Regarding the third party debate. . .

I posted this response on an earlier threat today that sunk like a stone despite it's interesting content.

The original poster's position was that (paraphrasing to the extreme) the Democratic party was redeemable and that talk of a third party was counterproductive.

Here is my response. .

Though I truly appreciate what you are saying in terms of the fundamental desirable attributes of the Democratic principles, I think you've got to step back and see what's so troubling to
John and Jane Q public. . .the ones of both parties who are paying the slightest attention that is.

The Democrats have caved on issue after issue after issue because they've essentially been systematically stripped of all of their power and are at least partially beholden to the will of the corporate powers that be, instead of their lowly constituents.

People are clearly enormously frustrated with the status quo.

We live in what is a land of tremendous diversity that was once known as "the land of the lively discussion." It has now digressed to only two points of view which are hardly representative of the will of a accurate measurable majority. That coupled with election fraud, has resulted in the disenfranchisement of all too many.

The problem with a two party system used to be gridlock but at least then there was room for compromise. That is no more.

Now with single party control of the three branches of government, the media, and the voting technology, our democracy is no longer recognizable as such.

The problem of a two party system is dualism, plain and simple.

If the Democratic Party wants to regain any traction whatsoever they'd better stop listening to their highly paid consultants who are all too often splitting hairs over comparatively inane and inconsequential daily talking points (i.e gay marriage, flag burning, immigration, abortion, etc. and ad nauseum) pandering to the so called imagined "center."

'Scuse me but not to minimize the import of those issues to those involved, this is all tripe compared to the suspension of all of our very Constitutional rights. Those comprise the very cornerstone of our fumbling nation.

The Dems could perhaps start addressing the primary problem through which our American dream has been eroded into this American nightmare. That would be three questionably compromised concurrent national elections and massive election fraud.

Silly me. Though I feel that a 12 party system would ideal and far more
representative of our population but OTOH I certainly see and empathize with why folks are seeking a third alternate approach to our current seemingly intractable non functional and pathetic non progressive diviseness.

Far beyond that, there is more that unites most of us in terms of basic human kindness and decency. Yet we live in a culture that is infused with and overtly rewards greed and selfishness. We are kidding ourselves to think otherwise. Our misleadership is entirely representative of this sad fact.

I've been writing incessantly for well over 6 months about the possibility of formation of a (purple:red + blue = purple) party that is determined to restore our Constitution, civil rights, peace and global reputation. Amazingly I've garnered droves of
heartwarming responses.

Until I hear more Democrats speaking of these issues as well as election fraud, I will continue to relentlessly do so.

/eom

And the amazing thing is that a simple change in the federal election laws is all that is needed to allow a third way to arise...a law that no one could be elected to office with less than 50% of the votes.

One that can or would appeal to both most Republicans and most Democrats. I think that that is essentially what the DLC espouses. It would, I think, require the formation of a new party unless the Democrats could be won aver to the idea of shedding its leftist base and proclaiming loud and clear that it was now a centrist party and not a progressive one. Clinton did this in a sort of low-key way and won over many Republicans, but now it would be more difficult because of the heated animosity between Imperial Republicans and Democrats.

If you formed a third party with basically DLC ideology, you could probably win many Republicans over and retain a lot of corporate support. You would get all but the leftist Democrats and the Christofascist Republicans.

I wouldn't join your party, but many here might. It is good food for thought...

I'm not really in any position to form a party but am only trying to inspire different thoughts and more inspired conversation.

Too many Democrats cling to the Clintonian approach when the political landscape has shifted markedly since then.

Even in the days of more accountable elections, Clinton wouldn't have necessarily won without Perot's whacky interjection.

I just loathe dualism is all. Life's far more interesting than that.

candidacy had on the elections of '92 & '96. And it would make for a better, stronger democracy if we had multiple political parties - I strongly agree with that. I just hope it isn't too late for a "political" solution to the country's problems. We may be forced to take other avenues for redress...

are all I can envision at this point but I'm like that.

The political discourse has become a complete and total ruse. IMHO

PM me if you want to see examples of such solutions. They are for free, free, free and really easy for anyone to do.

:hi:

never been any evidence to support it.

and Clinton won by a margin less than 6%. I don't think all that many Democrats voted for Perot, but hey, urban myth sounds good, too... :eyes:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1992

If it makes you feel better to believe Perot helped Bush lose, who am I to spoil your fantasy? However, if you want to debate the topic, with stats and such, let's do it.

You are correct the Republicans have attempted to strip Democrats of their power, this is more evident in the House where there are few institutional rules protecting the minority. However, to say that a Democrats have "caved" because they disagreed with your preferred outcome needs to be backed up more strenously. In a party such as ours, there are going to be those who take a principled position that differs from yours.

And if they aren't responding to the needs of the "lowly constituent" the constituents haven't figured that out yet. Because the "lowly constituents" return their representatives back to Congress every year.



Hardly unique to this era, and not a harbinger of a third party movement. The last successful third party was the Republican Party starting in 1856.




Sadly in our media driven culture, perception often matters more than reality. The Republicans know this which is why you see these issues getting the lions share of the noteriety. IN purely political terms, candidates have to respond. As when Mike Dukakis ignored Willy Horton and the Pledge of Allegiance, and as John Kerry virtually ignored the Swift Boaters found out, these things do affect outcomes. The only Democratic Presidential candidate who seems to have learned that lesson was Bill Clinton (and by golly, he won).



This fondly remembered gridlock is a relatively new feature. Demcorats have controlled all branches of Government nearly half the time since 1932.

The problem is not dualism; dualism is our system. If there was this hue and cry about it, change would occur. Fact is, in general the two party system has worked pretty well, and the parties have been pretty good at assimilating and responding to the needs of various sections of the populace. When they have failed to do this, they get knocked out on their kiester...which is about to happen again.




Yes, it is called capitalism. The basis of capitalism is economic self interest. I don't see a general uprising in the land calling for the elimination of capitalism.



More power to ya...one of the good things about our system. However, history strongly indicates this will fail. Third parties fail for three basic reasons. First, they often represent a narrow range of interests. Second, they are easily assimilated into the major party structure. And third, there is not a great hunger for a third party. Yes people whine and complin about the two major parties, but when people are asked to put their money where their mouth is, they find that their existing party isn't so bad after all.

My preferred outcomes are far different and far more obtuse than the obvious needs of the greater good. I don't believe in throwing money at a problem in order to remediate it.

However the assault against the environment, global diplomacy, the poor, the young,"the underprivileged." medicare that doesn't favor the big pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies has nothing to do with my personal self interest.

As to the constituents returning these bozo's to power, see the reference to repeated election fraud that's been verified by the GAO as well as many other sources for reference.

I'm well aware of the pitfalls of a two party system and how third party platforms are often coopted by one of the two major parties. That's part of the problem.

But these current circumstances are truly unprescedented. Extraordinary times may just call for extraodinary measures.

I'm writing about something that addresses greater inclusion as never before have so many been disenfranchised. I honestly don't think older paradigms apply in this still new millennium. Thanks for responding. That's all.

Have a nice day.