When will there be a viable 3rd party in the US?

• derek bomar

  

  I forgot - Im throwing out the Electoral College. Majority votes only. Fucking simple.
• majorspark

  

  derek bomar;948467 wrote:I forgot - Im throwing out the Electoral College. Majority votes only. Fucking simple.

  I was thinking I might be able to get on board with this party. Not now. I suppose you will be throwing the Senate out too?
• fish82

  

  derek bomar;948467 wrote:I forgot - Im throwing out the Electoral College. Majority votes only. ****ing simple.

  Lost me too. So close too.....
• tk421

  

  I'll take never for $100, Alex. When you have the media machine calling people like Paul who would be a viable third party candidate, it's not going to happen. The media will never let anyone join the party.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;947439 wrote:And they were all ethically wrong.

  Is the federal income tax ethically wrong? Should we repeal the 16th amendment?
• O-Trap

  

  queencitybuckeye;945089 wrote:I'd argue that the problem is that the two parties are too much alike. One man's "lunatic fringe" is another man's principles on which the country was founded.

  Both parties:
  
  - Wasteful spending. check
  - Misuse of the military. check
  - Bend to corporatism. check
  - Raise taxes to pay for it all. check
  
  Hell, it's not a two-party system. It's a one-party system with two kinds of hats for its members.
  

  Lakebluestreaks;945763 wrote:I would say that there will never be an actual 3rd party, or 3 party system. Assuming a party starts whether left or right, it would pull like minded people from one of the 2 existing parties. Once it would get to certain point it would either die or grow. By growing, it would kill the other party that it took people from. We would still be left with 2 parties. The only way to get a legimate 3rd party would be to get more people active in voting. Then it would be possible. The problem is that most people that don't vote are too lazy or uninformed to get out there. The people that would create and be active in a 3rd party are already involved and voting.

  
  I disagree. I think MANY people who hold very strong stances on different issues (some of which are agreed upon by either one party or the other) could indeed form a third party. Middle doesn't refer to the level of conviction. It refers to the views themselves being adopted.
  

  derek bomar;945961 wrote:Just give me a simple no-bull shit party please.

  
  Such a candidate is seeking election at the moment.
  

  derek bomar;946146 wrote:I could throw these out there as the issues the BOMAR party (B) stands for:
  
  1) War/Invasion shouldn't be the first option, it should be the last
  2) Re-institute the draft. This would force people to realize the costs of war instead of having it be an after-thought.
  3) End corporate bailouts. All of them. Too big to fail only gets worse the longer you let it happen. Pull the band-aid off.
  4) Throw the current tax code out and replace it with something that doesn't punish success and applies to everyone above the poverty line evenly. Make it easy to understand, and make it enforceable for everyone - individuals and corporations alike.
  5) Legalize Marijuana. Aside from the instant economic spark, it would also have the added benefit of relieving a crowded prison system and would stop punishing people for doing something that is less harmful to their bodies than cigarettes or booze.
  6) End Public Sector unions aside from those who are first responders (work in harms-way). There is no reason for them and they only promote inefficiency and waste.
  7) Legalize gay Marriage. There's no logical reason they should have all of the same benefits (domestic partnership) but not be allowed to be called "married". Religions won't be forced to recognize them. This issue will at some point be a no-brainer as the boomers die off and the younger generations take over...just get in front of the curve for once.
  8) Balanced budget amendment that can be bypassed with some sort of majority in the House/Senate in times of distress.
  9) Meaningful campaign finance reform
  10) Throw out Obama-Care. It's terrible. Replace it with something that actually makes sense - like allowing for larger HSA's and allowing people to shop across state lines.
  11) Term limits - I would change the time you can be a Senator from 6 to 8 years, but you can serve as a Senator once. I would change the House from 2 to 4, and you can only serve twice. I am tired of people not doing their jobs and constantly running for re-election.
  12) Education Reform - make the school year longer. Make teacher's unions illegal, but offer very competitive compensation for teachers rewarding good teachers and throwing out the junk - we all know they're there (certain Gym teachers named CC for instance - I kid I kid)
  13) Put a limit on the #of words/pages a bill that is passed can be and require that all Members of Congress read the bill before voting on it. (Not sure how to enforce this - maybe a pop-quiz on it?)
  
  The list could go on and on...

  
  Other than the draft part, you sound a lot like a Ronulan.
  

  dwccrew;946658 wrote:Your party is weak and caves to demands. We don't negotiate with terrorists and we don't negotiate with anyone else that disagrees with us either. We're real USA Americans.

  
  AMERICA! F--- YEAH!
  
  
  

  Lakebluestreaks;947188 wrote:Why do you say this? Maybe that is the way you feel, but many governments don't agree with you including ours. We have had many drafts in this country before.

  
  And those moments were hardly shining examples of the liberty our country's Constitution was intended to safeguard.
  
  But you are correct. Many governments, including our own, don't support a whole lot of liberty for their people.
  

  majorspark;947673 wrote:One thing to note about a viable 3rd party in the US concerning presidential elections. A three party system would likely throw some presidential elections into the house of representatives as it would be more difficult for a candidate of one party to achieve the necessary 270 electoral votes. Though constitutional I am not sure how some people would react by having the president and vice president selected by one branch of the federal legislature. Or having the sitting Vice president serve as interim president.
  
  12th amendment.
  The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
  
  The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

  
  tl;dr
  
  Kidding.
  

  tk421;948677 wrote:I'll take never for $100, Alex. When you have the media machine calling people like Paul who would be a viable third party candidate, it's not going to happen. The media will never let anyone join the party.

  
  Paul's not a true third-party candidate, though. He's just a more accurate, historically-knowledgeable, and intellectually consistent Republican than the rest. I suppose it does make him seem "third-party-esque," but he's just more conservative than the rest of the Republicans in Washington.
• I Wear Pants

  I wouldn't say he's more conservative than them as he certainly isn't socially. He's just a real person is the difference. None of the other ones are.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;950417 wrote:I wouldn't say he's more conservative than them as he certainly isn't socially. He's just a real person is the difference. None of the other ones are.

  Conservatism has changed, and if we were speaking about a prior era, the more conservative social view was for the federal government to intrude as little as possible into personal lives. As such, even his social views are more conservative from a historical perspective ... just not by the modern day perspective.
• majorspark

  

  majorspark;950357 wrote:Is the federal income tax ethically wrong? Should we repeal the 16th amendment?

  Apparently pants does not have the balls to answer this.
• derek bomar

  

  majorspark;948645 wrote:I was thinking I might be able to get on board with this party. Not now. I suppose you will be throwing the Senate out too?

  you think where you live should determine how important your vote is?
• majorspark

  

  derek bomar;950488 wrote:you think where you live should determine how important your vote is?

  Not more important just more relevant to the people that vote is being cast for. Review your history. We are the United STATES. Do you want presidential candidates to not give a rats ass about Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho, the Dakotas, etc...
  
  Currently the citizens of Wyoming receive the same two votes in the Senate as the State of California. Wyoming has a population of 553,626 and California a population of 37,257,956. Do you think where you live should determine how important you vote is. Would you be willing to dissolve the Senate in order to do so?
• Footwedge

  majorspark;950496 wrote:Not more important just more relevant to the people that vote is being cast for. Review your history. We are the United STATES. Do you want presidential candidates to not give a rats ass about Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho, the Dakotas, etc...
  
  Currently the citizens of Wyoming receive the same two votes in the Senate as the State of California. Wyoming has a population of 553,626 and California a population of 37,257,956. Do you think where you live should determine how important you vote is. Would you be willing to dissolve the Senate in order to do so?

  I think the poster was referring to the House members...not the Senate.
  
  As for having a pleurality of parties, Israel has 5 or 6 viable parties. Whereby it is true this would create Constitutional issues, I think the idea of such is long overdue. The only way that it could be successfully implemented, would invove a complete overthrow of the present system, whereby money buys elections.
  
  Since the money and power control the government, I'm not holding my breath regarding democratic reform...or republic reform.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;950456 wrote:Apparently pants does not have the balls to answer this.

  Yeah it can't be that I have other shit to do and hadn't even looked at the thread. Next time I'll be sure to work my school and work schedule around these threads so I can reply in a timely manner.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;950357 wrote:Is the federal income tax ethically wrong? Should we repeal the 16th amendment?

  I don't see the connection between income tax and the draft. You'll argue that it's the government forcing people to do something they might not want to do so it's the same. But I think there's a clear distinction between being forced to give up a part of your income and being forced to go kill strangers.
• dwccrew

  

  I Wear Pants;951717 wrote:I don't see the connection between income tax and the draft. You'll argue that it's the government forcing people to do something they might not want to do so it's the same. But I think there's a clear distinction between being forced to give up a part of your income and being forced to go kill strangers.

  This. Having to pay taxes helps fund the government, even though a lot of it is wasted, a lot of it is also necessary. Drafting people in instances of war is not necessary. We have a strong volunteer military.
  
  If anything, a military in which you have people forced to participate will not be as efficient as individuals that are willing and wanting to be a part of the unit.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;951717 wrote:I don't see the connection between income tax and the draft. You'll argue that it's the government forcing people to do something they might not want to do so it's the same. But I think there's a clear distinction between being forced to give up a part of your income and being forced to go kill strangers.

  Your post I referenced stated your believe that the government should not force anyone into military or humanitarian service. So it was not just the draft. Most people that serve in the military do not personally kill strangers, just directly support it. Much like the tax payers at home although that is more indirect support. My grandpa on my fathers side grew up Amish. He was drafted during the Korean War. He was forced by his country into service. He served in a military hospital and never pulled the trigger on another human being.
  
  Really what is the difference between a government forcing its citizens to serve one another by giving a percentage of their time in direct service and forcing them to give a percentage of their labor first and foremost via tax to the government. Its really the same thing. You know that social contract thing. The first time the federal government instituted a full fledged draft was during the civil war to save their bacon.
  
  Personally I am for neither. At least at the federal level. But if you support conscripting a percentage of my labor via the federal income tax, I can't logically see how one can on the other hand not support the conscripting of labor for other national service. Civil defense, military support, or any other national service. Civilian or military.
• dwccrew

  

  majorspark;951743 wrote:Your post I referenced stated your believe that the government should not force anyone into military or humanitarian service. So it was not just the draft. Most people that serve in the military do not personally kill strangers, just directly support it. Much like the tax payers at home although that is more indirect support. My grandpa on my fathers side grew up Amish. He was drafted during the Korean War. He was forced by his country into service. He served in a military hospital and never pulled the trigger on another human being.
  
  Really what is the difference between a government forcing its citizens to serve one another by giving a percentage of their time in direct service and forcing them to give a percentage of their labor first and foremost via tax to the government. Its really the same thing. You know that social contract thing. The first time the federal government instituted a full fledged draft was during the civil war to save their bacon.
  
  Personally I am for neither. At least at the federal level. But if you support conscripting a percentage of my labor via the federal income tax, I can't logically see how one can on the other hand not support the conscripting of labor for other national service. Civil defense, military support, or any other national service. Civilian or military.

  Generally I agree with your posts, but I don't on this. You really don't see the difference between forcing someone to support the government with their service and forcing someone to support the government financially? Their is a huge difference. Were you ever in the military? There's a difference between paying your taxes and sacrificing your time, family and possibly your life; when you are in military service.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  This is not a democracy, it is supposed to be a republic. We elect our state representatives. The states elect the president. The problem is that everyone is looking to the federal government with their hands out now, and they are so intertwined in everyone's lives, that people think we should just have a majority rules popular vote where the federal government can terrorize the minority at the behest of the majority. There is a reason the country was set up this way.
  
  As for the original question, we need a viable second party before we need a third. Republicans and Democrats are one and the same.
• majorspark

  

  dwccrew;951747 wrote:Generally I agree with your posts, but I don't on this. You really don't see the difference between forcing someone to support the government with their service and forcing someone to support the government financially? Their is a huge difference. Were you ever in the military? There's a difference between paying your taxes and sacrificing your time, family and possibly your life; when you are in military service.

  I sacrifice my time and family via the income tax but not my life (I agree with you here). I am not an advocate of the draft. Absolutely not. And you being a military man know not all in the military personnel are risking their lives. Also I would add I was addressing the question of compulsory civilian service as noted in one of pants posts.
  
  Ron Paul agrees with me. That the income tax means the government owns a percentage of my labor.
  
  http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/end-the-income-tax-abolish-the-irs/
  
  The income tax is one of the most egregious encroachments on our liberties today. It is a form of involuntary servitude, which was supposed to have been outlawed by the 13th Amendment
  http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-13/ron-paul-income-tax-involuntary-servitude/
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;951743 wrote:Your post I referenced stated your believe that the government should not force anyone into military or humanitarian service. So it was not just the draft. Most people that serve in the military do not personally kill strangers, just directly support it. Much like the tax payers at home although that is more indirect support. My grandpa on my fathers side grew up Amish. He was drafted during the Korean War. He was forced by his country into service. He served in a military hospital and never pulled the trigger on another human being.
  
  Really what is the difference between a government forcing its citizens to serve one another by giving a percentage of their time in direct service and forcing them to give a percentage of their labor first and foremost via tax to the government. Its really the same thing. You know that social contract thing. The first time the federal government instituted a full fledged draft was during the civil war to save their bacon.
  
  Personally I am for neither. At least at the federal level. But if you support conscripting a percentage of my labor via the federal income tax, I can't logically see how one can on the other hand not support the conscripting of labor for other national service. Civil defense, military support, or any other national service. Civilian or military.

  I obviously realize that not everyone in the military shoots people. I'm not 4.
  
  And the connection to income taxes is still not there. Income taxes fund the government which yes, includes the military. But it is almost always defensive funding (or it's supposed to be). The draft is only instituted during times of war. People are forced into situations where they have to kill other people or let themselves be killed. I cannot abide my government doing that.
  
  Compulsory giving and being forced into service (humanitarian, military) are very, very different things in my view.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;951766 wrote:Income taxes fund the government

  Involuntary servitude funds the government as well minus the monetary transaction. Either way your labor funds the government. Punitively local courts do likewise. Courts assess fines extracting your labor monetarily. Or via community service. The only difference is how that transaction is booked.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;951770 wrote:Involuntary servitude funds the government as well minus the monetary transaction. Either way your labor funds the government. Punitively local courts do likewise. Courts assess fines extracting your labor monetarily. Or via community service. The only difference is how that transaction is booked.

  Well yes, the people fund the government. How else would it work?
  
  And military service doesn't fund the government. Don't try to make "funding" something more than it is. Taking the monetary transaction out of it is well, impossible. You see no difference between forcing people to leave their homes and families and go overseas to potentially dangerous places (both military and Peace Corps) and potentially be forced to kill people (not everyone and not the Peace Corps since I now apparently have to make it clear that not every single person in the military kills people) and paying a tax on income? I think it's a huge stretch.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;951771 wrote:You see no difference between forcing people to leave their homes and families and go overseas to potentially dangerous places (both military and Peace Corps) and potentially be forced to kill people (not everyone and not the Peace Corps since I now apparently have to make it clear that not every single person in the military kills people) and paying a tax on income? I think it's a huge stretch.

  Oh there is a difference in action but not in principle. By the way many of these clowns in the federal government are chomping at the bit to force citizens, especially the young, to perform community service. No need to go over seas. Barak Obama has proposed such ideas in the past. And lets not forget about his civilian defense force.
• BoatShoes

  The U.S. only will have two major parties because we have winner take all districts in the House of Representatives. Countries that have proportional representation in their deliberative bodies like Australia have multi-party systems. So, if we retain our current system we're always going to have two major parties. Perhaps a new one could replace one of the major two but we won't have a third powerful party.
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;951844 wrote:The U.S. only will have two major parties because we have winner take all districts in the House of Representatives. Countries that have proportional representation in their deliberative bodies like Australia have multi-party systems. So, if we retain our current system we're always going to have two major parties. Perhaps a new one could replace one of the major two but we won't have a third powerful party.

  And some of those districts are severely gerrymandered to ensure one of those two major parties remain in power. Some of these congressional districts have more twists and turns than a Dan Brown novel.