• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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!

Roger Stone: A third party can be a serious threat in 2012

Cold Highway

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'd be all for it, except it's most likely to benefit the Democrats. This, I do not want.

If it had a chance of fomenting a new majority movement or party, then great.
 
Can anyone tell me that last time a third party won a presidential election? You could argue that 1860 was the last time, but that was a radically different situation, what with the disintegration of the whigs.
 
Ever since Wallace in '68, a third party has not gotten a single (fair) electorial vote.

A few electors have thrown their votes around, for 'the lulz,' since then but for all intents: George Wallace has been it.

Would be fun to have a third side.
 
Metternich said:
Ever since Wallace in '68, a third party has not gotten a single (fair) electorial vote.

A few electors have thrown their votes around, for 'the lulz,' since then but for all intents: George Wallace has been it.

Would be fun to have a third side.
Click to expand...

Our system just isn't set up for it.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Our system just isn't set up for it.
Click to expand...

Our system is stable at 2 major parties. There's nothing inherent to the system to say it must be the same 2. There are things inherent to the closing off of the political system and the purposeful exclusion of the third parties which say it must be the same 2; but in general one or both of the major parties can be replaced.

I don't accept the argument that because we're stable at 2, we should ignore the third parties. The third parties allow for a lot of torque which can be applied to the main parties to keep them in tow.
 
Yes! Go for it!

Now here's a effort most liberals can get behind.

The problem is your Party is not right wing enough! That's it!

Become more Conservative!

Good luck!
 
Ikari said:
Our system is stable at 2 major parties. There's nothing inherent to the system to say it must be the same 2. There are things inherent to the closing off of the political system and the purposeful exclusion of the third parties which say it must be the same 2; but in general one or both of the major parties can be replaced.
Click to expand...

Well why would a major party change? The only two times a third party has won was when a major party disintegrated. The Federalists and the Whigs both reached the point where they couldn't even run candidates before another party took over. Neither modern party has done poorly enough to lose their cohesion.

I don't accept the argument that because we're stable at 2, we should ignore the third parties. The third parties allow for a lot of torque which can be applied to the main parties to keep them in tow.
Click to expand...

Completely. Let's say a third party starts really advocating a position and draws 2% of the vote because of that position. Often a mainstream party will move a bit closer to the third party stance on that position to get votes. They can't win but they can influence the debate
 
"Let's say a third party starts really advocating a position and draws 2% of the vote because of that position. Often a mainstream party will move a bit closer to the third party stance on that position to get votes. They can't win but they can influence the debate"


And often that move to the 3rd Party stance will alienate more indepedents/middle-of-the-roaders.
 
dragondad said:
"Let's say a third party starts really advocating a position and draws 2% of the vote because of that position. Often a mainstream party will move a bit closer to the third party stance on that position to get votes. They can't win but they can influence the debate"


And often that move to the 3rd Party stance will alienate more indepedents/middle-of-the-roaders.
Click to expand...

It's a pay off. They have to weigh whether its better to lose part of the fringe or the middle.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Well why would a major party change? The only two times a third party has won was when a major party disintegrated. The Federalists and the Whigs both reached the point where they couldn't even run candidates before another party took over. Neither modern party has done poorly enough to lose their cohesion.
Click to expand...

It doesn't happen often for sure, if it did there would be too much instability. But there may come time when a party needs to be replaced. IMHO, currently is one of those times; I think the GOP needs to be replaced with an actual small government party. But there isn't the available mechanisms to have allowed something like that to happen anymore.

the makeout hobo said:
Completely. Let's say a third party starts really advocating a position and draws 2% of the vote because of that position. Often a mainstream party will move a bit closer to the third party stance on that position to get votes. They can't win but they can influence the debate
Click to expand...

More than anything, I think this is the power of the third parties. Because they can be used as a servo system on the main parties to keep them in check. Because of this, I think they should be allowed equal and fair participation in the system.
 
Ikari said:
It doesn't happen often for sure, if it did there would be too much instability. But there may come time when a party needs to be replaced. IMHO, currently is one of those times; I think the GOP needs to be replaced with an actual small government party. But there isn't the available mechanisms to have allowed something like that to happen anymore.
Click to expand...
Sorry, not enough people want a minarchist party. Face the facts that you're a small minority.
\
 
the makeout hobo said:
Sorry, not enough people want a minarchist party. Face the facts that you're a small minority.
\
Click to expand...

You are so right,that's why we keep getting the same bad politicians,election after election.The names change but the politicians stay the same.So far at work in the last two years we've had over 100 people dumping the Dem or Rep and start voting third party,will it help maybe ,but a least we want a change,and are trying.
 
rudedog said:
You are so right,that's why we keep getting the same bad politicians,election after election.The names change but the politicians stay the same.So far at work in the last two years we've had over 100 people dumping the Dem or Rep and start voting third party,will it help maybe ,but a least we want a change,and are trying.
Click to expand...

Any suggestions how a third party should proceed from a strategic standpoint?
 
the makeout hobo said:
Any suggestions how a third party should proceed from a strategic standpoint?
Click to expand...

I sure wish I did,I don't think the third party has any major lobbyist courting it,so that is a good thing.They should stay that way, it will hurt them for campaign funds but help keep the party honest hopefully.
Maybe some snappy campaign slogans,like, tired of the same old crap,try a third party.
Mostly they need to get the public to understand that they want to be a public servant and try to help the people,not a professional politician,who is only worried about helping the good ole boy"s.
 
I feel like some of these tea partys are being hijacked by the Republicans and Fox News. Some people have been holding up signs saying things like "Hannity/Palin 2012" and "I'm a Fox Newsaholic" but they are forgetting that the Republicans were the ones who started bailing out the banks when Bush was in office and Republicans aren't exactly in favor of small, local based governent (i.e. patriot act, raiding medical marijuana clinics, ect).

I do hope the people will take an alternative to the Republicans and look into voting third party.
 
Phantom said:
I feel like some of these tea partys are being hijacked by the Republicans and Fox News. Some people have been holding up signs saying things like "Hannity/Palin 2012" and "I'm a Fox Newsaholic" but they are forgetting that the Republicans were the ones who started bailing out the banks when Bush was in office and Republicans aren't exactly in favor of small, local based governent (i.e. patriot act, raiding medical marijuana clinics, ect).

I do hope the people will take an alternative to the Republicans and look into voting third party.
Click to expand...

I voted third party in 2008 because I could not stand Obama, and I was so fed up with Bush and big government "conservatism" that I could not stand to vote for a Republican. That said, so far, the actions of President Obama on most issues seem to be a continuation of the "Bush" style big government.

I would love to vote for a Republican, if one came along that showed some intelligence, was honest, and offered some new ideas on how to get things done with smaller government. Remains to be seen what the Republican field will look like in 2012, but I am hopeful.
 
Ah, third party nuts. Gotta love them.

"We may have won less than one percent of the vote the last million times, but THIS time...."
 
I'll have to see it to believe it.

I've come to the conclusion that the American public will not wake up to the bankruptcy of the two-party system until the beer stops flowing and ESPN goes off the air.
 
Goshin said:
I'll have to see it to believe it.

I've come to the conclusion that the American public will not wake up to the bankruptcy of the two-party system until the beer stops flowing and ESPN goes off the air.
Click to expand...

What I hate is that third-party nuts have successfully observed that both major parties suck, and instead of coming to the obvious conclusion- which is that all political parties are terrible- they decide that the two worst ones, by some tremendous coincidence, somehow managed to be the two major ones.
 
There's no inherent reasons three or more parties can't be viable. The Green and Libertarians parties are making slow but steady gains in elected offices. I know I'm always excited to vote for other parties if there isn't a specific candidate I want to vote for.

And there's nothing saying you can't vote for the GOP presidential candidate and third party all the rest. In fact I would say building a party from the lower offices up is preferred over just trying for the top office.
 
Dav said:
What I hate is that third-party nuts have successfully observed that both major parties suck, and instead of coming to the obvious conclusion- which is that all political parties are terrible- they decide that the two worst ones, by some tremendous coincidence, somehow managed to be the two major ones.
Click to expand...


When you figure out a way to do away with political parties or factions, let the rest of the world know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom