Write Review
1,978,091 Total Reviews 3,959 New Reviews
8,407 Users Online

Politics and Religion

Yes. I almost voted for Ross Perot, but then he...
mattradd 40 Reviews 678 reads
posted

said, or did something, I can remember what, that made me change my mind at the last minute. I agree with seriousfun, regarding having multiple parties and a more parliamentary system. I see two benefits to that. The first is knowing what the candidate you're voting for really stands for, though he and his party might collaberate with other parties to block or pass certain legislation. The second is that it seems it would make special interest groups have to work harder to peddle their influence.

Priapus534081 reads

Let's face it : 2 party system is broken. Both political parties are corrupt, ineffective & push the same tired, old hackneyed philosophies.
This q particularly directed toward Dem & GOP posters: how many of you would cast off your partisan affiliations & join a "credible" 3rd political party that would align with your philosophies ? ( yah, I know, credible is a relative term ). Dissatisfation with 2 party system is at all time high; evidenced by fact that a plurality of electorate ( 40%, I think ), label themselves as independents.

I post this as a hypothetical, because a viable 3rd party is highly unlikely to emege. It would be crushed by lobbyists/special interests who control the Dems & GOP.

ReplyQuoteReport
johngaltnh1230 reads

Assuming it represented a preponderance of my views, I would join it, donate to it, volunteer for it, etc.

ReplyQuoteReport
actionalltime1476 reads

I love the idea of them aa they generally run om issues and have far less practicality.

But they usually don't accomplish what they intend. Look at the theoretical ballot with the tea party candidate as the third. In most generic polls, rtepublicans have taken a slight lead. But add the tea bag canidate and the Dems take the lead, Rep's drop to 3rd letting the dems take the election with less than 40% of the vote.

It essential makes that liberal base more powerful, certainlly not the intended result

ReplyQuoteReport
Priapus53931 reads

If a "teabagger" or Sarah Palin were heading a 3rd party run, ( teabagging Sarah Palin--now THERE'S a thought----LOL ! ) the GOP would suffer. This happened in ' 92 when Ross ( nutcase
) Perot ran. If a liberal/progressive headed a 3rd party run, then the Dems would suffer.

Keep in mind---the keys to ANY election are the independent "swing voters". Because of the healthcare debacle & the economy, they're deserting Obama in droves. Certainly looks like the Dems will take it on the chin in 2010, with better than even chance that the GOP will regain control of the House Of Reps. Things could change, but stay tuned.

ReplyQuoteReport
willywonka4u830 reads

...but I seriously doubt enough to take back the House.

ReplyQuoteReport
Snowman391125 reads

Fiscally conservative

Socially more liberal

ReplyQuoteReport
little phil1257 reads

Isn't that pretty much the Libertarian platform?  Legalizing pot aside, of course.

I'd even be game for a single party system, if we could get one that wasn't wrapped in corruption.  Oh, but to only dream...

ReplyQuoteReport
Snowman39788 reads

the libertarian party is not currently viable.

ReplyQuoteReport
GaGambler987 reads

but they need to shed their "wacko" image and they also need to be less inflexible to be a viable party.

Currently any member of their party that doesn't adhere to every plank of the party platform becomes an outcast, not a very good way to encourage independent thought, or attract the type of people that would be otherwise inclined to support them. People like me actually.

ReplyQuoteReport
Snowman39778 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
SouthernJezebel1371 reads

I am Libertarian, and dont see myself as a "whacko"...at all.

ReplyQuoteReport
seriousfun777 reads

We need at least four. And I would support a parlimentary system - at least for the House, so all sides can be represented there.

The republican/looney-birther-teabagger split guarantees Dem gains in 2010 and probably 2012. The Dems are actually (when you can discern an actual position or backbone from them) very centrist these days. The PETA/anti-global left should have real representation too.

I have never belonged to a party. Every one of them but the looney-right would get some of my votes, voting for the candidate and issue instead of the image.

ReplyQuoteReport
Makwa1155 reads

All third parties do a poor job of organizing.  
They put a name on the top of the ticket, but they put very little effort to recruit candidates for the lower offices.  If they do get elected they get their agenda shut down because of no allies in the legislative branch.

ReplyQuoteReport
fasteddie511033 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
mattradd679 reads

said, or did something, I can remember what, that made me change my mind at the last minute. I agree with seriousfun, regarding having multiple parties and a more parliamentary system. I see two benefits to that. The first is knowing what the candidate you're voting for really stands for, though he and his party might collaberate with other parties to block or pass certain legislation. The second is that it seems it would make special interest groups have to work harder to peddle their influence.

ReplyQuoteReport
Priapus53740 reads

then came back as a candidate. I think he claimed he saw "Black U.N. Helicopters" harassing him at his daughter's wedding ( the same type of thinking prevalent among today's Teabaggers"-----;). If memory serves me correctly,he also came across as a really rude, arrogant prick during the '92 debates.It's a pity, because if not for those indiscretions,he woulda gotten a higher share than the 19% of the electorate he eventually got.
( Still an impressive figure,but not as high as Teddy Roosevlet,who collected 27% of the electorate share, running on the 3rd party "bullmoose ticket", during the 1912 Presidential election. )

-- Modified on 12/16/2009 5:42:42 PM

ReplyQuoteReport
mattradd1181 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
willywonka4u667 reads

I heard that Bush Sr. threatened him saying he would ruin his daughter's wedding. Wouldn't surprise me really.

Perot was crazy as hell, but he was also right.

Related Link: Perot was right.

ReplyQuoteReport
willywonka4u943 reads

Back in 1990s I campaigned for Harry Brown, the then Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party. But I ended up voting for Ross Perot. Come 2000 I voted for Nader, and never apologized for it.

I've been a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party, the Reform Party, and the Green Party. I still consider myself more of a Green than a Democrat.

Here's what I've realized. Third parties are useless in this country. Not that some of them don't have great ideas. Many of them do. But they are politically useless. We have a winner-takes-all election system, and in such a system that naturally leads to a 2 party state. If we had proportional representation like many European nations do, then we could have MANY viable 3rd parties. It would also make our politics far more civil, as negative campaigning would become a poor election strategy.

But what I've realized most of all is that if a 2 party system is useless, not even a year after we've thrown the bums out, then I think it's time for us to seriously rethink representative government.

The time has come for a form of direct democracy to put a check on our representative democracy. All of us need to have the ability to remove a President or member of Congress from office by popular vote, and be able to do this at any time. We need the ability to veto any law passed by Congress. And we need the ability to write our own laws.

ReplyQuoteReport
Makwa1069 reads

Direct democracy on a national level is not practical.

ReplyQuoteReport
seriousfun1047 reads

California's failed experiment with our Propositions has not exactly been a shining example of direct democracy. Paid signature takers, un-constitutional language in most props, out of state money...the system is just plain wrong. Prop 8, whether you support it or not, was bought and paid for by wealthy out of state interests and never would be law without it; our CA state lottery was put on the ballot by the makers of the lottery machines...the list is endless (and I recommend that in CA and all states with props we all refuse to sign petitions in parking lots).

Current redistricting reform may help, but CA's state legislature just plain doesn't work. We need to break that gridlock, and paradoxically gain more control over our laws and taxes by giving more power to the legislature. It's a swamp right now, but it could be better.

We need to require that our lawmakers accept no money from anyone outside their disctrict, and accept it only when in their disctrict (not while they are in Sacramento). We absolutely need to loosen the 2/3 majority to change tax law, in certain circumstances. We need to require that the budget be balance, in certain circumstances. We need to reasonably loosen term limits (not to create career politicians, but to create experienced legislators).

There is a push here to go to an open primary. This might help, by encouraging the promotion to general elections of candidates that represent the views  of a wide variety of their constituents, not just the exreme base that they must play to in order to make it through our current partisan primaries.

ReplyQuoteReport
ElGuapo5051061 reads

I joined a viable 3rd party back in 1993, when I became a dues paying member of the Libertarian Party.

Unfortunately, most similar thinking people have not joined me and continue to believe in the "lesser of two evils" Dem/Rep dominated system.

A Big Government Marxist paradigm or a Big Government Bible based theocracy.

No thanks.

ReplyQuoteReport
SouthernJezebel778 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
ElGuapo5051244 reads

Common sense choice. If only 50 million more voters would see the same sense.

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!