If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(International Business Times)   Gallup poll says two thirds of Americans say a third major political party is needed. Although most people familiar with the Democrats and Republicans would just be happy with a second party   (ibtimes.com) divider line 233
    More: Interesting, Gallup, Americans  
•       •       •

670 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Oct 2013 at 10:07 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



233 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-15 08:23:35 AM
It'll just be infiltrated by one of the two major parties and either steered toward destruction, or just incorporated like the stupid tea party.
 
2013-10-15 08:24:51 AM
Pete and Repete were in a boat
Pete fell out
Who was left?
 
2013-10-15 08:32:38 AM
Heh.
 
2013-10-15 08:47:10 AM
You know the "two parties are the same" schtick is wearing old, particularly in light of the current situation.

If you're not a moron, you know they are not the same. They share similarities in some respects; going beyond that is pants-on-head.
 
2013-10-15 09:05:18 AM
If we don't reform the system and get rid of (or more sanely manage) the money, what makes you think aother party will be any different?
 
2013-10-15 09:25:18 AM

LasersHurt: You know the "two parties are the same" schtick is wearing old, particularly in light of the current situation.

If you're not a moron, you know they are not the same. They share similarities in some respects; going beyond that is pants-on-head.


Only one of the major parties has gone on record saying my brown female girlfriend should have fewer rights than normal good people.
 
2013-10-15 09:29:45 AM
Friends of mine are convinced a moderate third party is viable...but they're also convinced all moderates have the same views as they do.

In theory, two people could have exactly the opposite views on every issue and both would be considered "moderate". The political spectrum isn't one dimensional.
 
2013-10-15 09:43:58 AM
Single representative districts coupled with simple plurality as a condition for electoral victory guarantees that our country will always fall back into a two party equilibrium at the national level.
 
2013-10-15 09:46:12 AM

OtherBrotherDarryl: Friends of mine are convinced a moderate third party is viable...but they're also convinced all moderates have the same views as they do.

In theory, two people could have exactly the opposite views on every issue and both would be considered "moderate". The political spectrum isn't one dimensional.


And it's a psychological truism that people tend to view themselves in the center - as the moderates - regardless of where they fall on the spectrum.

"I'm not extreme.  I'm actually quite reasonable.  If you disagree with me, you must be the extreme one."
 
2013-10-15 09:54:54 AM
Agree, we need a more liberal and progressive party. Like the Green Party.
 
2013-10-15 10:00:11 AM

OtherBrotherDarryl: Friends of mine are convinced a moderate third party is viable...but they're also convinced all moderates have the same views as they do.

In theory, two people could have exactly the opposite views on every issue and both would be considered "moderate". The political spectrum isn't one dimensional.


We have a major moderate party already, it's called the Democratic Party.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-10-15 10:02:17 AM
We need the crazy wing of the GOP to split off and become an insignificant third party.
 
2013-10-15 10:04:36 AM

vpb: We need the crazy wing of the GOP to split off and become an insignificant third party.


The 5% that are left after the crazies leave is the 3rd party.
 
2013-10-15 10:10:15 AM
Won't happen unless we switch from using "Weeners the post" voting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
 
2013-10-15 10:11:31 AM

cman: Pete and Repete were in a boat
Pete fell out
Who was left?


A tired old cliche.
 
2013-10-15 10:11:32 AM
No, we don't need a third party, because we haven't fixed our electoral system. Pass a constitutional amendment to fix our first-past-the-post system and I will maybe listen.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-10-15 10:11:43 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: vpb: We need the crazy wing of the GOP to split off and become an insignificant third party.

The 5% that are left after the crazies leave is the 3rd party.


Well, that's the problem.  The GOP can't live with their crazies but they can't win without them.
 
2013-10-15 10:11:55 AM
It will have to be a militant revolutionary party or else it will be snatched up by either the democrats or the republicans, as has been pointed out in this thread.
 
2013-10-15 10:12:56 AM

cman: Pete and Repete were in a boat
Pete fell out
Who was left?


FIRST BASE
 
2013-10-15 10:13:36 AM

unlikely: Only one of the major parties has gone on record saying my brown female girlfriend should have fewer rights than normal good people.


That sounds awful. Do tell.
 
2013-10-15 10:13:38 AM
a 3rd party gaining prominence is actually a good way to end up w/ a better two party system.

it's how it's happened in the past, at least.

this country either just isn't built for, or it's occupants can't get their heads around there even being more than two options - but a period of 3 that later collapse back into 2 is sorta par for the course.
 
2013-10-15 10:14:32 AM

basemetal: It'll just be infiltrated by one of the two major parties and either steered toward destruction, or just incorporated like the stupid tea party.


Yeah, I remember the Reform Party too.
 
2013-10-15 10:18:08 AM
When somebody says that both sides are equally bad or the same, it's usually because they don't follow politics but want everybody to think they do. It's a pretty uninformed opinion, and has given rise to such fantastic groups as the Libertarian party.
 
2013-10-15 10:18:47 AM
But the latest poll findings are the first time a majority of both political parties' supporters have said a third party is needed-- 52 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of Democrats.

Did they change the definition of "majority" while I wasn't looking?
 
2013-10-15 10:19:12 AM
Two thirds of Americans will say they believe in almost anything if the poll is phrased properly.  Put a third party in front of them and they don't vote for it.

As far as the "both sides are the same thing," the problem, in my mind, is that both sides are not the same so much as both sides have a lock on the system, and write "rules" that keep competing political interests excluded.  You can get elected as an independent, but you can't do squat unless you play ball with one or both sides.  Nothing happens without their approval.

What has happened since 2000 is that one of those sides has been on a determined campaign to push the other out and keep all power for itself, regardless of elections.  The campaign is stupid, the party is delusional, and they're doomed to fail, but that doesn't seem to keep them from trying.  They have SCOTUS ruling that corporations are people and money is speech, but it is not, and will not, be enough.

/I hope
 
2013-10-15 10:19:34 AM

Shvetz: When somebody says that both sides are equally bad or the same, it's usually because they don't follow politics but want everybody to think they do. It's a pretty uninformed opinion, and has given rise to such fantastic groups as the Libertarian party.


Looks like those clowns in Washington are at it again! What a bunch of clowns.
 
2013-10-15 10:19:38 AM

cman: Pete and Repete were in a boat
Pete fell out
Who was left?


Frank Stallone
 
2013-10-15 10:19:55 AM

Wellon Dowd: But the latest poll findings are the first time a majority of both political parties' supporters have said a third party is needed-- 52 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of Democrats.

Did they change the definition of "majority" while I wasn't looking?


I assume there's a percentage of Democrats who said "I don't care" so the percentage against a third party would be less than 49%.
 
2013-10-15 10:21:39 AM

Infernalist: Wellon Dowd: But the latest poll findings are the first time a majority of both political parties' supporters have said a third party is needed-- 52 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of Democrats.

Did they change the definition of "majority" while I wasn't looking?

I assume there's a percentage of Democrats who said "I don't care" so the percentage against a third party would be less than 49%.


That would be plurality. A majority is defined as more than half.
 
2013-10-15 10:21:40 AM
We have third parties.  Everyone always says they want one, but come election time, no one takes them seriously.  They rarely get press coverage.  Without coverage, no one knows about them.  When no one knows about them, they don't vote for them.  And without a high polling number, they aren't allowed in the debates, resulting in further lack of coverage.  Seriously, it's a rite of passage now for third party candidates to be arrested for crossing the police line.
 
2013-10-15 10:22:21 AM

Wellon Dowd: Infernalist: Wellon Dowd: But the latest poll findings are the first time a majority of both political parties' supporters have said a third party is needed-- 52 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of Democrats.

Did they change the definition of "majority" while I wasn't looking?

I assume there's a percentage of Democrats who said "I don't care" so the percentage against a third party would be less than 49%.

That would be plurality. A majority is defined as more than half.


You're assuming the article's author knows that.
 
2013-10-15 10:23:09 AM

Diogenes: OtherBrotherDarryl: Friends of mine are convinced a moderate third party is viable...but they're also convinced all moderates have the same views as they do.

In theory, two people could have exactly the opposite views on every issue and both would be considered "moderate". The political spectrum isn't one dimensional.

And it's a psychological truism that people tend to view themselves in the center - as the moderates - regardless of where they fall on the spectrum.

"I'm not extreme.  I'm actually quite reasonable.  If you disagree with me, you must be the extreme one."


Somebody want to post the Tea Party political spectrum that shows them in the exact center, nothing to the right, and everybody including the GOP establishment off the left-hand side (with Obama the furthest to the left)?
 
2013-10-15 10:23:25 AM
As much as people hope, pray, clamor, scream, and push for third parties, it's never going to happen.

This country has always been a two party country, ever since parties first rose up. Every time a third party has risen up, it has either 1) cost the election for one of the two parties, or 2) one of the existing two parties collapsed, being replaced by the new third party.

Our system does not support third parties. For one, the winner-take-all election system. In addition various state election laws prevent or hamstring any attempt to get on the ballot. Second, in order to get any bills passed, you have to caucus with others. If you're not one of the two parties, no one will sign on to your bills because they don't want to work with you. Not to mention that even if any of your third party candidates made it to any legislative body, they would be the lowest on the totem pole in terms of committees, etc. Both parties have worked hard on every level of government to keep a two party system.

In addition, voters don't trust third parties. Due to our winner-take-all system, unless the third party can get the most votes, voters will hedge their bets with the person more likely to win.

Yes third parties work locally. That's the only place they do.

Third parties are wishful thinking until the existing system of elections and legislative rules are changed whole cloth to accommodate it. If you want a third party, you need to pave the way for them first.
 
2013-10-15 10:24:39 AM

Diogenes: If we don't reform the system and get rid of (or more sanely manage) the money, what makes you think aother party will be any different?


This. Also: the fairness doctrine is dead and gone and won't be coming back, but you need something that will do what it did, which was attempt to stem the flow of hysterical misinformation the right wing is capable of generating. And no, both sides are not the same.
 
2013-10-15 10:25:56 AM
Yeah, but then...wouldn't we need three senators from each state?
 
2013-10-15 10:26:43 AM
We have a viable third party at the moment: the Tea Party.

They're not as formally organized as the Republicans or Democrats and as a practical matter we have a weird two-tiered election system wherein the two conservative parties duke it out first before the winner goes on to challenge the democratic nominee, but those are trifling things.  Effectively, it's a third party.

What the people need to realize is, this is what happens when you have a third party.  Invariably, one or two or more parties caucus together to form a majority voting bloc, and a portion of left-right bickering is replaced with intra-bloc bickering aimed at keeping the bloc unified.  That's the major difference in the systems.

The only other real benefit of a third party is that you get more ideas represented in Congress. But since a two-party system generally incentives both parties to fight for the middle of the electorate, the ideas you see represented from a third party are almost always going to be more extreme in one direction or the other.  The result is as you can see in today's Congress.

So, yey for third parties, I guess?
 
2013-10-15 10:26:58 AM

Oysterman: We have third parties.  Everyone always says they want one, but come election time, no one takes them seriously.  They rarely get press coverage.  Without coverage, no one knows about them.  When no one knows about them, they don't vote for them.  And without a high polling number, they aren't allowed in the debates, resulting in further lack of coverage.  Seriously, it's a rite of passage now for third party candidates to be arrested for crossing the police line.


Simply BEING a third party isn't enough, you have to be worth voting for. That's where our third parties fail.
 
2013-10-15 10:27:22 AM

Lackofname: Third parties are wishful thinking until the existing system of elections and legislative rules are changed whole cloth to accommodate it. If you want a third party, you need to pave the way for them first.


Ballot access for third parties in national elections is near impossible without a wealthy backer, that is the major thing that needs to change.
 
2013-10-15 10:28:08 AM
Yeah both parties are so much the same that they both want to repeal Obamacare.

Right?

Oh wait no. The opposite of that.
 
2013-10-15 10:28:57 AM

LasersHurt: Simply BEING a third party isn't enough, you have to be worth voting for. That's where our third parties fail.


We have different parties worth voting for (other than D or R), we just have an electorate that can't and won't be bothered to learn different platforms.
 
2013-10-15 10:29:35 AM

FarkedOver: LasersHurt: Simply BEING a third party isn't enough, you have to be worth voting for. That's where our third parties fail.

We have different parties worth voting for (other than D or R), we just have an electorate that can't and won't be bothered to learn different platforms.


What party do you think is worth voting for?
 
2013-10-15 10:29:53 AM
I agree, we need an actual conservative party.
 
2013-10-15 10:30:21 AM
What we need is a peaceful divorce from the South.

Let them have their uneducated, underpaid peons, and let us have our middle class.
 
2013-10-15 10:30:45 AM

FarkedOver: LasersHurt: Simply BEING a third party isn't enough, you have to be worth voting for. That's where our third parties fail.

We have different parties worth voting for (other than D or R), we just have an electorate that can't and won't be bothered to learn different platforms.


If we had a moderate third party, you'd find people joining in droves.

Instead, in America, we get third parties that are extremist versions of the GOP or Democrats.
 
2013-10-15 10:31:16 AM

bdub77: Agree, we need a more liberal and progressive party. Like the Green Party.


no.
 
2013-10-15 10:31:21 AM

Wellon Dowd: But the latest poll findings are the first time a majority of both political parties' supporters have said a third party is needed-- 52 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of Democrats.

Did they change the definition of "majority" while I wasn't looking?


According to recently established Senate precedents, you only need 40% of the vote to constitute a majority.
 
2013-10-15 10:31:28 AM
Or, you could overturn the cancer on representative democracy that is the Citizens United ruling and have elections publicly funded. But, you're probably right, we need another Constitution Party. THAT'LL shake things up!
 
2013-10-15 10:31:40 AM

basemetal: It'll just be infiltrated by one of the two major parties and either steered toward destruction, or just incorporated like the stupid tea party.



Ah, but you forget that the tea party is an astroturf "movement" that was created and is maintained by GOP operatives.  It was just a way to rally the ultraconservative faction of the GOP.  It doesn't have any coherent platform other than "we hate democrats" and "government is bad *except when it does things we like."

Honestly, it's just a vehicle for channeling anger towards democrats and "liberals."  It's definitely not libertarian, in any coherent sense of the word (for god's sake, look at the repressive laws tea partiers have gotten passed at the state level).
 
2013-10-15 10:31:48 AM

Lackofname: As much as people hope, pray, clamor, scream, and push for third parties, it's never going to happen.

This country has always been a two party country, ever since parties first rose up. Every time a third party has risen up, it has either 1) cost the election for one of the two parties, or 2) one of the existing two parties collapsed, being replaced by the new third party.

Our system does not support third parties. For one, the winner-take-all election system. In addition various state election laws prevent or hamstring any attempt to get on the ballot. Second, in order to get any bills passed, you have to caucus with others. If you're not one of the two parties, no one will sign on to your bills because they don't want to work with you. Not to mention that even if any of your third party candidates made it to any legislative body, they would be the lowest on the totem pole in terms of committees, etc. Both parties have worked hard on every level of government to keep a two party system.

In addition, voters don't trust third parties. Due to our winner-take-all system, unless the third party can get the most votes, voters will hedge their bets with the person more likely to win.

Yes third parties work locally. That's the only place they do.

Third parties are wishful thinking until the existing system of elections and legislative rules are changed whole cloth to accommodate it. If you want a third party, you need to pave the way for them first.


In general you're right that Duverger's Law will stop third parties from proliferating in a winner-take-all system, but that doesn't mean it is impossible. The United Kingdom is a good example of that. They arguably have three major parties: the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, and the Liberal Democrats.
 
2013-10-15 10:31:54 AM

Wendy's Chili: What we need is a peaceful divorce from the South.

Let them have their uneducated, underpaid peons, and let us have our middle class.


Too much material wealth down there.  We'd have to physically evict the occupants entirely.

Thankfully, that would make lots of room for the happy immigrants that would love to fill that void.
 
Displayed 50 of 233 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report