A Real Third Party?

[ks4du]

First off, I'm not right-wing and I'm not left-wing. I'm right smack dab in the middle. I support a few Republican ideals and I support a few Democrat ideals. Both parties are too far off the mark in my opinion, and way too polarized. Most people I talk to feel the same way I do, and are fed up with the stranglehold these two organizations have on our government. Why then, can we not be presented with an alternative reasonable choice (or two) in national politics? Does it all come down to just money?

P.S. Every time we get a third party candidate to vote for it's some schmuck who's completely off the wall.

[N9MOQ]

There are around 48 or so Political Parties in the US. Usually at least a dozen of them get to be on the ballot, depending on state.

Ballots I remember seeing in Illinois had at least 10 - 12 candidates, and we all got to see the Florida ballot on TV during the "chad" issue, and I noticed they had about the same amount on thier ballot too.

How many are on your state's ballot?

[K3XR]

First off, I'm not right-wing and I'm not left-wing. I'm right smack dab in the middle. I support a few Republican ideals and I support a few Democrat ideals. Both parties are too far off the mark in my opinion, and way too polarized. Most people I talk to feel the same way I do, and are fed up with the stranglehold these two organizations have on our government. Why then, can we not be presented with an alternative reasonable choice (or two) in national politics? Does it all come down to just money?

P.S. Every time we get a third party candidate to vote for it's some schmuck who's completely off the wall.

And the schmucks who are off the wall are supported by..........

[W3MIV]

If all goes as it now seems it will, you will have an opportunity to choose between two consensus builders, Barack Obama on the left and John McCain on the right. The good thing is that neither represents the extremes of political partisanship, and either one of them is capable of generating truly bipartisan policies.

History shows us that a genuine "third party" is a virtual impossibility in the United States. Every time in the past an attempt to form a third party has been attempted, it has failed; third party candidates, inevitably, have shown themselves to be nothing but splinters from either the left or right wings of the two major parties. In any election that a "third party" candidate comes into play, that candidate usually reduces the vote total for one party more than the other -- hence Ross Perot took away disaffected Republican votes while Ralph Nader took away disaffected Democrat votes.

There is sufficient room within each of the main camps to permit a range of tolerance -- though the "purists" who occupy the extremes (on the right for the Republicans and on the left for the Democrats) do all in their power to deprecate and limit that tolerance. There are liberal Republicans and there are conservative Democrats.

[kc2orw]

First off, I'm not right-wing and I'm not left-wing. I'm right smack dab in the middle. I support a few Republican ideals and I support a few Democrat ideals. Both parties are too far off the mark in my opinion, and way too polarized. Most people I talk to feel the same way I do, and are fed up with the stranglehold these two organizations have on our government. Why then, can we not be presented with an alternative reasonable choice (or two) in national politics? Does it all come down to just money?

P.S. Every time we get a third party candidate to vote for it's some schmuck who's completely off the wall.
Yep know what ya mean don't know what to do about it beyond term limits and voting for a different party every election. Try changing congress :confused: in the next two years maybe some new Republicans with reasonable views will pop up out in the wilderness, maybe not?

[ks4du]

I was asking about a rational, middle of the road, third party. Not the Communist Party of America, Greenpeace, Libertarian, United Aryan Front, Christians for Control of America, National Xenophobe Party, etc.

Never mind.

[kc2orw]

I was asking about a rational, middle of the road, third party. Not the Communist Party of America, Greenpeace, Libertarian, United Aryan Front, Christians for Control of America, National Xenophobe Party, etc.

Never mind.
Never say never mind just keep plugging away.

[W3MIV]

I was asking about a rational, middle of the road, third party. Not the Communist Party of America, Greenpeace, Libertarian, United Aryan Front, Christians for Control of America, National Xenophobe Party, etc.

Never mind.

The point is that there is no "middle." The Republicans and the Democrats overlap at the middle in almost all cases except those of the most divisive. That is what is happening now, and it has happened in the past; fortunately it has always dissipated with changing administrations.

If one or the other consistently occupies a policy purview that is rejected by a large fraction of its own membership for a substantial period of time, that party will likely splinter and one faction will advance and the other die out. This is what led to the Republican Party of today, which grew out of the Whigs when that party proved ineffective in leading the nation as slavery and abolition polarized the electorate prior to the Civil War.

I don't think we are in any danger of that extreme.

[N9MOQ]

I think it would be interesting if the Federalist Party was still around, of which George Washington belonged to.

They beleived the Articles of Confederation gave too much power to the states, so they abolished it and created the Constitution instead.

[ks4du]

The point is that there is no "middle." The Republicans and the Democrats overlap at the middle in almost all cases except those of the most divisive. That is what is happening now, and it has happened in the past; fortunately it has always dissipated with changing administrations.

If one or the other consistently occupies a policy purview that is rejected by a large fraction of its own membership for a substantial period of time, that party will likely splinter and one faction will advance and the other die out. This is what led to the Republican Party of today, which grew out of the Whigs when that party proved ineffective in leading the nation as slavery and abolition polarized the electorate prior to the Civil War.

I don't think we are in any danger of that extreme.

I appreciate your well-written replies and agree with you to a certain extent. However, I do think that the two parties are at extremes right now. The Republicans have been taken over by the religious right and hardcore Nationalists, and the Democrats are still way to much "take from the rich (middle class) and give to the poor" as well as wanting to socialize health care (we all know how efficient the government can be at these endeavors.) The left does seem to be budging a little on gun control since it is so unpopular and the right budges on anything that will make their corporate partners more money (like illegal immigration) but I still don't like either party because they are both bought-and-paid-for.

[N9MOQ]

First off, I'm not right-wing and I'm not left-wing.

Then you probably have run into the same problem I have. Whenever you point out something bad about a Republican, you get called a crazy left wing liberal, and whenever you point out something bad about a Democrat, you get called a right wing neo-con.

Not everyone fits into just two groups. Even Astrology gives you 12 different Sun Signs, but American politics groups everyone into only two types of people.

If you try to bring in a third type of personality, it will imediately be labled crackpot and crazy by default.

Those that call every second party crazy, can't complain when they are stuck with only one party.

[al2i]

The federal government should not be giving the Republicans and Democrats tens of millions of dollars. The total stolen loot that has been paid out to crooked power mongers since the Presidential campaign finance program started is now in the billions. Each party got $15 million each just for their conventions, which were nothing more than boring coronations and a colossal waste of money.

Here is an idea: Let us keep our three dollars.

[KG6YTZ]

I was asking about a rational, middle of the road, third party.
Yeah, not if the money and the media - and the money that buys the media - have anything to say about it.

We haven't had one President in over 150 years who wasn't a Republican or a Democrat. [Millard Fillmore, 1850-1853, was a Whig; was Zachary Taylor's V.P.; succeeded Taylor when Taylor died apparently of cholera.]

The preceding history lesson was brought to me by Google. :)

[KG4JYD]

I would say we need a 2nd party before we need a 3rd party. The Republicrats (or the Demirubs) just aren't cutting it.