Why do third parties put no effort one in winning congressional representation. In our divided legislatures they could become king makers and really achieve some policy goals

(08-11-2016 08:19 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Why do third parties put no effort one in winning congressional representation. In our divided legislatures they could become king makers and really achieve some policy goals

Question I've asked for years.

They can't.

This country really does need a solid third party.

(08-11-2016 08:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  They can't.

This.

Only way is to go full on virus, blow up the current parties internally, and co-opt the machine. Trump is a 3rd party for all intents and purposes. He's the first to break through.

If Trump wins, both parties will finally realize how sick and tired people are of the career political class getting rich on the DC trough.

Well I look at the UK. They have the same first past the post system we do. Until recently they did not have a strong third party, but then one came up and gained legitimacy by becoming a king maker between labor and conservative parties. Libertarians are in an ideal to do such a thing in the house if they could get around 20 to 30 setas and especially the Senate if they could get even 1 senator. That would give them some major legitimacy which they could then turn into a national presidential ticket. Instead of working from the ground up they are trying to hit a grand slam with no men on base

(08-11-2016 08:33 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  They can't.

This.

Only way is to go full on virus, blow up the current parties internally, and co-opt the machine. Trump is a 3rd party for all intents and purposes. He's the first to break through.

If Trump wins, both parties will finally realize how sick and tired people are of the career political class getting rich on the DC trough.

Nailed it. It can only be done from inside the machine. I would love to see it as I almost ALWAYS vote against the GOP incumbents in primaries.

Sent from my VS980 4G using CSNbbs mobile app

One of the things that really bothers me about Bernie....

There IS no 'social democrat' party.

Libertarians aren't much better, but there are 200 or so (mostly local) politicians who identify as libertarians.

It's a bit like talking about the government using 'corporate cards' with a cash reward program as a means to balance the budget, but at least it's something

Third parties have no shot without proportional representation in congress

(08-11-2016 08:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Third parties have no shot without proportional representation in congress

I think that is accurate.

(08-11-2016 08:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Third parties have no shot without proportional representation in congress

I think that is accurate.

it is accurate.

(08-11-2016 09:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Third parties have no shot without proportional representation in congress

I think that is accurate.

it is accurate.

I'll be the contrarian and say it's not accurate. UK had the same system we do and they have a strong 3rd party. Right now its the Scottish national party. Last cycle for them it was the liberal democrats.

If the Libertarians could get enough in to deprive the Dems or GOP a majority and force a coalition majority you would see some major changes

(08-11-2016 08:49 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:33 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  They can't.

This.

Only way is to go full on virus, blow up the current parties internally, and co-opt the machine. Trump is a 3rd party for all intents and purposes. He's the first to break through.

If Trump wins, both parties will finally realize how sick and tired people are of the career political class getting rich on the DC trough.

Nailed it. It can only be done from inside the machine. I would love to see it as I almost ALWAYS vote against the GOP incumbents in primaries.

Sent from my VS980 4G using CSNbbs mobile app

As a follow up, an argument could be made that Trump was not the first, after all. He might just be the latest version of a recurring phenomenon. Sanders almost was as well.

Both parties are now run by branches of the party that were just minor offshoots for years. The progressive left and whatever the Rhinos call themselves are now in charge. Both parties' leadership and direction has changed considerably in just the last 15 years. This is how 3rd parties succeed. Thy kill off the host from within.

3rd parties refuse to appeal directly to the heart of America. They target fringe groups. If there were a Populist/Nationalist party with Trump's policies it would do well.

(08-11-2016 08:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:19 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Why do third parties put no effort one in winning congressional representation. In our divided legislatures they could become king makers and really achieve some policy goals

Question I've asked for years.

Exactly. They go for the Super Bowl instead of just trying to win some games. That's how the Republican party was founded.

effective? the whole notion is ridiculous. the american electorate can't make rational decisions regarding their leadership when faced with a simple binary choice for federal office. toss in a a third choice, and the whole steaming mess would vaporize. honestly, think about it. do you really want to send to national office the choice of, say, 34% of the electorate? it's ******* horrifying. 18% of the electorate believes in bigfoot, FFS.

want more proof? we, the people, already can't handle the current primary process. in the last primary election cycle, the democrats flirted with a geriatric socialist for a year, finally settling in a candidate that even democrats admit is probably a criminal. and republicans, faced with the richest field of candidates in a several generations . . . well, everyone knows what the **** we just did.

it's a drug induced delusion to think that this pile of retards, aka "we, the people", would make better decisions when faced with more complicated choices.

quit blaming the parties. it's passive aggressive, sanctimonious bull****, and it's more than just a little spineless. we did this to ourselves, and we aim to continue to do this to ourselves. deal with it. at least try to be honest about how we got here.

(08-11-2016 11:39 PM)EagleX Wrote:  effective? the whole notion is ridiculous. the american electorate can't make rational decisions regarding their leadership when faced with a simple binary choice for federal office. toss in a a third choice, and the whole steaming mess would vaporize. honestly, think about it. do you really want to send to national office the choice of, say, 34% of the electorate? it's ******* horrifying. 18% of the electorate believes in bigfoot, FFS.

want more proof? we, the people, already can't handle the current primary process. in the last primary election cycle, the democrats flirted with a geriatric socialist for a year, finally settling in a candidate that even democrats admit is probably a criminal. and republicans, faced with the richest field of candidates in a several generations . . . well, everyone knows what the **** we just did.

it's a drug induced delusion to think that this pile of retards, aka "we, the people", would make better decisions when faced with more complicated choices.

quit blaming the parties. it's passive aggressive, sanctimonious bull****, and it's more than just a little spineless. we did this to ourselves, and we aim to continue to do this to ourselves. deal with it. at least try to be honest about how we got here.

I disagree.

The majority of eligible voters cannot/do not partcipate in the primary process including those who are independent and are not allowed to unless they change their registration. Also do the schedule by the time most people vote in the primary it is practically over, this year being an exception.

So by the time the general election roles around people are left choosing between two people they don't really like and had little to no say about why it's those two people in the ballot.

The parties are either private entities, therefore laws need to be changes that allow for easier and later ballot access or they are bedrock institutions of our government, in which laws need to be changed to allow more public control and prevention of independent exclusion in primaries from top to bottom of the ballot. Right now they have the best of both worlds.

(08-12-2016 06:14 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 11:39 PM)EagleX Wrote:  effective? the whole notion is ridiculous. the american electorate can't make rational decisions regarding their leadership when faced with a simple binary choice for federal office. toss in a a third choice, and the whole steaming mess would vaporize. honestly, think about it. do you really want to send to national office the choice of, say, 34% of the electorate? it's ******* horrifying. 18% of the electorate believes in bigfoot, FFS.

want more proof? we, the people, already can't handle the current primary process. in the last primary election cycle, the democrats flirted with a geriatric socialist for a year, finally settling in a candidate that even democrats admit is probably a criminal. and republicans, faced with the richest field of candidates in a several generations . . . well, everyone knows what the **** we just did.

it's a drug induced delusion to think that this pile of retards, aka "we, the people", would make better decisions when faced with more complicated choices.

quit blaming the parties. it's passive aggressive, sanctimonious bull****, and it's more than just a little spineless. we did this to ourselves, and we aim to continue to do this to ourselves. deal with it. at least try to be honest about how we got here.

I disagree.

The majority of eligible voters cannot/do not partcipate in the primary process including those who are independent and are not allowed to unless they change their registration. Also do the schedule by the time most people vote in the primary it is practically over, this year being an exception.

So by the time the general election roles around people are left choosing between two people they don't really like and had little to no say about why it's those two people in the ballot.

The parties are either private entities, therefore laws need to be changes that allow for easier and later ballot access or they are bedrock institutions of our government, in which laws need to be changed to allow more public control and prevention of independent exclusion in primaries from top to bottom of the ballot. Right now they have the best of both worlds.

with all due respect, and putting this as gently as I possibly can, I think perhaps you didn't completely grasp my full argument. I believe this because in your reply, right after you said "I disagree", there are several places that you actually proved my point.

(08-11-2016 08:44 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Well I look at the UK. They have the same first past the post system we do. Until recently they did not have a strong third party, but then one came up and gained legitimacy by becoming a king maker between labor and conservative parties. Libertarians are in an ideal to do such a thing in the house if they could get around 20 to 30 setas and especially the Senate if they could get even 1 senator. That would give them some major legitimacy which they could then turn into a national presidential ticket. Instead of working from the ground up they are trying to hit a grand slam with no men on base

Libertarians could be a 4th party, but not a 3rd party. They are more extreme both to the left and right than the Democrats and Republicans. A third party would need to be like the Liberals in the UK, somewhere in the middle. In Canada you have a spectrum as well-Conservatives (like moderate Republicans), Liberals (like the left wing of the Democrats), New Democrats (Socialist), in addition to the regional Quebec party.

(08-11-2016 11:39 PM)EagleX Wrote:  effective? the whole notion is ridiculous. the american electorate can't make rational decisions regarding their leadership when faced with a simple binary choice for federal office. toss in a a third choice, and the whole steaming mess would vaporize. honestly, think about it. do you really want to send to national office the choice of, say, 34% of the electorate? it's ******* horrifying. 18% of the electorate believes in bigfoot, FFS.

want more proof? we, the people, already can't handle the current primary process. in the last primary election cycle, the democrats flirted with a geriatric socialist for a year, finally settling in a candidate that even democrats admit is probably a criminal. and republicans, faced with the richest field of candidates in a several generations . . . well, everyone knows what the **** we just did.

it's a drug induced delusion to think that this pile of retards, aka "we, the people", would make better decisions when faced with more complicated choices.

quit blaming the parties. it's passive aggressive, sanctimonious bull****, and it's more than just a little spineless. we did this to ourselves, and we aim to continue to do this to ourselves. deal with it. at least try to be honest about how we got here.

I wouldn't be so negative.

But there is definitely some truth in your rant.