The Next Model of American Politics.

[toomuchtime_]

We should get so lucky.

Not sure it's all about luck. I think there's some basic "structural" truths here about stability and group dynamics. 3 legs on a chair are more stable than 2 obviously -- kind of common sense. I mentioned the finger pointing and absolution for criminal behavior you have when when 2 parties square off for 90 years with no moderating influence from the press or other stabilizers.

THEN -- look at my Avie. I picked it BECAUSE this topic is always a high priority for me. With MULTIPLE choices and "parties" -- it's harder to "reach the bottom" in terms of polarization. Because ----

1) It's harder to collude. Think gerrymandering, and giving up on losing states and districts. Think "plea bargaining" to blackmail each other with ethics and criminal offenses committed by Leadership.

2) It's harder to "spin".. When the Sunday shows and the daily talking points come from 3 or 4 ACTIVE parties, you can't get away with dodging and deflection or HIDING issues that are too sensitive to both parties. Think abuse of the PATRIOT Act Domestic Surveillance program that BOTH love and defend. And which if ABUSED would end the Republic as we know it. (If it hasn't already been abused.)

Actually -- there are NO Liberal or Conservative parties anymore. There are Libertarian and Socialist parties. They stand CONSISTENTLY for principles. Everything else in the middle is just noise and distraction and sports today..

I think it would be lovely. I want to see it.

I think it's going to be really difficult because of the money involved which is what the fight is against ultimately.

In our current presidential system, it would probably mean most presidential elections would be decided in the House and if agreement couldn't be reached there, the country might have to do without a president. Then who would run the executive branch? Who would nominate federal judges? Who would run the military? Diplomatic Corps?

Lots of other possibilities there. You run coalitions once the House/Senate has enough minority party members. Or you do "instant run-off" voting which allows a 1st and 2nd choice.

The rise of 3rd parties and independents is now inevitable. These votes were 6% of the November total. When that reaches 12 or 15% of the pop vote -- you already have "winners" with only 40% or so. So -- that's why this thread. Better get thinking. Because America is not gonna reward EITHER of these amateur hour acts much longer. You had 2 TERRIBLE choices. And then you had 2 experienced 2 term governors who would have MODERATED the tone and turmoil of the Dem/Rep clash. Would have put independent "counsels" into all the key appointments (with a Libertarian bent) But America insisted on "winners"...

Ok, so you're talking about amending the Constitution to allow run offs to choose a president, but even so, the president will come from one of the major parties and the same major party will dominate whatever coalitions are formed in the House and Senate, so what has been gained?

Historically, third party candidates have won far more than 15% of the vote and changed nothing. In our system today, instead of forming separate parties, factions form coalitions within the two parties and bring about change that way. We are seeing this happen in the Democratic Party today as the liberals led by Sanders are forcing the the Party to turn away from the changes the Clintons brought about and to return to its roots.

 

[task0778]

I'm good with a new party, distinct from the ones we have now but I also think this new party needs to pick it's battles at the state and local levels and limit itself to certain states that offer a reasonable chance to win seats in legislatures and congress. You're going to have to have well respected people behind it and good, principled candidates out there competing. You don't have to control one chamber of Congress, but rather just enough swing votes to where you have some power. Which will grow in time if your new party shows itself to be worthy of backing, and I am speaking now of the general public. Such a party could attract moderate politicians from both major parties, at least in some cases or some issues, so I think it's doable but you need the right person or group of persons to kick start the whole thing.

 

[flacaltenn]

We should get so lucky.

Not sure it's all about luck. I think there's some basic "structural" truths here about stability and group dynamics. 3 legs on a chair are more stable than 2 obviously -- kind of common sense. I mentioned the finger pointing and absolution for criminal behavior you have when when 2 parties square off for 90 years with no moderating influence from the press or other stabilizers.

THEN -- look at my Avie. I picked it BECAUSE this topic is always a high priority for me. With MULTIPLE choices and "parties" -- it's harder to "reach the bottom" in terms of polarization. Because ----

1) It's harder to collude. Think gerrymandering, and giving up on losing states and districts. Think "plea bargaining" to blackmail each other with ethics and criminal offenses committed by Leadership.

2) It's harder to "spin".. When the Sunday shows and the daily talking points come from 3 or 4 ACTIVE parties, you can't get away with dodging and deflection or HIDING issues that are too sensitive to both parties. Think abuse of the PATRIOT Act Domestic Surveillance program that BOTH love and defend. And which if ABUSED would end the Republic as we know it. (If it hasn't already been abused.)

Actually -- there are NO Liberal or Conservative parties anymore. There are Libertarian and Socialist parties. They stand CONSISTENTLY for principles. Everything else in the middle is just noise and distraction and sports today..

I think it would be lovely. I want to see it.

I think it's going to be really difficult because of the money involved which is what the fight is against ultimately.

In our current presidential system, it would probably mean most presidential elections would be decided in the House and if agreement couldn't be reached there, the country might have to do without a president. Then who would run the executive branch? Who would nominate federal judges? Who would run the military? Diplomatic Corps?

Lots of other possibilities there. You run coalitions once the House/Senate has enough minority party members. Or you do "instant run-off" voting which allows a 1st and 2nd choice.

The rise of 3rd parties and independents is now inevitable. These votes were 6% of the November total. When that reaches 12 or 15% of the pop vote -- you already have "winners" with only 40% or so. So -- that's why this thread. Better get thinking. Because America is not gonna reward EITHER of these amateur hour acts much longer. You had 2 TERRIBLE choices. And then you had 2 experienced 2 term governors who would have MODERATED the tone and turmoil of the Dem/Rep clash. Would have put independent "counsels" into all the key appointments (with a Libertarian bent) But America insisted on "winners"...

Ok, so you're talking about amending the Constitution to allow run offs to choose a president, but even so, the president will come from one of the major parties and the same major party will dominate whatever coalitions are formed in the House and Senate, so what has been gained?

Historically, third party candidates have won far more than 15% of the vote and changed nothing. In our system today, instead of forming separate parties, factions form coalitions within the two parties and bring about change that way. We are seeing this happen in the Democratic Party today as the liberals led by Sanders are forcing the the Party to turn away from the changes the Clintons brought about and to return to its roots.

I'm just talking about leveling the playing field thru Ballot Access Reform and Debate Access. The rest is far fetched. We already have an E-college and you can win easy E-college majorities with only 40 or 45% of the vote. So no real constitutional change is necessary. But we have to STOP TODAY the 2 party collusion to LOCK OUT political opposition. Like that "top 2" primary I discussed in Cali.

It's quite credible for a 3rd party to win. Not a matter of money. It's a change of voter attitude about "winning". Never do I feel that spending weeks of my time getting Libertarian messages out during a Prez cycle is losing. And I'm proud of the candidates we had last time around with Johnson/Weld. Not the best candidate preparation I've ever seen. But I'm proud of the focus on issues and the HUMILITY AND HONESTY of these guys.

As for change from within -- I think you must be joking. Bernie never could win. He SMASHED Clinton in New Hampshire and walked away with the same number of delegates. Bernie ran SOLELY on principle. He wasn't ever expecting to be in contention. And the Repubs were bullied and hijacked by an arrogant money man. That's no reform. I wouldn't doubt that the Repubs are gonna copy the damn Dems and evolve some kind of super delegate deal so THEY don't get hijacked like that again... They WILL PROTECT the brand. And not care a WHIT about what choices you are offered...

 

[toomuchtime_]

Not sure it's all about luck. I think there's some basic "structural" truths here about stability and group dynamics. 3 legs on a chair are more stable than 2 obviously -- kind of common sense. I mentioned the finger pointing and absolution for criminal behavior you have when when 2 parties square off for 90 years with no moderating influence from the press or other stabilizers.

THEN -- look at my Avie. I picked it BECAUSE this topic is always a high priority for me. With MULTIPLE choices and "parties" -- it's harder to "reach the bottom" in terms of polarization. Because ----

1) It's harder to collude. Think gerrymandering, and giving up on losing states and districts. Think "plea bargaining" to blackmail each other with ethics and criminal offenses committed by Leadership.

2) It's harder to "spin".. When the Sunday shows and the daily talking points come from 3 or 4 ACTIVE parties, you can't get away with dodging and deflection or HIDING issues that are too sensitive to both parties. Think abuse of the PATRIOT Act Domestic Surveillance program that BOTH love and defend. And which if ABUSED would end the Republic as we know it. (If it hasn't already been abused.)

Actually -- there are NO Liberal or Conservative parties anymore. There are Libertarian and Socialist parties. They stand CONSISTENTLY for principles. Everything else in the middle is just noise and distraction and sports today..

I think it would be lovely. I want to see it.

I think it's going to be really difficult because of the money involved which is what the fight is against ultimately.

In our current presidential system, it would probably mean most presidential elections would be decided in the House and if agreement couldn't be reached there, the country might have to do without a president. Then who would run the executive branch? Who would nominate federal judges? Who would run the military? Diplomatic Corps?

Lots of other possibilities there. You run coalitions once the House/Senate has enough minority party members. Or you do "instant run-off" voting which allows a 1st and 2nd choice.

The rise of 3rd parties and independents is now inevitable. These votes were 6% of the November total. When that reaches 12 or 15% of the pop vote -- you already have "winners" with only 40% or so. So -- that's why this thread. Better get thinking. Because America is not gonna reward EITHER of these amateur hour acts much longer. You had 2 TERRIBLE choices. And then you had 2 experienced 2 term governors who would have MODERATED the tone and turmoil of the Dem/Rep clash. Would have put independent "counsels" into all the key appointments (with a Libertarian bent) But America insisted on "winners"...

Ok, so you're talking about amending the Constitution to allow run offs to choose a president, but even so, the president will come from one of the major parties and the same major party will dominate whatever coalitions are formed in the House and Senate, so what has been gained?

Historically, third party candidates have won far more than 15% of the vote and changed nothing. In our system today, instead of forming separate parties, factions form coalitions within the two parties and bring about change that way. We are seeing this happen in the Democratic Party today as the liberals led by Sanders are forcing the the Party to turn away from the changes the Clintons brought about and to return to its roots.

I'm just talking about leveling the playing field thru Ballot Access Reform and Debate Access. The rest is far fetched. We already have an E-college and you can win easy E-college majorities with only 40 or 45% of the vote. So no real constitutional change is necessary. But we have to STOP TODAY the 2 party collusion to LOCK OUT political opposition. Like that "top 2" primary I discussed in Cali.

It's quite credible for a 3rd party to win. Not a matter of money. It's a change of voter attitude about "winning". Never do I feel that spending weeks of my time getting Libertarian messages out during a Prez cycle is losing. And I'm proud of the candidates we had last time around with Johnson/Weld. Not the best candidate preparation I've ever seen. But I'm proud of the focus on issues and the HUMILITY AND HONESTY of these guys.

As for change from within -- I think you must be joking. Bernie never could win. He SMASHED Clinton in New Hampshire and walked away with the same number of delegates. Bernie ran SOLELY on principle. He wasn't ever expecting to be in contention. And the Repubs were bullied and hijacked by an arrogant money man. That's no reform. I wouldn't doubt that the Repubs are gonna copy the damn Dems and evolve some kind of super delegate deal so THEY don't get hijacked like that again... They WILL PROTECT the brand. And not care a WHIT about what choices you are offered...

Previously you had said you wanted to have a run off vote and that would have required a constitutional amendment, but now you've apparently decided you just want to whine.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not sure it's all about luck. I think there's some basic "structural" truths here about stability and group dynamics. 3 legs on a chair are more stable than 2 obviously -- kind of common sense. I mentioned the finger pointing and absolution for criminal behavior you have when when 2 parties square off for 90 years with no moderating influence from the press or other stabilizers.

THEN -- look at my Avie. I picked it BECAUSE this topic is always a high priority for me. With MULTIPLE choices and "parties" -- it's harder to "reach the bottom" in terms of polarization. Because ----

1) It's harder to collude. Think gerrymandering, and giving up on losing states and districts. Think "plea bargaining" to blackmail each other with ethics and criminal offenses committed by Leadership.

2) It's harder to "spin".. When the Sunday shows and the daily talking points come from 3 or 4 ACTIVE parties, you can't get away with dodging and deflection or HIDING issues that are too sensitive to both parties. Think abuse of the PATRIOT Act Domestic Surveillance program that BOTH love and defend. And which if ABUSED would end the Republic as we know it. (If it hasn't already been abused.)

Actually -- there are NO Liberal or Conservative parties anymore. There are Libertarian and Socialist parties. They stand CONSISTENTLY for principles. Everything else in the middle is just noise and distraction and sports today..

I think it would be lovely. I want to see it.

I think it's going to be really difficult because of the money involved which is what the fight is against ultimately.

In our current presidential system, it would probably mean most presidential elections would be decided in the House and if agreement couldn't be reached there, the country might have to do without a president. Then who would run the executive branch? Who would nominate federal judges? Who would run the military? Diplomatic Corps?

Lots of other possibilities there. You run coalitions once the House/Senate has enough minority party members. Or you do "instant run-off" voting which allows a 1st and 2nd choice.

The rise of 3rd parties and independents is now inevitable. These votes were 6% of the November total. When that reaches 12 or 15% of the pop vote -- you already have "winners" with only 40% or so. So -- that's why this thread. Better get thinking. Because America is not gonna reward EITHER of these amateur hour acts much longer. You had 2 TERRIBLE choices. And then you had 2 experienced 2 term governors who would have MODERATED the tone and turmoil of the Dem/Rep clash. Would have put independent "counsels" into all the key appointments (with a Libertarian bent) But America insisted on "winners"...

Ok, so you're talking about amending the Constitution to allow run offs to choose a president, but even so, the president will come from one of the major parties and the same major party will dominate whatever coalitions are formed in the House and Senate, so what has been gained?

Historically, third party candidates have won far more than 15% of the vote and changed nothing. In our system today, instead of forming separate parties, factions form coalitions within the two parties and bring about change that way. We are seeing this happen in the Democratic Party today as the liberals led by Sanders are forcing the the Party to turn away from the changes the Clintons brought about and to return to its roots.

I'm just talking about leveling the playing field thru Ballot Access Reform and Debate Access. The rest is far fetched. We already have an E-college and you can win easy E-college majorities with only 40 or 45% of the vote. So no real constitutional change is necessary. But we have to STOP TODAY the 2 party collusion to LOCK OUT political opposition. Like that "top 2" primary I discussed in Cali.

It's quite credible for a 3rd party to win. Not a matter of money. It's a change of voter attitude about "winning". Never do I feel that spending weeks of my time getting Libertarian messages out during a Prez cycle is losing. And I'm proud of the candidates we had last time around with Johnson/Weld. Not the best candidate preparation I've ever seen. But I'm proud of the focus on issues and the HUMILITY AND HONESTY of these guys.

As for change from within -- I think you must be joking. Bernie never could win. He SMASHED Clinton in New Hampshire and walked away with the same number of delegates. Bernie ran SOLELY on principle. He wasn't ever expecting to be in contention. And the Repubs were bullied and hijacked by an arrogant money man. That's no reform. I wouldn't doubt that the Repubs are gonna copy the damn Dems and evolve some kind of super delegate deal so THEY don't get hijacked like that again... They WILL PROTECT the brand. And not care a WHIT about what choices you are offered...

Voter attitude is a negative attitude. Who don't I want to get in? Seeing as only two parties can win, I don't want Republicans to get in, there's only ONE WAY to stop them getting in, and that's to vote Democrat. It's that simple a mentality. To change this what can you do? Nothing but change the way people vote.

In Germany 10% of the population will vote for smaller parties rather than the main two parties when you compare FPTP and PR voting on the same day at the same time. 10% difference in attitude when you have positive voting to negative voting.

That'd be 13 million people in the US, voting differently because they can, not because they feel compelled.

 

[gipper]

Voters keep rewarding the 2 antiquated, highly polarizing Brand Name parties.

It seems to me voters are punishing both parties, first one then the other. They kicked the Dem's to the curb after controlling congress for 40 years. Then kicked the GOP to the curb, then the Dem's again, the GOP again, and now the Dem's again. The establishment is fit to be tied over uppity voters.

I suspect the establishment is controlling the whole process and very happy with the outcome.

The two parties may be colluding with each other for power. Watch as the voters now kick out the Rs for failing to deliver on promises, only to put Ds back in power...which will result in them failing to deliver on promises. Back and forth we go. What results is the establishment continues to empower and enrich themselves, while a majority of Americans get screwed again and again.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why so so many self proclaimed patriots want to introduce a system where a candidate can become our leader while not getting more than half of the votes?

Why stop at 3 viable parties? We could be like Brazil and have 20. That way, a dickhead like Trump could win every time!

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Voters keep rewarding the 2 antiquated, highly polarizing Brand Name parties. They've been the only game in town for my entire life. But they are fractured, corrupt and ineffective. They care only about obtaining and retaining power. They call this "winning". Just like the deviant sex/drug addict Charlie Sheen. But WE are all losing. Losing more each election. The parties have succeeded in polarizing every aspect of governance. Even things like the ACA that should TRANSCEND polarization when it cries out for competent management and repair.

The swings are getting wilder. The fractures in the parties are deeper and the progress in Leadership has come to virtually stand-still. Time to ponder the 2 dynasty parties and euthanize them. With just TWO choices, when they ABANDON principles and stand for NOTHING -- it's just 2 tribes squaring off, pointing fingers, and excusing their bad behavior and ethics with the "They did it first" excuse. NOTHING gets punished anymore. NOTHING is truly unethical, irresponsible or wrong. It's all excusable with the "They did it worse" excuse. Instant absolution. No deed too stupid or devious.

So let me have you ponder the following quotes. So as to CONVINCE the tribal warriors that life would FLOURISH in America with NEW political organizations and leadership.. And that is gonna happen. Because the VAST MAJORITY of America doesn't WANT "more winning" if it means they constantly lose.

The 1st quote from Adams is my all-time favorite on this topic.


There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Party leads to vicious, corrupt and unprofitable legislation, for the sole purpose of defeating party.
JAMES FENIMORE COOPER, The American Democrat

The bosses of the Democratic party and the bosses of the Republican party alike have a closer grip than ever before on the party machines in the States and in the Nation. This crooked control of both the old parties by the beneficiaries of political and business privilege renders it hopeless to expect any far-reaching and fundamental service from either.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT, The Outlook, July 27, 1912

Much indeed to be regretted, party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through what channel to seek it. This difficulty to one, who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented. But such, for wise purposes, it is presumed, is the turbulence of human passions in party disputes, when victory more than truth is the palm contended for.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to Timothy Pickering, July 27, 1795

Saying we should keep the two-party system simply because it is working is like saying the Titanic voyage was a success because a few people survived on life rafts.
EUGENE J. MCCARTHY, Chicago Tribune, September 10, 1978


It is UNDOUBTEDLY time for another revolution. And THIS TIME -- we declare independence from the tyranny of the current 2 party dynasties.
A guy name FlaCalTenn on an obscure Internet Message Board ---- 21 May, 2017

Your up hill battle is corporate media, the educational system, and the close minded voter that believe third party voting is a sin and waste of a vote.

Since 2002 I have been arguing that America need a third party in the House and Senate and at State levels in the Governorships but too many Americans refuse to take a leap of faith and boot the GOP or DNC from power.

The National Media does it bidding of it corporate masters by telling the close minded your only two choices is either Democratic or Republican and those that look at option number three are anti-American and are wasting their vote.

I will say the time is right for the Green amd Libertarian party to strike. In 2018 those two political parties need to make gains by gaining seats in the House and State seats.

The Senate is not happening but gaining twenty seats in the house would start the revolution but let be factual our corporate overlords will not allow this to happen.

A real revolution with no bloodshed will never happen in today times because too many Americans are brainwashed and it would take a generation or two to open the minds and by then you and I are dead.

So the best hope is plant the seeds of change through education and social media and pray that it grows and not killed by the Families that rule our lives...

 

[OldLady]

We should get so lucky.

Not sure it's all about luck. I think there's some basic "structural" truths here about stability and group dynamics. 3 legs on a chair are more stable than 2 obviously -- kind of common sense. I mentioned the finger pointing and absolution for criminal behavior you have when when 2 parties square off for 90 years with no moderating influence from the press or other stabilizers.

THEN -- look at my Avie. I picked it BECAUSE this topic is always a high priority for me. With MULTIPLE choices and "parties" -- it's harder to "reach the bottom" in terms of polarization. Because ----

1) It's harder to collude. Think gerrymandering, and giving up on losing states and districts. Think "plea bargaining" to blackmail each other with ethics and criminal offenses committed by Leadership.

2) It's harder to "spin".. When the Sunday shows and the daily talking points come from 3 or 4 ACTIVE parties, you can't get away with dodging and deflection or HIDING issues that are too sensitive to both parties. Think abuse of the PATRIOT Act Domestic Surveillance program that BOTH love and defend. And which if ABUSED would end the Republic as we know it. (If it hasn't already been abused.)

Actually -- there are NO Liberal or Conservative parties anymore. There are Libertarian and Socialist parties. They stand CONSISTENTLY for principles. Everything else in the middle is just noise and distraction and sports today..

I think it would be lovely. I want to see it.

I think it's going to be really difficult because of the money involved which is what the fight is against ultimately.

In our current presidential system, it would probably mean most presidential elections would be decided in the House and if agreement couldn't be reached there, the country might have to do without a president. Then who would run the executive branch? Who would nominate federal judges? Who would run the military? Diplomatic Corps?

Lots of other possibilities there. You run coalitions once the House/Senate has enough minority party members. Or you do "instant run-off" voting which allows a 1st and 2nd choice.

The rise of 3rd parties and independents is now inevitable. These votes were 6% of the November total. When that reaches 12 or 15% of the pop vote -- you already have "winners" with only 40% or so. So -- that's why this thread. Better get thinking. Because America is not gonna reward EITHER of these amateur hour acts much longer. You had 2 TERRIBLE choices. And then you had 2 experienced 2 term governors who would have MODERATED the tone and turmoil of the Dem/Rep clash. Would have put independent "counsels" into all the key appointments (with a Libertarian bent) But America insisted on "winners"...

The French system is kinda cool--I don't know a lot about it, but there are MANY parties and they are forced to work together and compromise on a platform as the semi-finalists are winnowed. So a lot of folks with different ideas have input into the final selection, and no party has such overriding power over the choices.
If the Libertarian Party had gotten its act together and had a well articulated platform people could visualize, and if Johnson had been the #2 instead of the #1, a lot of people would have taken notice. You worked on the campaign, so YOU knew how to answer the average person's questions, but short of diving deep into political rhetoric on the internet, which Joe Average is NOT going to do, the platform was not clear. How does the Libertarian ideal work in real life? What do those ideas look like in regard to law and order, border control, foreign policy, help for the poor? That should be the mission for the next time.

 

[TNHarley]

Hek, if the other parties would nominate someone decent, we might could make something happen.
Other top two contenders in 16' was a borderline retard and a criminal that thinks destruction of private property is a "civil right"
I totally agree with you flac but damn man... if they cant give decent options, it will ALWAYS be the duopoly.
4 terrible people and they are going to go with the most popular every time..

 

[flacaltenn]

I think it would be lovely. I want to see it.

I think it's going to be really difficult because of the money involved which is what the fight is against ultimately.

In our current presidential system, it would probably mean most presidential elections would be decided in the House and if agreement couldn't be reached there, the country might have to do without a president. Then who would run the executive branch? Who would nominate federal judges? Who would run the military? Diplomatic Corps?

Lots of other possibilities there. You run coalitions once the House/Senate has enough minority party members. Or you do "instant run-off" voting which allows a 1st and 2nd choice.

The rise of 3rd parties and independents is now inevitable. These votes were 6% of the November total. When that reaches 12 or 15% of the pop vote -- you already have "winners" with only 40% or so. So -- that's why this thread. Better get thinking. Because America is not gonna reward EITHER of these amateur hour acts much longer. You had 2 TERRIBLE choices. And then you had 2 experienced 2 term governors who would have MODERATED the tone and turmoil of the Dem/Rep clash. Would have put independent "counsels" into all the key appointments (with a Libertarian bent) But America insisted on "winners"...

Ok, so you're talking about amending the Constitution to allow run offs to choose a president, but even so, the president will come from one of the major parties and the same major party will dominate whatever coalitions are formed in the House and Senate, so what has been gained?

Historically, third party candidates have won far more than 15% of the vote and changed nothing. In our system today, instead of forming separate parties, factions form coalitions within the two parties and bring about change that way. We are seeing this happen in the Democratic Party today as the liberals led by Sanders are forcing the the Party to turn away from the changes the Clintons brought about and to return to its roots.

I'm just talking about leveling the playing field thru Ballot Access Reform and Debate Access. The rest is far fetched. We already have an E-college and you can win easy E-college majorities with only 40 or 45% of the vote. So no real constitutional change is necessary. But we have to STOP TODAY the 2 party collusion to LOCK OUT political opposition. Like that "top 2" primary I discussed in Cali.

It's quite credible for a 3rd party to win. Not a matter of money. It's a change of voter attitude about "winning". Never do I feel that spending weeks of my time getting Libertarian messages out during a Prez cycle is losing. And I'm proud of the candidates we had last time around with Johnson/Weld. Not the best candidate preparation I've ever seen. But I'm proud of the focus on issues and the HUMILITY AND HONESTY of these guys.

As for change from within -- I think you must be joking. Bernie never could win. He SMASHED Clinton in New Hampshire and walked away with the same number of delegates. Bernie ran SOLELY on principle. He wasn't ever expecting to be in contention. And the Repubs were bullied and hijacked by an arrogant money man. That's no reform. I wouldn't doubt that the Repubs are gonna copy the damn Dems and evolve some kind of super delegate deal so THEY don't get hijacked like that again... They WILL PROTECT the brand. And not care a WHIT about what choices you are offered...

Previously you had said you wanted to have a run off vote and that would have required a constitutional amendment, but now you've apparently decided you just want to whine.

Instant Runoff works fine on local and state levels. I don't "back off" a thing. But the way that the Major parties collude to keep ANY competition off the ballot is the much larger issue. The LParty has to spend $Mills and uses 10s of thousands of volunteer hours to collect signatures just to GET on most state ballots. Then the Dem/Reps are there to CHALLENGE US in courts from coast to coast. So we're EXHAUSTED and TAPPED out before the nominations are even put forward. That has to change.

Nonetheless for the past 12 years, the LParty has offered a fine slate of candidates on EVERY US State ballot for the Prez race. And that is a win for us.. AND for general Democracy in the US..

FIX IT !!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

Why so so many self proclaimed patriots want to introduce a system where a candidate can become our leader while not getting more than half of the votes?

Why stop at 3 viable parties? We could be like Brazil and have 20. That way, a dickhead like Trump could win every time!

Well right now, MORE THAN HALF of Americans voted against the "winner". Something like 54%.. And if the "pop vote" totals for either Trump or Clinton INCLUDE the Indie and 3rd parties -- NEITHER of those clowns had a majority.

Of course the goal is to govern. But NOT because more voters "hated the other candidate". It's all about offering CHOICES. And OPENING the dialogue up for HEALTHIER elections that are not about "grabbing pussy" and "dodging sniper fire"... You can get candidates like Bernie who WOULD be able to win if the Dems hadn't crippled him from the outset with their rules.

Just turn the voters away from this concept of "Wasting their Votes" is all that is required. Because there is so much "LOSING" going on -- that no vote is ever wasted....

 

[task0778]

In our current presidential system, it would probably mean most presidential elections would be decided in the House and if agreement couldn't be reached there, the country might have to do without a president. Then who would run the executive branch? Who would nominate federal judges? Who would run the military? Diplomatic Corps?

Lots of other possibilities there. You run coalitions once the House/Senate has enough minority party members. Or you do "instant run-off" voting which allows a 1st and 2nd choice.

The rise of 3rd parties and independents is now inevitable. These votes were 6% of the November total. When that reaches 12 or 15% of the pop vote -- you already have "winners" with only 40% or so. So -- that's why this thread. Better get thinking. Because America is not gonna reward EITHER of these amateur hour acts much longer. You had 2 TERRIBLE choices. And then you had 2 experienced 2 term governors who would have MODERATED the tone and turmoil of the Dem/Rep clash. Would have put independent "counsels" into all the key appointments (with a Libertarian bent) But America insisted on "winners"...

Ok, so you're talking about amending the Constitution to allow run offs to choose a president, but even so, the president will come from one of the major parties and the same major party will dominate whatever coalitions are formed in the House and Senate, so what has been gained?

Historically, third party candidates have won far more than 15% of the vote and changed nothing. In our system today, instead of forming separate parties, factions form coalitions within the two parties and bring about change that way. We are seeing this happen in the Democratic Party today as the liberals led by Sanders are forcing the the Party to turn away from the changes the Clintons brought about and to return to its roots.

I'm just talking about leveling the playing field thru Ballot Access Reform and Debate Access. The rest is far fetched. We already have an E-college and you can win easy E-college majorities with only 40 or 45% of the vote. So no real constitutional change is necessary. But we have to STOP TODAY the 2 party collusion to LOCK OUT political opposition. Like that "top 2" primary I discussed in Cali.

It's quite credible for a 3rd party to win. Not a matter of money. It's a change of voter attitude about "winning". Never do I feel that spending weeks of my time getting Libertarian messages out during a Prez cycle is losing. And I'm proud of the candidates we had last time around with Johnson/Weld. Not the best candidate preparation I've ever seen. But I'm proud of the focus on issues and the HUMILITY AND HONESTY of these guys.

As for change from within -- I think you must be joking. Bernie never could win. He SMASHED Clinton in New Hampshire and walked away with the same number of delegates. Bernie ran SOLELY on principle. He wasn't ever expecting to be in contention. And the Repubs were bullied and hijacked by an arrogant money man. That's no reform. I wouldn't doubt that the Repubs are gonna copy the damn Dems and evolve some kind of super delegate deal so THEY don't get hijacked like that again... They WILL PROTECT the brand. And not care a WHIT about what choices you are offered...

Previously you had said you wanted to have a run off vote and that would have required a constitutional amendment, but now you've apparently decided you just want to whine.

Instant Runoff works fine on local and state levels. I don't "back off" a thing. But the way that the Major parties collude to keep ANY competition off the ballot is the much larger issue. The LParty has to spend $Mills and uses 10s of thousands of volunteer hours to collect signatures just to GET on most state ballots. Then the Dem/Reps are there to CHALLENGE US in courts from coast to coast. So we're EXHAUSTED and TAPPED out before the nominations are even put forward. That has to change.

Nonetheless for the past 12 years, the LParty has offered a fine slate of candidates on EVERY US State ballot for the Prez race. And that is a win for us.. AND for general Democracy in the US..

FIX IT !!!!

With respect, I think you're biting off too much to chew all at once. I think you need to start smaller and let the presidential candidacies wait until your new party is off the ground and has a few reps in state legislatures and in Congress and build up your support as you grow.

 

[FJO]

Voters keep rewarding the 2 antiquated, highly polarizing Brand Name parties.

It seems to me voters are punishing both parties, first one then the other. They kicked the Dem's to the curb after controlling congress for 40 years. Then kicked the GOP to the curb, then the Dem's again, the GOP again, and now the Dem's again. The establishment is fit to be tied over uppity voters.

Solution can be summed up in two words: TERM LIMITS.

 

[FJO]

Voters keep rewarding the 2 antiquated, highly polarizing Brand Name parties. They've been the only game in town for my entire life. But they are fractured, corrupt and ineffective. They care only about obtaining and retaining power. They call this "winning". Just like the deviant sex/drug addict Charlie Sheen. But WE are all losing. Losing more each election. The parties have succeeded in polarizing every aspect of governance. Even things like the ACA that should TRANSCEND polarization when it cries out for competent management and repair.

The swings are getting wilder. The fractures in the parties are deeper and the progress in Leadership has come to virtually stand-still. Time to ponder the 2 dynasty parties and euthanize them. With just TWO choices, when they ABANDON principles and stand for NOTHING -- it's just 2 tribes squaring off, pointing fingers, and excusing their bad behavior and ethics with the "They did it first" excuse. NOTHING gets punished anymore. NOTHING is truly unethical, irresponsible or wrong. It's all excusable with the "They did it worse" excuse. Instant absolution. No deed too stupid or devious.

So let me have you ponder the following quotes. So as to CONVINCE the tribal warriors that life would FLOURISH in America with NEW political organizations and leadership.. And that is gonna happen. Because the VAST MAJORITY of America doesn't WANT "more winning" if it means they constantly lose.

The 1st quote from Adams is my all-time favorite on this topic.


There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Party leads to vicious, corrupt and unprofitable legislation, for the sole purpose of defeating party.
JAMES FENIMORE COOPER, The American Democrat

The bosses of the Democratic party and the bosses of the Republican party alike have a closer grip than ever before on the party machines in the States and in the Nation. This crooked control of both the old parties by the beneficiaries of political and business privilege renders it hopeless to expect any far-reaching and fundamental service from either.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT, The Outlook, July 27, 1912

Much indeed to be regretted, party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through what channel to seek it. This difficulty to one, who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented. But such, for wise purposes, it is presumed, is the turbulence of human passions in party disputes, when victory more than truth is the palm contended for.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to Timothy Pickering, July 27, 1795

Saying we should keep the two-party system simply because it is working is like saying the Titanic voyage was a success because a few people survived on life rafts.
EUGENE J. MCCARTHY, Chicago Tribune, September 10, 1978


It is UNDOUBTEDLY time for another revolution. And THIS TIME -- we declare independence from the tyranny of the current 2 party dynasties.
A guy name FlaCalTenn on an obscure Internet Message Board ---- 21 May, 2017

Love it or hate it, unless we move to a parliamentary system, we will always have a two party system.

Be careful what you wish for. In a multi party parliamentary system the leader of a majority party can become a ruthless dictator.

 

[flacaltenn]

We should get so lucky.

Not sure it's all about luck. I think there's some basic "structural" truths here about stability and group dynamics. 3 legs on a chair are more stable than 2 obviously -- kind of common sense. I mentioned the finger pointing and absolution for criminal behavior you have when when 2 parties square off for 90 years with no moderating influence from the press or other stabilizers.

THEN -- look at my Avie. I picked it BECAUSE this topic is always a high priority for me. With MULTIPLE choices and "parties" -- it's harder to "reach the bottom" in terms of polarization. Because ----

1) It's harder to collude. Think gerrymandering, and giving up on losing states and districts. Think "plea bargaining" to blackmail each other with ethics and criminal offenses committed by Leadership.

2) It's harder to "spin".. When the Sunday shows and the daily talking points come from 3 or 4 ACTIVE parties, you can't get away with dodging and deflection or HIDING issues that are too sensitive to both parties. Think abuse of the PATRIOT Act Domestic Surveillance program that BOTH love and defend. And which if ABUSED would end the Republic as we know it. (If it hasn't already been abused.)

Actually -- there are NO Liberal or Conservative parties anymore. There are Libertarian and Socialist parties. They stand CONSISTENTLY for principles. Everything else in the middle is just noise and distraction and sports today..

I think it would be lovely. I want to see it.

I think it's going to be really difficult because of the money involved which is what the fight is against ultimately.

In our current presidential system, it would probably mean most presidential elections would be decided in the House and if agreement couldn't be reached there, the country might have to do without a president. Then who would run the executive branch? Who would nominate federal judges? Who would run the military? Diplomatic Corps?

Lots of other possibilities there. You run coalitions once the House/Senate has enough minority party members. Or you do "instant run-off" voting which allows a 1st and 2nd choice.

The rise of 3rd parties and independents is now inevitable. These votes were 6% of the November total. When that reaches 12 or 15% of the pop vote -- you already have "winners" with only 40% or so. So -- that's why this thread. Better get thinking. Because America is not gonna reward EITHER of these amateur hour acts much longer. You had 2 TERRIBLE choices. And then you had 2 experienced 2 term governors who would have MODERATED the tone and turmoil of the Dem/Rep clash. Would have put independent "counsels" into all the key appointments (with a Libertarian bent) But America insisted on "winners"...

The French system is kinda cool--I don't know a lot about it, but there are MANY parties and they are forced to work together and compromise on a platform as the semi-finalists are winnowed. So a lot of folks with different ideas have input into the final selection, and no party has such overriding power over the choices.
If the Libertarian Party had gotten its act together and had a well articulated platform people could visualize, and if Johnson had been the #2 instead of the #1, a lot of people would have taken notice. You worked on the campaign, so YOU knew how to answer the average person's questions, but short of diving deep into political rhetoric on the internet, which Joe Average is NOT going to do, the platform was not clear. How does the Libertarian ideal work in real life? What do those ideas look like in regard to law and order, border control, foreign policy, help for the poor? That should be the mission for the next time.

And that's what I'm working on with others --- is policy documentation in language the voters understand.. We have important things on social issues. We agree with 1/2 of what Bernie was all about in terms of Civil Liberties and Foreign Policy. Just can't give Bernie any cred on economy or mathematics or problem solving.

There's a thread in the old Gary Johnson forum that I wrote about Ferguson for example that got distributed during the campaign in a more polished form..

 

[flacaltenn]

Voters keep rewarding the 2 antiquated, highly polarizing Brand Name parties. They've been the only game in town for my entire life. But they are fractured, corrupt and ineffective. They care only about obtaining and retaining power. They call this "winning". Just like the deviant sex/drug addict Charlie Sheen. But WE are all losing. Losing more each election. The parties have succeeded in polarizing every aspect of governance. Even things like the ACA that should TRANSCEND polarization when it cries out for competent management and repair.

The swings are getting wilder. The fractures in the parties are deeper and the progress in Leadership has come to virtually stand-still. Time to ponder the 2 dynasty parties and euthanize them. With just TWO choices, when they ABANDON principles and stand for NOTHING -- it's just 2 tribes squaring off, pointing fingers, and excusing their bad behavior and ethics with the "They did it first" excuse. NOTHING gets punished anymore. NOTHING is truly unethical, irresponsible or wrong. It's all excusable with the "They did it worse" excuse. Instant absolution. No deed too stupid or devious.

So let me have you ponder the following quotes. So as to CONVINCE the tribal warriors that life would FLOURISH in America with NEW political organizations and leadership.. And that is gonna happen. Because the VAST MAJORITY of America doesn't WANT "more winning" if it means they constantly lose.

The 1st quote from Adams is my all-time favorite on this topic.


There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Party leads to vicious, corrupt and unprofitable legislation, for the sole purpose of defeating party.
JAMES FENIMORE COOPER, The American Democrat

The bosses of the Democratic party and the bosses of the Republican party alike have a closer grip than ever before on the party machines in the States and in the Nation. This crooked control of both the old parties by the beneficiaries of political and business privilege renders it hopeless to expect any far-reaching and fundamental service from either.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT, The Outlook, July 27, 1912

Much indeed to be regretted, party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through what channel to seek it. This difficulty to one, who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented. But such, for wise purposes, it is presumed, is the turbulence of human passions in party disputes, when victory more than truth is the palm contended for.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to Timothy Pickering, July 27, 1795

Saying we should keep the two-party system simply because it is working is like saying the Titanic voyage was a success because a few people survived on life rafts.
EUGENE J. MCCARTHY, Chicago Tribune, September 10, 1978


It is UNDOUBTEDLY time for another revolution. And THIS TIME -- we declare independence from the tyranny of the current 2 party dynasties.
A guy name FlaCalTenn on an obscure Internet Message Board ---- 21 May, 2017

Love it or hate it, unless we move to a parliamentary system, we will always have a two party system.

Be careful what you wish for. In a multi party parliamentary system the leader of a majority party can become a ruthless dictator.

And that does not happen with a 2 party system that have no principles??? Why? Did you read my comment about the "Top 2" primary system in Cali? That's ALREADY close to dictatorial..

 

[Hum Dinger]

The power brokers in this country love the two party system. They only have to contribute to two parties to hedge their bets.

We have a abundance of 'third' parties and always have, but none ever gain a traction.

The only way we will ever have a true multi-party system is if the two major parties would divide.

Right now, the Alt-Right has taken over the Republican party and pushed the old school Republicans (RINOS) aside. Meanwhile the Dempcrats are divided between the old school (Progressive/liberals) and Democratic socialists.

The main reason that this is happening is that it's too easy to join a party - you just have to check off a box on your voter registration. Theere's NOTHING to confirm that you actually conform to any standard whatsoever.

Each party should have a narrowly defined party platform or constitution and anyone that tries to join the party should have to agree to that platform. Secondly, anyone who joins a party should have to do volunteer work and make contributions to that party. They should have to prove that they are committed to the party's principals. You should have to be accepted into the party formally.

If that were the case, the Alt-Right people would have to go back to the Liberatarian party (or whatever wingnut party they want), the RINOS could have their Republican party back, the democratic-socialists would have to join the democratic-socialist party and the progressive/liberals could have the Democratic party to themselves.

It would be a whole new ball game. (Except then, the powers that be would have to contribute to 4 parties if they wanted to hedge their bets).

 

[FJO]

Voters keep rewarding the 2 antiquated, highly polarizing Brand Name parties. They've been the only game in town for my entire life. But they are fractured, corrupt and ineffective. They care only about obtaining and retaining power. They call this "winning". Just like the deviant sex/drug addict Charlie Sheen. But WE are all losing. Losing more each election. The parties have succeeded in polarizing every aspect of governance. Even things like the ACA that should TRANSCEND polarization when it cries out for competent management and repair.

The swings are getting wilder. The fractures in the parties are deeper and the progress in Leadership has come to virtually stand-still. Time to ponder the 2 dynasty parties and euthanize them. With just TWO choices, when they ABANDON principles and stand for NOTHING -- it's just 2 tribes squaring off, pointing fingers, and excusing their bad behavior and ethics with the "They did it first" excuse. NOTHING gets punished anymore. NOTHING is truly unethical, irresponsible or wrong. It's all excusable with the "They did it worse" excuse. Instant absolution. No deed too stupid or devious.

So let me have you ponder the following quotes. So as to CONVINCE the tribal warriors that life would FLOURISH in America with NEW political organizations and leadership.. And that is gonna happen. Because the VAST MAJORITY of America doesn't WANT "more winning" if it means they constantly lose.

The 1st quote from Adams is my all-time favorite on this topic.


There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Party leads to vicious, corrupt and unprofitable legislation, for the sole purpose of defeating party.
JAMES FENIMORE COOPER, The American Democrat

The bosses of the Democratic party and the bosses of the Republican party alike have a closer grip than ever before on the party machines in the States and in the Nation. This crooked control of both the old parties by the beneficiaries of political and business privilege renders it hopeless to expect any far-reaching and fundamental service from either.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT, The Outlook, July 27, 1912

Much indeed to be regretted, party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through what channel to seek it. This difficulty to one, who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented. But such, for wise purposes, it is presumed, is the turbulence of human passions in party disputes, when victory more than truth is the palm contended for.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to Timothy Pickering, July 27, 1795

Saying we should keep the two-party system simply because it is working is like saying the Titanic voyage was a success because a few people survived on life rafts.
EUGENE J. MCCARTHY, Chicago Tribune, September 10, 1978


It is UNDOUBTEDLY time for another revolution. And THIS TIME -- we declare independence from the tyranny of the current 2 party dynasties.
A guy name FlaCalTenn on an obscure Internet Message Board ---- 21 May, 2017

Love it or hate it, unless we move to a parliamentary system, we will always have a two party system.

Be careful what you wish for. In a multi party parliamentary system the leader of a majority party can become a ruthless dictator.

And that does not happen with a 2 party system that have no principles??? Why? Did you read my comment about the "Top 2" primary system in Cali? That's ALREADY close to dictatorial..

In a parliamentary system there are no checks and balances. All members of a party must vote as they are told by their leader.

 

[flacaltenn]

Voters keep rewarding the 2 antiquated, highly polarizing Brand Name parties.

It seems to me voters are punishing both parties, first one then the other. They kicked the Dem's to the curb after controlling congress for 40 years. Then kicked the GOP to the curb, then the Dem's again, the GOP again, and now the Dem's again. The establishment is fit to be tied over uppity voters.

Solution can be summed up in two words: TERM LIMITS.

It's not the Leadership that the problem, it's the 2 parties. I'll give you an example. 532 of the 535 members of Congress are irrelevant. Might as well go home. Because they can't LEAD by the rules the parties have established.

This country is LED by only 6 people. Those are the Maj/Min leaders of both houses and the Prez/VicePrez..
You don't get an OFFICE or a Committee assignment or a BILL considered without them. Because they COLLUDE to control EVERY aspect of power in the Legislative Branch. You OPPOSE them or don't support their decisions and you find yourself "primaried out" in your next election..

Legislators have no refuge from that tyranny. No where to go if they become at odds with the PARTY leadership.
This is a bigger issue than "term limits" in terms of OPENING honest debate and getting shit done.

Those assignments and work flow decisions should be shared more BROADLY. And you can get there by electing INdies and 3rd parties to Congress. Folks NOT beholding to party dictators, but folks that the party DICTATORS can't oppose in primaries or affect their funding. With just a HANDFUL of rebels in Congress not answering to Party leadership -- you can control Key Votes and SAY any fucking thing that you WANT to say. No Democrat or Republican has the LUXURY of free speech in Congress anymore..

You folks need to start thinking this way. Because all the old solutions won't work anymore. It's NOT the money or the tenure. It's the GRIP that the Parties have on getting anything done..