• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Both Parties Shift to the Extremes

The G.O.P. wasn’t always an anti-environment, anti-science party. George H.W. Bush introduced the cap-and-trade program that largely controlled the problem of acid rain. As late as 2008, John McCain called for a similar program to limit emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Today, Republican orthodoxy demands that their members must be climate change deniers.
That is a perception. I probably follow more of the GOP thoughts than yourself, and have observed very few climate change deniers. The essence of the policy argument is that political solutions such as "cap & trade" are not a viable solution and as such it is their determination the costs outweigh the benefits.

It may appear denial in sound bites when all you hear is "we don't know how much human are the cause" or "I don't believe it" for example. Headlines though can be deceiving.

The reality of climate change at this moment is it is a problem we need to navigate not solve.

Do you know of a viable solution? Yes, doing nothing is not a solution. The outcomes of bad solutions though are almost always worse than a delaying any solution at all.

Compare and contrast with Germany[big user of current suggestions] for example. 1992-2017:

US: decrease of 20% per person
Germany: decrease of 8% per person
source: globalcarbonatlas.org

GDP Growth:
US: 200%
Germany 73%
source:countryeconomy.com

Not saying germany is the be all end all. Just it not a strait forward as believers and deniers. pro-science / anti-science.
 
that's not going to happen. Those in the center, the center, center right and center left have abandoned the two major parties due to the fact both have gone to the extremes. You see this in the rise of independents from 30% in 2005 to 43% today. Those who affiliated with the democratic party has fallen from 36% of the electorate down to 30% today. The Republican's share has gone down from 32% to 26% today.

Even if these stats are correct, it does not has to be that way. I still posit that you need centrists to keep parties from going into potential irreconciliable extremes.
 
Or we need the split.

Issues like, say, abortion, are simply unresolvable between the two sides at the current juncture. Maybe let economic powerhouse state Cali secede, all the electoral votes necessary for continued victory for the right would then be secure.

Then we could watch as Cali slides down, drowns under the economic stresses of their socialistic policy decisions. Beg to come back in.

You know, verifiably understand their horribly myopic dystopia first.

Splitting is no joke, keep away!
 
Even if these stats are correct, they speak of the past. I posit that you need more centrists in both parties in order to keep them from going into the extremes like they seem to have done so already!

I understand. But to get those in the middle, centrists if you will into the two major parties, those who left them have to return. I don't see that happening. What I see happening is those in the middle, I like to call them middle America because they don't have extreme views. I see them voting in the right one election, getting tried of them, then voting in the left, going back and forth. It's happening, in 2006 the left replaced the right in the house. In 2010 the right replaced the left and now, 2018 the left is replacing the right.

We went 40 years with the Democrats in sole control of the house, 1955-1994, the Democrats also controlled the house for 58 of 62 years up to that point. Now we get 3 changes in 12 years. But I don't think those more moderate folks who left the two major parties will return.
 
I understand. But to get those in the middle, centrists if you will into the two major parties, those who left them have to return. I don't see that happening. What I see happening is those in the middle, I like to call them middle America because they don't have extreme views. I see them voting in the right one election, getting tried of them, then voting in the left, going back and forth. It's happening, in 2006 the left replaced the right in the house. In 2010 the right replaced the left and now, 2018 the left is replacing the right.

We went 40 years with the Democrats in sole control of the house, 1955-1994, the Democrats also controlled the house for 58 of 62 years up to that point. Now we get 3 changes in 12 years. But I don't think those more moderate folks who left the two major parties will return.

Is it because both parties do not accommodate centrists?
 
Is it because both parties do not accommodate centrists?

And because of that, those who left won't return. Centrists or middle America, moderates if you will. Those who do not have extremist views are left without a political home in our two party system. That makes those of the far right and left who are in control of our two major parties extremely happy. Neither party wants them back.
 
Is it because both parties do not accommodate centrists?

I see it more as that given a choice between the party for a bigger federal government and the party for a huge federal government there is little 'hope for change'. It seems that we are only permitted to vote on the speed at which the federal government grows in power and expense - not whether or not it will occur.
 
And because of that, those who left won't return. Centrists or middle America, moderates if you will. Those who do not have extremist views are left without a political home in our two party system. That makes those of the far right and left who are in control of our two major parties extremely happy. Neither party wants them back.

If so, then, how about a third party system made entirely of centrists/moderates?
 
I see it more as that given a choice between the party for a bigger federal government and the party for a huge federal government there is little 'hope for change'. It seems that we are only permitted to vote on the speed at which the federal government grows in power and expense - not whether or not it will occur.

How about a third party system made of moderates? Would that help?
 
How about a third party system made of moderates? Would that help?

Yes, IMHO, it would help very much. The problem with any third party candidate, of course, is that he/she would likely draw more from one major party than the other yet not be able to get a majority (for quite some time) - allowing the other major party's candidate to win. One possible way to try to counter this would be to introduce ranked choice voting systems.
 
Splitting is no joke, keep away!
Its MY country man, I have given it plenty of thought and I have a say...

And I say before bloodshed [ again ] we need think of positive and logical ways out of an impending Israel/Palestine style divide. So... either add productively to the conversation or...

YOU can go away. Or stay. If you say something worth hearing I ll listen. If not, maybe you yourself should keep...away?
 
Its MY country man, I have given it plenty of thought and I have a say...

And I say before bloodshed [ again ] we need think of positive and logical ways out of an impending Israel/Palestine style divide. So... either add productively to the conversation or...

YOU can go away. Or stay. If you say something worth hearing I ll listen. If not, maybe you yourself should keep...away?

No, despite it being your country, thy shall have it my way or the highway, so keep away and that is final! - Kidding! :lamo

I just have nothing to add when it comes to splitting, other than it being a bad idea. So, for me this is where it ends in regards to this discussion.

Good night/day. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Yes, IMHO, it would help very much. The problem with any third party candidate, of course, is that he/she would likely draw more from one major party than the other yet not be able to get a majority (for quite some time) - allowing the other major party's candidate to win. One possible way to try to counter this would be to introduce ranked choice voting systems.

Yes, sounds like a good idea.
 
If so, then, how about a third party system made entirely of centrists/moderates?

There's a problem there also. I've been there and tried that with the Reform Party. The Republicans and Democrats write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. If there is one thing both major parties agree on, it is no viable third party will arise. Then there is the financial aspect. All the money goes to the two major parties. Corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega money donors etc. give their tens of millions to the two major parties. They won't give a dime to third parties, they are heavily invested in both major parties.

Look at 2016, Hillary Clinton spent 1.4 billion dollars on her presidential campaign, Trump another 969 million. In third place in the money race was Gary Johnson at 3 million. How do you compete with approximately 2.4 billion dollars being spent against you?

It would take a multi billionaire who has centrist views willing to spend billions on getting a third party viable. You would also have to spend a lot of time in court. With Perot that was a huge problem and ate up millions in 1992 just trying to get on the ballot. Republicans and Democrats have automatic ballot access, third parties and independents don't. They have to jump through hoops and 50 different state laws and time periods to get the needed paperwork and signatures.
 
There's a problem there also. I've been there and tried that with the Reform Party. The Republicans and Democrats write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. If there is one thing both major parties agree on, it is no viable third party will arise. Then there is the financial aspect. All the money goes to the two major parties. Corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega money donors etc. give their tens of millions to the two major parties. They won't give a dime to third parties, they are heavily invested in both major parties.

Look at 2016, Hillary Clinton spent 1.4 billion dollars on her presidential campaign, Trump another 969 million. In third place in the money race was Gary Johnson at 3 million. How do you compete with approximately 2.4 billion dollars being spent against you?

It would take a multi billionaire who has centrist views willing to spend billions on getting a third party viable. You would also have to spend a lot of time in court. With Perot that was a huge problem and ate up millions in 1992 just trying to get on the ballot. Republicans and Democrats have automatic ballot access, third parties and independents don't. They have to jump through hoops and 50 different state laws and time periods to get the needed paperwork and signatures.

So, a lot of money and a lot of hard work. Yet, probably, this seems to be the best way forward in the matter.

With centrists as a third party, your country could afford even more extreme positions held between the other two, and, people would not be forced between two options but rather three instead.
 
So, a lot of money and a lot of hard work. Yet, probably, this seems to be the best way forward in the matter.

With centrists as a third party, your country could afford even more extreme positions held between the other two, and, people would not be forced between two options but rather three instead.

I agree that is what is needed. But I highly doubt will ever happen.
 
I agree that is what is needed. But I highly doubt will ever happen.

Until we have true run-off elections, a third party will be hard-pressed to make any significant strides.
 
I agree that is what is needed. But I highly doubt will ever happen.

You know, you got me thinking. If there is a lot of work to do, then what you need is more people involved, and that means paying them, and that means more money, right.

Following that, if it is only a matter of money, then you have very rich millionaires who are unhappy and commit suicide. Like for instance:

10 Millionaire Businessmen Who Committed Suicide

If the source of their unhappiness is the forced 2 party system, then perhaps you should reach them out.

So, I just elevated your problem from the vague "a lot of money and a lot of work" to "reaching out to rich would be suicidal millionaires and (assuming that the two party system is at least one source of their troubles) offering them hope of change with the centrist third party system." If this works, you would also be doing your country a favour.
 
Runoffs are between the two major parties candidates. Nothing changes.

And even those are not true runoffs.

What do you think the results would have been in the '92 presidential election, if another vote had to take place between only president Bush and Governor Clinton?

This might make a good poll.
 
The Fourteenth Amendment nerfed states' powers hard.

The amendment big "states right's" people love to pretend doesn't exist...
 
And even those are not true runoffs.

What do you think the results would have been in the '92 presidential election, if another vote had to take place between only president Bush and Governor Clinton?

This might make a good poll.

This should answer your question. Since I worked for Perot in 1992 and 96, Republicans have always blamed him for Bush's defeat. That's hogwash. I have saved this since even today, there is always someone blaming him for Bush's defeat.

As for 1992 and Ross Perot, Clinton beat Bush by 6 million votes, Perot received 19 million. To win Bush would have to receive 13 million votes out of Perot’s 19. That is 68% which is very unrealistic. Exit polls show Perot drew 25% of his 19 million votes from Republicans, 20% from Democrats and 55% from independents and first time voters.

So Perot drew 1 million more votes from Republicans than he did Democrats, but that still would have left Clinton with a 5 million vote victory instead of six. What is interesting is how independents voted in in 1992. 38% voted for Clinton, 32% for Bush and 30% for Perot.

Exit Poll Data and the Perot Vote
Now, let’s briefly consider the 1992 exit poll data and the actual composition of the Perot vote. According to the exit poll data, 38% of the Perot voters said they would have voted for Clinton in a two-way race, 38% would have voted for Bush, 24% would not have voted. Perot won 30% of independents, 17% of Republicans, and 13% of Democrats. Put another way, of his 19% popular vote share, 8 percentage points came from independents, 6 from Republicans, and 5 from Democrats. Fully 53% of Perot’s vote came from self-defined moderates, 27% from conservatives and 20% from liberals; so about 10 points of his 19% came from self-described moderates, with 5 points coming from conservatives and 4 points from liberals. We also know from the exit polls that the Perot voters were angrier at the political system than supporters of the other candidates. Do these Perot supporters really look like voters that would have gone heavily to incumbent Bush in a two-candidate race?

Perot, Bush, Clinton
 
The amendment big "states right's" people love to pretend doesn't exist...

Originalists hate a LOT of the amendments after the 10th. Possibly except for the 18th, which it wouldn't surprise me if some of them wanted brought back.
 
Back
Top Bottom