• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is the US ready for more than a 2 party system?

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
2 parties - is it really a choice?

When do you you think that the US will be ready for more than the current two party system? I know that technically there are other parties. What I am talking about is a real viable third or even fourth party.

I would love to see a strong 4 party system. Personally right now, I think the Republican Party is being completely controlled by the radical religious right, so the moderate Republicans really have no choice.

As for the Democrats....I know that this will raise a lot of response from the right wingers on this board, but I personally think that the Democratic party is being run by the more moderate/conservative side of the democratic party - trying to cater to the more moderate voters.

I would love to see a viable 4 party system. Let the radical religious right have the Republican party, let the current Moderate Democrats have their party. All we need is a strong liberal left wing party and a moderate right wing party and finally maybe we could all feel good about having a CHOICE during the next Presidential election.

I know that it is a stretch.....but we can dream.
 
Last edited:

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: 2 parties - is it really a choice?

disneydude said:
When do you you think that the US will be ready for more than the current two party system? I know that technically there are other parties. What I am talking about is a real viable third or even fourth party.

I would love to see a strong 4 party system. Personally right now, I think the Republican Party is being completely controlled by the radical religious right, so the moderate Republicans really have no choice.

As for the Democrats....I know that this will raise a lot of response from the right wingers on this board, but I personally think that the Democratic party is being run by the more moderate/conservative side of the democratic party - trying to cater to the more moderate voters.

I would love to see a viable 4 party system. Let the radical religious right have the Republican party, let the current Moderate Democrats have their party. All we need is a strong liberal left wing party and a moderate right wing party and finally maybe we could all feel good about having a CHOICE during the next Presidential election.

I know that it is a stretch.....but we can dream.
I'd say once we have a revolution and completely reformat our political system. Honestly, a plurality system with single member districts does not allow more that two parties.
 

XShipRider

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
144
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Utopia would be a "no party" system. Allegiance to the "party" system
is what has brought us same politics, different day as we have it
today. Everything has to be black or white under the current system.
People will mention compromise. All well and good if that were the case
but compromise, as defined today, means "I'll line your pockets if you'll
line mine at a later time." There's no doing what's right for the country
in today's politics.

While we're at it get rid of gerrymandering. Lines should be drawn based on
population not political affiliation. There are districts in Texas (probably other
places too) which look like salamanders. That's ridiculous. The current
system rewards the winnng party with almost absolute assurance of
maintaining power over a district or area.
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: 2 parties - is it really a choice?

Kelzie said:
I'd say once we have a revolution and completely reformat our political system. Honestly, a plurality system with single member districts does not allow more that two parties.
There's nothing about single member districts that prevent multiple parties.
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Utopia would be a "no party" system. Allegiance to the "party" system
is what has brought us same politics, different day as we have it
today. Everything has to be black or white under the current system.
People will mention compromise. All well and good if that were the case
but compromise, as defined today, means "I'll line your pockets if you'll
line mine at a later time." There's no doing what's right for the country
in today's politics.
There's only one way to have a "no party" system, and that is the libertarian way with a free society.
 

XShipRider

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
144
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
alphamale said:
There's only one way to have a "no party" system, and that is the libertarian way with a free society.

You got my vote.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: 2 parties - is it really a choice?

alphamale said:
There's nothing about single member districts that prevent multiple parties.
Yes there is. If you have only one person who can represent your distict, what are you going to do? You're going to try and appeal to the most number of people so you can win. Candidates will grow more and more moderate since only one can win, leading to a...drum roll please...two party system.
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: 2 parties - is it really a choice?

Kelzie said:
Yes there is. If you have only one person who can represent your distict, what are you going to do? You're going to try and appeal to the most number of people so you can win. Candidates will grow more and more moderate since only one can win, leading to a...drum roll please...two party system.
That's the "college textbook" theory. E.g., support can fall for the incumbent while two new parties try for the next election.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: 2 parties - is it really a choice?

alphamale said:
That's the "college textbook" theory. E.g., support can fall for the incumbent while two new parties try for the next election.
*sigh* No it's not. Let me try a situation to explain it to you. You have four candidates running for one seat, A, B, C, and D. A is extremely liberal, B is moderately liberal, C is moderately conservative and D is extremely conservative. Let's say the A has 25% of the population's support, B has 30%, C has 35% and D has 10%. If what you say is true, candidate C would win the seat, because they have the most votes. However, all the people who would have voted for A are not idiots. While they'd rather have A than B, they'd rather have B than C, so they vote for the person most likely to win. It's called strategic voting, it happens all the time, and it's why it is almost impossible to have more than two parties in a single district. Thanks for playing.
 

kattmanduu

New member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well Kel. It may work better if you figure it with 3 candidates running. And just where did that "vote for the lessor of 2 evils" come from. Let's not vote for any of the evils. That adage is weak. We do need to get to more of the Libertarian way, and break up the monopoly's that the mega-corps have on our political system. Both the republicans and democrats are owned by the same people, just 2 sides of a coin. With a real, viable 1/3 party to cut the dominantion and make the senate and congress really debate the issues and address all the peoples needs. It will get our gov back to it's basics. We also need to break up all media corporations, ensure that our media is really free of bias and do it's job of checking the real balance of power in our government.
A real 1/3 party will be of the working class citizens, a People's Party.
One that doesn't discriminate because of class, race, sex and sexual preference or religion. One that is based on the principles of the Constitution. I find that all corporations have no loyalties except to
the bottom line. About 90% of present-day corps should be broken up into about 20 different companies each. This will increase compitition and jobs, and will lower the cost of living to all, thus requiring lower pay to live comfortably. Excess credit (credit cards) has ruined our economy and had made it hard for the average person to get ahead.
There is no other way for it to go but down, or it will burst and crash. The money spent building up our military could be spent making hybred cars and mass producing methane and hydrogen gas to replace natural gas and propane and to be used as a motor fuel for all automotive uses. A 1/3 party may actually get this moving a lot faster than these 2 seem to be.
There is many "other" parties out there and the majority of them have the same basic values and if they merged to form one larger party, they would have enough viable candidates to run in every state and make the balance of power true. But, it requires we the people to step up and support the 1/3 party verses voting for what you perceive to be the lessor of 2 evils. To answer the topic question, it's past due, we need to act now and end the corp monarchy we have now.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
kattmanduu said:
Well Kel. It may work better if you figure it with 3 candidates running. And just where did that "vote for the lessor of 2 evils" come from. Let's not vote for any of the evils. That adage is weak.
As you wish. Now we have three candidates, A, B, and C. In the same ranking order of liberal to conservative. A has 25% of the vote, B has 35% and C has 40%. In the first election, C wins. Despite the fact that 60% of the population is more liberal than him. (It's possible that the electorate would be smart enough to figure out that C would win before the election, but for demonstration purposes, we'll assume they don't). Next elections role around. The people who support A realize that C will win again. Now they support A, but A doesn't have a shot in hell. B does and they'd rather B win because he's closest to their ideology than C. So they vote B. It is a pratice that is observable in almost every government that has either plurality or single member districts. Sorry if you don't like it.

We do need to get to more of the Libertarian way, and break up the monopoly's that the mega-corps have on our political system.
A noble goal. But one that would be very hard to implement. The people in power now have a strong motivation to keep the status quo.

Both the republicans and democrats are owned by the same people, just 2 sides of a coin.
Uh huh. Would they be owned by the New World Order by any chance?

With a real, viable 1/3 party to cut the dominantion and make the senate and congress really debate the issues and address all the peoples needs.
Can't happen. See above. Unless there's a revolution that completely reformats the government. I wouldn't call for one though. I hear they lock you up.

It will get our gov back to it's basics. We also need to break up all media corporations, ensure that our media is really free of bias and do it's job of checking the real balance of power in our government.
That's interesting. The media's owned by corporations. They print what sells. The real problem is that people aren't interested in restoring the balance of power.

A real 1/3 party will be of the working class citizens, a People's Party.
One that doesn't discriminate because of class, race, sex and sexual preference or religion. One that is based on the principles of the Constitution.
The Dems and Rep. don't discriminate. And the Constitution is set up to not allow third parties. See above. There's a reason we have NEVER had a third party for more than a decade in the US and we haven't had one since the Civil War.

I find that all corporations have no loyalties except to the bottom line.
As they should. That's what they're there for.

About 90% of present-day corps should be broken up into about 20 different companies each. This will increase compitition and jobs, and will lower the cost of living to all, thus requiring lower pay to live comfortably.
Say what? You're going to force companies to break apart? How very socialist.

Excess credit (credit cards) has ruined our economy and had made it hard for the average person to get ahead.
Our economy's doing just fine and if people would educate themselves about how credit worked, there wouldn't be a problem.

There is no other way for it to go but down, or it will burst and crash.
What? The economy's been growing since...well since the US was started actually. Minus that whole little Depression incidence. Why in the world would you think it's going to start going down?

The money spent building up our military could be spent making hybred cars and mass producing methane and hydrogen gas to replace natural gas and propane and to be used as a motor fuel for all automotive uses.
Hydrogen gas takes just as much energy to produce as it gives off. Not very practical if you ask me. And I agree we spend to much on the military. Again, goes back to your problem with corporations in the government. Except this time it's the military industrial complex. They give a lot of money to candidates. How are you going to convince candidates not to take it? And don't say third parties again please.


A 1/3 party may actually get this moving a lot faster than these 2 seem to be.
There is many "other" parties out there and the majority of them have the same basic values and if they merged to form one larger party, they would have enough viable candidates to run in every state and make the balance of power true. But, it requires we the people to step up and support the 1/3 party verses voting for what you perceive to be the lessor of 2 evils. To answer the topic question, it's past due, we need to act now and end the corp monarchy we have now.
See above. I wish it would happen. Really I do. I would love to vote for a libertarian. Realistically though, you'd better start praying for a revolution.
 

justone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Re: 2 parties - is it really a choice?

Kelzie said:
A is extremely liberal, B is moderately liberal, C is moderately conservative and D is extremely conservative. .
in both situations you have only 2 parties entering the race: conservative and liberal. accordingly you can have only 2 parties finishing the race, with your permission.
(generally you described the existing situation when on party elections they decide between an extremly liberal and a moderate liberal.)
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: 2 parties - is it really a choice?

justone said:
in both situations you have only 2 parties entering the race: conservative and liberal. accordingly you can have only 2 parties finishing the race, with your permission.
(generally you described the existing situation when on party elections they decide between an extremly liberal and a moderate liberal.)
No, I meant a hypothetical situation in which we have three different parties, and a candidate representing each of those parties, entering a race. Due to the nature of a single member district, the third party will eventually get squeezed out.
 

kattmanduu

New member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Kelzie. You are still letting the corp media tell you how to vote. Just how do you come up with a winner before a election? It's been standard practice of the corp media to make good noise for the one they want and make the others out to be kooks. SOUND BITES SUCK! They are just a bunch of non-words that hype a very small tid-bit of data about a non-issue. Both of these corporate owned parties do it, so don't vote for the most pretty candidate, vote for the one who really addresses issues and has a real plan. Pretty words don't mean squat, they talk the talk but can't walk the walk. Yup I'm gonna give tax breaks, sure to the top 10% and to businesses that move their factories overseas. I did get a little bit back but my taxes didn't go down at all, and my cost of living went up by 20% along with the fuel prices. I have a better chance of winning the powerball lottery than I do getting a pay raise that is real, and not eaten up by taxes and price increases. We used to have 5 and dime stores now we have "dollar" stores. A 90% mark up in about 20 years time. In 1973 during a war I was paying about 23 cents a gallon for gas, wages were depressed as well, I was making about $2.50 an hour as a farm laborer, I'll expose my age here but I was 17 years old then. We all need to address the "other" parties and promote unity of all of them to form a real 1/3 of our government and put the people back in the driver's seat. No it's time to stop letting the corporate media tell you who to vote for and force the candidates to address the real issues/problems with real answers, not 30 second sound bites. We can't get real campaign or election reform without first getting rid of the ones who made the system what it is today. That requires real action to change the vote to get the word out about the frauds and crooks that are in there now. Both the republicans and democrats are to blame for the shambles this country is becoming. If you want 10% of the people to make all the decisions for you just stay home on election day. Or does our flag have only 2 colors, red and blue? If all you see is left and right? The brain- washing techiques the corporations have been using since the 1840's have been successful. If we can't get our country back with the ballot box we may have to use the ammo box, it's been done that way before quite successfully too. Bush is now using our ammo box to force Iraq to become a corporate state void of any religous influence in their government, I think he needs to stay home and do it here first, then take the show on the road.
Again, yes we are past due a true 1/3 party, yes it's been tried before and the wealthy ones of the other 2 parties didn't like not having all the control. Now they are still the ones in control, now they also control the media and what is and isn't shown as news etc. Old Jefferson and Paine have been just flip flopping around in their graves since the civil war. We need this, it will be like a breath of fresh air. Your response is about the same as I have heard on the corporate media political comentary shows, that's what they want you to do, repeat their propaganda. We need to stop looking at the corporate media for real news. KATT
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Man you gotta break this stuff into paragraphs.

kattmanduu said:
Kelzie. You are still letting the corp media tell you how to vote. Just how do you come up with a winner before a election? It's been standard practice of the corp media to make good noise for the one they want and make the others out to be kooks. SOUND BITES SUCK! They are just a bunch of non-words that hype a very small tid-bit of data about a non-issue.
What corporate media? It was a hypothetical situation. There was no media involoved. And polls give people a pretty good idea of who's going to win the election. Along with common since. Nader? Probably not going to win.

Both of these corporate owned parties do it, so don't vote for the most pretty candidate, vote for the one who really addresses issues and has a real plan. Pretty words don't mean squat, they talk the talk but can't walk the walk.
Uh huh. We haven't had a Kennedy run in quite a while. So I don't think you have to worry about people voting for the pretty one.

Yup I'm gonna give tax breaks, sure to the top 10% and to businesses that move their factories overseas. I did get a little bit back but my taxes didn't go down at all, and my cost of living went up by 20% along with the fuel prices. I have a better chance of winning the powerball lottery than I do getting a pay raise that is real, and not eaten up by taxes and price increases. We used to have 5 and dime stores now we have "dollar" stores. A 90% mark up in about 20 years time. In 1973 during a war I was paying about 23 cents a gallon for gas, wages were depressed as well, I was making about $2.50 an hour as a farm laborer, I'll expose my age here but I was 17 years old then.
What exactly does this have to do with the possibility (or not as the case were) of a third party?

We all need to address the "other" parties and promote unity of all of them to form a real 1/3 of our government and put the people back in the driver's seat. No it's time to stop letting the corporate media tell you who to vote for and force the candidates to address the real issues/problems with real answers, not 30 second sound bites. We can't get real campaign or election reform without first getting rid of the ones who made the system what it is today. That requires real action to change the vote to get the word out about the frauds and crooks that are in there now. Both the republicans and democrats are to blame for the shambles this country is becoming. If you want 10% of the people to make all the decisions for you just stay home on election day. Or does our flag have only 2 colors, red and blue? If all you see is left and right? The brain- washing techiques the corporations have been using since the 1840's have been successful. If we can't get our country back with the ballot box we may have to use the ammo box, it's been done that way before quite successfully too. Bush is now using our ammo box to force Iraq to become a corporate state void of any religous influence in their government, I think he needs to stay home and do it here first, then take the show on the road.
Again, yes we are past due a true 1/3 party, yes it's been tried before and the wealthy ones of the other 2 parties didn't like not having all the control. Now they are still the ones in control, now they also control the media and what is and isn't shown as news etc. Old Jefferson and Paine have been just flip flopping around in their graves since the civil war. We need this, it will be like a breath of fresh air. Your response is about the same as I have heard on the corporate media political comentary shows, that's what they want you to do, repeat their propaganda. We need to stop looking at the corporate media for real news. KATT
Okay, I'm not going to address the rest of this cause it seems to be more of this corporate media nonsense. Listen, in a debate, you have to rebutt my original points. So do so, and than we can continue.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,507
Reaction score
16,299
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: 2 parties - is it really a choice?

disneydude said:
When do you you think that the US will be ready for more than the current two party system? I know that technically there are other parties. What I am talking about is a real viable third or even fourth party.

I would love to see a strong 4 party system. Personally right now, I think the Republican Party is being completely controlled by the radical religious right, so the moderate Republicans really have no choice.

As for the Democrats....I know that this will raise a lot of response from the right wingers on this board, but I personally think that the Democratic party is being run by the more moderate/conservative side of the democratic party - trying to cater to the more moderate voters.

I would love to see a viable 4 party system. Let the radical religious right have the Republican party, let the current Moderate Democrats have their party. All we need is a strong liberal left wing party and a moderate right wing party and finally maybe we could all feel good about having a CHOICE during the next Presidential election.

I know that it is a stretch.....but we can dream.

I would love to see a multiple party system.It seems that during one election the republicans screw one independent and during another election the democrats screwed another independent.

Voter initiatives might be a possible option to keep the democrats and republicans from screwig other parties out of a fair election.

I would rather waste my vote on a third canidate than to try to vote for the lesser of two evils,becasue if a enough of waste our votes on a third canidate maybe the republicrats(republicans and democrats) will realize that they better straighten up.
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: 2 parties - is it really a choice?

Kelzie said:
*sigh* No it's not. Let me try a situation to explain it to you. You have four candidates running for one seat, A, B, C, and D. A is extremely liberal, B is moderately liberal, C is moderately conservative and D is extremely conservative. Let's say the A has 25% of the population's support, B has 30%, C has 35% and D has 10%. If what you say is true, candidate C would win the seat, because they have the most votes. However, all the people who would have voted for A are not idiots. While they'd rather have A than B, they'd rather have B than C, so they vote for the person most likely to win. It's called strategic voting, it happens all the time, and it's why it is almost impossible to have more than two parties in a single district. Thanks for playing.
.....yawwwwwnnnnn.....

Mr. Moderate (either dem or repub, doesn't matter) gets elected. However, Mr. M's popularity plummets before the next election to 33%. Mr. L of the new Liberal Party gets the support of 33% of the left wing of voters plus some libs who voted for Mr. M. Similarly, Mr. C. forms the new Conservative party, and gets 33%. M, L, and C run for election - any of them may win. I KNOW that the single member district encourages two parties, I said it doesn't PREVENT a three party emergence, and doesn't.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: 2 parties - is it really a choice?

alphamale said:
.....yawwwwwnnnnn.....

Mr. Moderate (either dem or repub, doesn't matter) gets elected. However, Mr. M's popularity plummets before the next election to 33%. Mr. L of the new Liberal Party gets the support of 33% of the left wing of voters plus some libs who voted for Mr. M. Similarly, Mr. C. forms the new Conservative party, and gets 33%. M, L, and C run for election - any of them may win. I KNOW that the single member district encourages two parties, I said it doesn't PREVENT a three party emergence, and doesn't.
If your going to create a hypothetical situation, at least make a reasonable one. There has never been an election with an even three way split. The situation would play out exactly as I've described it, that is, with the eventual disappearance of the third party.
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: 2 parties - is it really a choice?

Kelzie said:
If your going to create a hypothetical situation, at least make a reasonable one. There has never been an election with an even three way split. The situation would play out exactly as I've described it, that is, with the eventual disappearance of the third party.
(....BURP!....) That that may indeed happen doesn't preclude what I originally said - there's nothing that
>>>> PREVENTS <<<< a multiparty situation.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: 2 parties - is it really a choice?

alphamale said:
(....BURP!....) That that may indeed happen doesn't preclude what I originally said - there's nothing that
>>>> PREVENTS <<<< a multiparty situation.
If a system won't allow the success of an element, it prevents it.

Scuse you. :2wave:
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The country has BEEN ready for more than a 2-party system. The country attempted to have at least a 3-party system in 2004, but the DNC's army of lawyers attacked Nader and the Green party inan effort to limit the race to only 2 Parties! in many states, Nader/The Green party had met the legal requirements to have their names put on th ballots, but the DNC lawyers filed law suit after law suit which tied the decision up in court, initially preventing Nader from being on the ballots! In 1 case Nader showed/proved that local goverment Democrat employees were involved in the attempt to keep nader off the ballots. What was remarkable was the lead attorney in the DNC's campaign against Nader giving an interview in which she said, "WE think there is only room enough in this country for a 2-party system, and we are going to do everything we can to make sure it stayes that way!"

Here you have a DNC lawyer saying the Democratic Party has placed itself above the Constitution of the Unided States which protects the right to representation and state laws governing the requirements for qualifying to be on the ballot, declaring to the United States that THEY - the Democratic Party - had determined tht only a 2-Party system was best for the nation and bragged about how they were going to go about stripping people of their right to representation through law suits! I don't know about YOU, but Socialism and Communism come to mind here! This only goes to show that:
1. The Democrats feared a 3rd party because it was because of a 3rd party sucking away voters from the Dems in 2000 that cost them the election!
2. they absolutely believe the venom they spewed after their defeat in 2004, that Americans are 'Ignorant,Inbred, Redneck Bible-thumpers' who should be denied their own voice and instead led by the hand by their goverment since they cannot be trusted to vote 'the right way'!

Throw in the fact that the major media would not allow Nader to be part of any Presidential debate, thus doing the same thing the DNC sought to do with its lawyers - dictate to the people who the credible candidates should be, who should have a voice, and giving unfair advantage to 1 group/party over another.

People wanted a 3rd party in 2000 and in 2004. They were just DENIED representation in many places in 2004, thanks to the Democratic party and their army of Lawyers!
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
easyt65 said:
The country has BEEN ready for more than a 2-party system. The country attempted to have at least a 3-party system in 2004, but the DNC's army of lawyers attacked Nader and the Green party inan effort to limit the race to only 2 Parties! in many states, Nader/The Green party had met the legal requirements to have their names put on th ballots, but the DNC lawyers filed law suit after law suit which tied the decision up in court, initially preventing Nader from being on the ballots! In 1 case Nader showed/proved that local goverment Democrat employees were involved in the attempt to keep nader off the ballots. What was remarkable was the lead attorney in the DNC's campaign against Nader giving an interview in which she said, "WE think there is only room enough in this country for a 2-party system, and we are going to do everything we can to make sure it stayes that way!"

Here you have a DNC lawyer saying the Democratic Party has placed itself above the Constitution of the Unided States which protects the right to representation and state laws governing the requirements for qualifying to be on the ballot, declaring to the United States that THEY - the Democratic Party - had determined tht only a 2-Party system was best for the nation and bragged about how they were going to go about stripping people of their right to representation through law suits! I don't know about YOU, but Socialism and Communism come to mind here! This only goes to show that:
1. The Democrats feared a 3rd party because it was because of a 3rd party sucking away voters from the Dems in 2000 that cost them the election!
2. they absolutely believe the venom they spewed after their defeat in 2004, that Americans are 'Ignorant,Inbred, Redneck Bible-thumpers' who should be denied their own voice and instead led by the hand by their goverment since they cannot be trusted to vote 'the right way'!

Throw in the fact that the major media would not allow Nader to be part of any Presidential debate, thus doing the same thing the DNC sought to do with its lawyers - dictate to the people who the credible candidates should be, who should have a voice, and giving unfair advantage to 1 group/party over another.

People wanted a 3rd party in 2000 and in 2004. They were just DENIED representation in many places in 2004, thanks to the Democratic party and their army of Lawyers!
Oh I see. It's an "attack the democrats" post. Remember Perot? Cost the Republicans the election in 92? Yeah they weren't really happy with him. Have you read any of this thread? The US government isn't structured for a third party. Never has been. Which is why we never have them.
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kelzie said:
Oh I see. It's an "attack the democrats" post. Remember Perot? Cost the Republicans the election in 92? Yeah they weren't really happy with him. Have you read any of this thread? The US government isn't structured for a third party. Never has been. Which is why we never have them.
It isn't an 'Attack the Democrat' post! And yeah, I remember how Perot helped the GOP lose, but we didn't retaliate by sending an Army of lawyers the next time to bury them under law suits and strip people of their Constitutional Right of representation like the Democrats did last election!

And WHAT kind of reform needs to be done to allow people to have a choice?

1. There were already laws in effect that gave the Green party the opportunity to nominate and submit a Presidential candidate! Most all that was required was a certain number of signatures! Nader met that criteria/requirement mandated by law to be added to ballots, and he was attacked and kicked off ballots, buried under law suits, because the Democratic party was threatened by them!

2. And, after legally meeting the criteria to be added to ballots, why was Nader excluded from debates? How hard would it have been to add another podium? At several PUBLIC debates, the Democrats actaully filed paperwork to ban Nader from even buying a ticket/entering the building - in a public debate! WHAT kind of reform do you need to keep THAT from happening? That was just flat out WRONG, and most of your argument is bogus!

My remarks were not meant to be taken as 'bash the democrats'! I am sorry if it was the Democrats who did this in 2004, but blame THEM not ME! If it would have been the GOP, I would be calling them out on this one as well!

Your argument of 'blame the system not the Dems' is bogus because we have a constitution that guarantees the right to representation and laws that spell out exactly what must be done to qualify for that opportunity for Representation. Nader and the Green party MET that criteria in many states in 2004 and were STILL denied their Constitutional rights!
 
Last edited:

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
easyt65 said:
It isn't an 'Attack the Democrat' post! And yeah, I remember how Perot helped the GOP lose, but we didn't retaliate by sending an Army of lawyers the next time to bury them under law suits and strip people of their Constitutional Right of representation like the Democrats did last election!

And WHAT kind of reform needs to be done to allow people to have a choice?

1. There were already laws in effect that gave the Green party the opportunity to nominate and submit a Presidential candidate! All that was required was a certain number of signatures! Nader met that criteria/requirement mandated by law to be added to ballots, and he was attacked and kicked off ballots, buried under law suits, because the Democratic party was threatened by them!

2. And, after legally meeting the criteria to be added to ballots, why was Nader excluded from debates? How hard would it have been to add another podium? At several PUBLIC debates, the Democrats actaully filed paperwork to ban Nader from even buying a ticket/entering the building! WHAT kind of reform do you need to keep that from happening? That was just flat out WRONG, and most of your argument is bogus!

My remarks were not measnt to be taken as 'bash the democrats'! I am sorry if it was the Democrats who did this in 2004, but blame THEM not ME! If it would have been the GOP, I would be caling them out on this one as well!

Your argunebt of 'blame the system not the Dems' is bogus because we have a constitution that guarantees the right to representation and laws that spell out exactlywhat must be done to qualify for that opportunity for Representation. Nader and the Green party MET that criteria in many states in 2004 and were STILL denied their Constitutional rights!

I see your problem. I agree that they should be able to run. They will just never be able to win.
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kelzie said:
I see your problem. I agree that they should be able to run. They will just never be able to win.
THAT is a whole different argument! I do not think any third party will ever win, either, only take votes away from one of the major 2, ESPECIALLY if one of the major parties submarines the 3rd party's attempt to make the ballots and the media refuses to allow them in debates! Fund raising is also a Mount Everest for them to climb, too - good luck collecting more than the DNC and GOP!

The Goverment should:
1. Restrict the # of days a Senator can be away from his job as Senator to run a Presidential Campaign. Want to do it full time, do it on your own time by relenquishing your seat!
2. Set a fixed ceiling for campaign contribution collections per election.
3. Dictate a fixed number of media time/commericals, matched govt spending for each to pay for this.

These are just a few off-the-cuff ideas that could helplevel the playing field and end the corruption!
 
Top Bottom