wasn't discussing having 3, 4 or 5 constant parties. Just like that new couch removes the old, that new couch eventually becomes old, and you still eventually have 1. And your link just proved my point with the 3rd party being formed.

Are you a night owl or early riser? I didn't realize you were online!

I am just an insomniac today.

mikeandgerry wrote: Parties exist whether you want them to or not. They always form alliances and recombine. The fact is, there are really only two.

The only reason there are two is because they got together and made laws about organizing new parties and how money is raised and spent to make sure there are only two.

As Carroll Quigley said, "There should be just enough difference to allow the people to 'Throw the bums out' without there being any real change.."

That is the reality of the system you are defending.

jpete wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote: Parties exist whether you want them to or not. They always form alliances and recombine. The fact is, there are really only two.

The only reason there are two is because they got together and made laws about organizing new parties and how money is raised and spent to make sure there are only two.

As Carroll Quigley said, "There should be just enough difference to allow the people to 'Throw the bums out' without there being any real change.."

That is the reality of the system you are defending.

Jeff is right.

mikeandgerry wrote:There is no third party.

There have always been alternative parties throughout American history, none have faired well hence the term two party system. It is however a misnomer.

coaledsweat wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:There is no third party.

There have always been alternative parties throughout American history, none have faired well hence the term two party system. It is however a misnomer.

The reason they don't fare well is the two dominant parties have made laws making it hard to get 3rd party candidates on the ballot. The legislature is set up so that 3rd party candidates are essentially powerless unless they commit to one caucus or the other, so those laws cannot be changed.

The best bet for a 3rd party would be to get a slew of folks who are towards the center in each party to split off and organize. Get Snowe, Hagel, Specter, Collins, Lieberman and a few others together and you've got a core. The gang of 6 could be the start of a 3rd party.

coaledsweat wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:There is no third party.

There have always been alternative parties throughout American history, none have faired well hence the term two party system. It is however a misnomer.

Again, ask Abe Lincoln about a 3rd party option.

Rex wrote:

coaledsweat wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:There is no third party.

There have always been alternative parties throughout American history, none have faired well hence the term two party system. It is however a misnomer.

Again, ask Abe Lincoln about a 3rd party option.

Lincoln didn't have to deal with the Federal Election Commission and McCain-Feingold.

LOL

You are all wrong and all naive.

Think balance. Nature craves it.

There is no lasting third party.

While you can certainly argue that third political parties exist, you all miss the point that there are only two kinds of people. Third parties cause a shift in power from a conflict or an alliance. Of those in conflict or combining, one party prevails, one declines. Then you are left with two parties once again.

jpete wrote:That is the reality of the system you are defending.

I am not defending any system. I am pointing out the obvious. Three party systems end up being two party systems in relatively short order (meaning up to two decades or so).

Form all the parties you want. With myriad choices power is diluted. The nature of politics is to build alliances to get what you want by building a power base. If your third party fails it is because not enough people agree with you and ally with you. You fail not because the system is stacked against you but because you weren't influential !

coaledsweat wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:There is no third party.

There have always been alternative parties throughout American history, none have faired well hence the term two party system. It is however a misnomer.

I think we can agree that by "two party system" we mean that there are two dominant schools of thought in one society which result, in a free society, as two dominant political parties. I am saying that that is always the case no matter how the political parties are arranged.

There is no true third party.....nor is there ever just one party.