The Next Model of American Politics.

[Hum Dinger]

Mathematically, if you vote for a third party your vote actually counts more than if you vote for one of the major parties!

 

[toomuchtime_]

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 !!!!

No one is shutting you out of debates or ballots. You have been unsuccessful because you have weak candidates who cannot organize effective election campaigns.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

I'm not wishing for it, I'm just stating a fact that under our present system third parties and dissenting factions within the two parties serve the same function, to help modify the positions of the two major parties as the Tea Party did to the Republicans and the Sanders supporters are doing to the Democrats.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

In a multi party parliamentary system, it is almost always necessary to form coalitions of several parties to form a government, so the junior members of the coalition serve as checks on the larger members of the coalition and can threaten to bring the government down forcing new elections.

 

[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.

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..

Term limits correctly devised and properly enforced would eliminate contemporaneous alliance among the six worthies you mention.

By strict term limits I mean ten years of service in public life and then justify your existence by getting off the government teat. If six years of being in the Senate was not enough for you run for the House and earn two terms before you are out or go home and get a job. If you are in the House, and hd your ten years, go home and get a job.
Be content that being an ex senator or an ex representative the law gave you more time to enrich yourself at the public trough than it gave the president.
And rest assured that after ten years you have inflicted all the damage you possibly could.

 

[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.

In a multi party parliamentary system, it is almost always necessary to form coalitions of several parties to form a government, so the junior members of the coalition serve as checks on the larger members of the coalition and can threaten to bring the government down forcing new elections.

Coalitions are not necessary,because they are nothing but invitations for backstabbing.

In a multi party system there should be run off elections. The party placed last should be out of further contention. This should go on until a party gets 50% +1 of the votes.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

In a multi party parliamentary system, it is almost always necessary to form coalitions of several parties to form a government, so the junior members of the coalition serve as checks on the larger members of the coalition and can threaten to bring the government down forcing new elections.

Coalitions are not necessary,because they are nothing but invitations for backstabbing.

In a multi party system there should be run off elections. The party placed last should be out of further contention. This should go on until a party gets 50% +1 of the votes.

No, in a parliamentary system, coalitions serve as a check on the power of the major parties. Presidential systems such as we have, parliamentary systems such as the British have and hybrid systems such as the French have can all work and I see no reason why we would benefit from changing our system.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Yup. Citizens United and lobbyists influence means you'll NEVER see a viable third party. Publicly finance elections and get ALL outside money OUT, you have a shot.

 

[FJO]

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.

In a multi party parliamentary system, it is almost always necessary to form coalitions of several parties to form a government, so the junior members of the coalition serve as checks on the larger members of the coalition and can threaten to bring the government down forcing new elections.

Coalitions are not necessary,because they are nothing but invitations for backstabbing.

In a multi party system there should be run off elections. The party placed last should be out of further contention. This should go on until a party gets 50% +1 of the votes.

No, in a parliamentary system, coalitions serve as a check on the power of the major parties. Presidential systems such as we have, parliamentary systems such as the British have and hybrid systems such as the French have can all work and I see no reason why we would benefit from changing our system.

Obviously, you have not read what I said. If all the lesser parties are out by legal elimination, there should be no reason for coalitions, which, as history repeatedly shows, are noting but excuse for back stabbing,

 

[flacaltenn]

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).

Your solution to declaring party is a good exercise. MORE folks are declaring Independent. In fact, very soon, perhaps this year -- there will be MORE Independents than the sum total of both Damn Parties.

Nominations and Primaries should be a PARTY responsibility and effort. Let the Independents have a slate of "all other choices" if they don't want to rely on the 2 Brand Name Parties. The LParty doesn't even USE local primary polling to choose their candidates. There's a grass roots level nomination of delegates to convention and the candidates are CHOSEN THERE... If you''re gonna rely on parties, let THEM be responsible for choosing their candidates. No monkey business of "open primaries" where Dems and Repubs "cross over" to monkey the opposition nomination procress. Not "Top 2" system where one of the Dynasty parties can literally wipe out ALL the opposition choices on the General Election ballot...

The only reason we HAVE primaries is because voters RELY on the 2 major parties to DICTATE the choices...

 

[RightyTighty]

Mathematically, if you vote for a third party your vote actually counts more than if you vote for one of the major parties!

Dem vote = 50% chance. GOP vote = 50% chance. Third-party vote = 0% chance. Go back to a real school, Jr.

 

[flacaltenn]

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 !!!!

No one is shutting you out of debates or ballots. You have been unsuccessful because you have weak candidates who cannot organize effective election campaigns.

Sorry man. That doesn't fly. TWO successful 2 term governors of New Mexico and Massachusetts is a VALID choice. And their honesty and humility SHOULD have been an asset in a year of 2 MONSTROUS arrogant and flawed choices...

As for the debates -- If your candidates are on enough state ballots to THEORETICALLY win in the E-college -- You've got no reason in HELL to exclude them from the National Debates.

 

[flacaltenn]

Mathematically, if you vote for a third party your vote actually counts more than if you vote for one of the major parties!

Dem vote = 50% chance. GOP vote = 50% chance. Third-party vote = 0% chance. Go back to a real school, Jr.

Not really great analysis here. Because with 1 and 2% margins, the winners are often determined by the Indie and 3rd party votes. In fact, over 6% voted AGAINST both Clinton and Trump in the last election. You provide MORE CHOICES and clearly the Indies will flock to them. Making Indies and 3rd Parties MORE powerful in determining who can "win". But more important, having to WIN those 3rd party and Indie votes, the deviants in the Dem/Rep dynasties will HAVE to discuss things other than the character or morals of each other..

 

[OldLady]

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).

Glancing through some comments about a multi-party system, the one thing that gave me pause was, with three or four parties, someone can get elected who is supported by much less than half the people. Of course, at this point, Trump's pretty much at that point of his own volition, but it would be good if at least at the outset, about half or more of the voters wanted the person.

 

[RightyTighty]

Mathematically, if you vote for a third party your vote actually counts more than if you vote for one of the major parties!

Dem vote = 50% chance. GOP vote = 50% chance. Third-party vote = 0% chance. Go back to a real school, Jr.

Not really great analysis here. Because with 1 and 2% margins, the winners are often determined by the Indie and 3rd party votes. In fact, over 6% voted AGAINST both Clinton and Trump in the last election. You provide MORE CHOICES and clearly the Indies will flock to them. Making Indies and 3rd Parties MORE powerful in determining who can "win". But more important, having to WIN those 3rd party and Indie votes, the deviants in the Dem/Rep dynasties will HAVE to discuss things other than the character or morals of each other..

Name the last Third-Party to win anything that mattered a damn? I'll be waiting, for a very long, long time.

 

[OldLady]

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).

Your solution to declaring party is a good exercise. MORE folks are declaring Independent. In fact, very soon, perhaps this year -- there will be MORE Independents than the sum total of both Damn Parties.

Nominations and Primaries should be a PARTY responsibility and effort. Let the Independents have a slate of "all other choices" if they don't want to rely on the 2 Brand Name Parties. The LParty doesn't even USE local primary polling to choose their candidates. There's a grass roots level nomination of delegates to convention and the candidates are CHOSEN THERE... If you''re gonna rely on parties, let THEM be responsible for choosing their candidates. No monkey business of "open primaries" where Dems and Repubs "cross over" to monkey the opposition nomination procress. Not "Top 2" system where one of the Dynasty parties can literally wipe out ALL the opposition choices on the General Election ballot...

The only reason we HAVE primaries is because voters RELY on the 2 major parties to DICTATE the choices...

I've always been an Independent and nowhere I've lived could I vote in a primary. That SUCKS. That should change and be nationwide. If more Independents had been allowed to vote in the primaries, I don't think we would have had the two candidates we wound up with.

 

[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.

Yup. Citizens United and lobbyists influence means you'll NEVER see a viable third party. Publicly finance elections and get ALL outside money OUT, you have a shot.

The money is FAR less a concern than the Collusion between the parties to carve and divide the electorate and raise BARRIERS to other choices on the ballot...

This election was maybe the LAST election where any money mattered. Because Clinton FAR outspent Trump and Trump disrupted the entire media. Top coverage was his for FREE -- by just bullying and being outrageous.

You're just wasting donations on TV ads, focus groups, interior campaign polling, High paid PR consultants and buying "likes" on Facebook. Doesn't matter any more really. Trump proved that when he hijacked the Repub party and slapped around any Republicans.

The lesson was -- being disruptive "trumps" money. But not disruptive in the way that Trump did it. Just slapping around the abuses of the 2 party Dynasty --- will get you notice and votes. Because --- LORD KNOWS -- right now -- the majority of voters want to slap the bejesus out of BOTH parties....

 

[flacaltenn]

I floated a proposal in LP campaign circles to have Gary Johnson hang glide into a couple campaign events. It was risky, but Gary is a triathlete and had already broken up his body doing very risky activities. There would be press at EVERY subsequent event. Guarandamteed...

 

[flacaltenn]

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).

Your solution to declaring party is a good exercise. MORE folks are declaring Independent. In fact, very soon, perhaps this year -- there will be MORE Independents than the sum total of both Damn Parties.

Nominations and Primaries should be a PARTY responsibility and effort. Let the Independents have a slate of "all other choices" if they don't want to rely on the 2 Brand Name Parties. The LParty doesn't even USE local primary polling to choose their candidates. There's a grass roots level nomination of delegates to convention and the candidates are CHOSEN THERE... If you''re gonna rely on parties, let THEM be responsible for choosing their candidates. No monkey business of "open primaries" where Dems and Repubs "cross over" to monkey the opposition nomination procress. Not "Top 2" system where one of the Dynasty parties can literally wipe out ALL the opposition choices on the General Election ballot...

The only reason we HAVE primaries is because voters RELY on the 2 major parties to DICTATE the choices...

I've always been an Independent and nowhere I've lived could I vote in a primary. That SUCKS. That should change and be nationwide. If more Independents had been allowed to vote in the primaries, I don't think we would have had the two candidates we wound up with.

You could do that in an "open primary" state. But the problem with open primaries is --- If you live in Alabama and you are a Repub or Cali and you are a Dem -- if you're SMART -- you'll just jump to the opposition ballot and select the "weakest" candidate.

In fact, I voted Primaries TWICE last year. Once at State LParty convention for the candidates I wanted. And again on the Official primary day. I could walk into a polling place and declare myself either Dem or Repub and have fun monkey-wrenching and ruining their nomination process. Very cool feeling, but it needs to stop...

So AGAIN -- nominations should be a PARTY affair. Not a free for all.. Independents would have the most OPTIONS voting in the "other" pool...

 

[RightyTighty]

I'm sure the long list of important Third-Party wins will be here soon??? Anybody?