Agnostic.com

17 2

Why can't the U.S. have a strong third political Party?

Really, I get the shives (shivers plus hives) when I think about the far right or the far left and their ideas. To me they are equally crazy. Bring each side a step or two towards the middle and I still think they are crazy assholes but perhaps may not be totally existing outside of reality. Come in several steps more and a reasonable person might be able to have a perfuntory conversation with them and many many more steps in towards the middle is where you might find a real person and a concerned citizen in my humble opinon, that person is me and I'm sure there are others.

Why can't a central party exist as a real thing in the U.S. I would be sooooooo behind it.

iamjc 7 Apr 3
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

17 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Politcal parties get the bigbucks. You need financial backing for advertising, campaign costs. Political contributions come from the titans of industry, tobacco lobbyists, the NRA and religious groups have their own agendas. Everyone wants a piece of the pie. 3rd parties helped elect trumpty dumpty.

2

It could exist, given the right leaders, strategizers, and funders. But don;t call Democrats far left -- nothing could be father from the truth.

1

Please list ideas which you consider to be 'far left'. What is the far left vision for the country?What party represents the far left? I'm not asking rhetorically. I'm curious if we'd find a consensus on what constitutes a far left party.

2

You don't need a new central party, but a new progressive party, like under Bernie Sanders. A central party between the Democratic Party (right wing) and the Republican Party ( bat-shit crazy anti modernist reactionary conservative religious lunatic right wing) would still place it somewhere between right wing and bat-shit crazy right wing, so that's hardly an advance. Try a social democratic Bernie type party, and maybe the trump people, who don't give a damn about left or right or the two parties, as well as progressive folk in America, of whom there are huge huge numbers, might vote for it and you might see some real change.

Also try..
Compulsory voting
A fair and independently run voting system, and
Reform of donations to political parties.

Your democracy, as an electoral system, is a joke. You are a role model to no one. You'll get nowhere without serious reform.

0

Except for some local elections (school board, city council) in some places, our elections are single-representative districts, which are inherently winner-take-all. When there can only be one winner per district, support in each district tends to coalesce around two candidates/parties. A third party or candidate will tend to draw support away from whichever other candidate/party they're closer to. The only way a third party could really accomplish anything is if they had a strong regional base, where they might win elections within that region.

1

The Dems are nowhere near far left and are becoming more right all the time. Bernie was way to far left for the party, he is the closest thing to a left wing leader the Dems have had in a long time.

1

The system isn't designed for a third party. It only needs 2 to fulfill the agenda. I mean illusion.

"Out Of The Illusion " Group

1

Let me explain why we don't need more parties because all views are represented. Here's how it works: in every state there are many lobbies, each has a caucus. A chamber of commerce caucus, a Hispanic caucus, a small business caucus, a handicap caucus...you get the idea, everyone is represented. They all appoint delegates and meet separately at convention where they decide what will be in each platform. Later delegates from each caucus meet with the platform committee of the Democratic Party and hash out what will be in the platform, what will be taken up after the election and what will not be. Later, these same platform committees will meet at the national level and decide what goes into the platform there. The GOP does the same thing, at one time often having similar views of same subjects-at least until radicals took over the GOP in the 90's. In any case, all views are submitted and represented. You may feel this is not true because yours did not gain acceptance but a look at history will show that all great ideas come to fruition in time depending on the merits. No, it is not particularly quick or pretty, but it would be a lot slower with 3 or more major parties. Also, I am tired of people saying the Democratic party is radical, please point out a radical position they espouse.

Funny you should ask, TPP was fought by a good part of the party and was not included in Hillary's platform. Obama greatly reduced the troops overseas by hundreds of thousands. True, he bombed several countries with drones to keep ISSL under control but Congress refused to take up any of these issues even though it was their job. They did so because they could criticize Obama no matter what he did. What is YOUR alternate plan? Hillary was somewhat hawkish but Bernie was not. The right wing has no plan for universal health insurance, no plan to fund social security, no plan to save pensions, no plan for heroin treatment, no plan to raise minimum wage and no plan for DACA. THE DNC has set policy for all these. This is a small example of the difference, I could write all day.

You want to take corporate money out of politics? Vote a super majority to the Democrats.

@clarkatticus, oh, the corporatocrats who don't care about Citizen's United and don't plan on doing anything about it?!

@clarkatticus, oh, the corporatocrats who don't care about Citizen's United and don't plan on doing anything about it?!

@clarkatticus, oh, the corporatocrats who don't care about Citizen's United and don't plan on doing anything about it?!

Perhaps you have been watching the wrong channel. The Democratic Party has ending Citizens United on their first up agenda. Maybe you didn't notice it has been a GOP majority since the Case was decided. EVERY Democrat candidate and elected politician is against it. Oddly, the GOP is for it.

@clarkatticus, no, actually, most Democrats are completely ignoring Citizen's United because they get almost as much money from the ruling as Republicans.

No Tara, they get this money because the feel the have to so they can compete. Bernie showed that it could be done grass-roots but not every candidate has his appeal so they use corporate money to put adds on TV. ALL Democrats have promised to vote against Citizens United and promised to be transparent. Hillary used a lot of corporate money but disclosed every donor and audited all progressive PAC's for bad donations. The GOP didn't even try.

@clarkatticus, stop buying the propaganda. A policy statement means less than action, and their actions belie their words.

Well Tara, I would rather have a party against Citizens United ON THEIR PLATFORM than vote for a party that not only didn't but advocated for it. This "pox on both parties" is a Russian bot program going on for years. It's in memes on FB and Twitter and other social media. Seems a lot of people have fallen for it. At some point in time you have to trust someone or all you have is anarchy. I trust Bernie and anyone he supports.

@clarkatticus, oh, you're so laughably ignorant. There's really no point in voting if it's only between corporate choice D and R. It's only an ILLUSION of choice, certainly not a democratic republic.

Tara, that's what the Russians want you to do, by voting 3rd party you get the exact opposite of what you want, an oligarchy. Right now the 1% is in control, the only party with the ability and common sense to vote away Citizens United is the Democratic party, no other party will do it. Sorry Tara, you fell for it hook line and sinker. The Russians have tried to divide the Dems too. Even Bernie warned us about Russian memes partial to his cause.

0

As long as they seek power it doesn't matter how many parties we have.
I would like to see a party who is genuinely looking out for the best for all of us not in the accumulaion of power. Where we are really treated equally, where justice is not only blind but fair as well. I guess that's why it's called the American Dream, it only happens when you sleep. I may as well be looking for Utopia, Shang-ri-la, or Star Trek. Too many people seek to rule over others, be it their household or neighboors or world, and are never satisfied with what they have.

2

I agree. My hope is that all the new young people running for office now, to protest Trump, will make a difference.

0

The worst thing anyone can do is to do nothing. Our electoral process is an example of that. Voter turnout gets worse at each election. The worst thing anyone can do to their country is not participate. The people always get the government they deserve.

[npr.org]

1

I ask this all the time. As an Independent, I'm with you - I can't stand either extreme, although the right is definitely the worse of the two choices. But still... a lot of common sense seems to have gone away as a result of all of this polarization.

1

We don't have a third party because corporations don't want to write a third check.

3

The strong third exists. It’s the disaffected, the 90 million people that didn’t vote. They decided the election. Nobody else. When you don’t show up to do your job this is what happens.

1

There all lying self-centred wankers.

2

You are not alone on that thought. Our politics are totally corrupt, doesn't matter what side you choose. It seems to me that a majority of folks feel like they have to pick a side or attach labels/names of organizations etc to themselves. When asked what I am or who I associate with, I often respond by saying...that I'm just a human being.

6

We don't HAVE a "far Left" party in the USA. We have Right Wing Fascists (Republicans) and Right-leaning Centrists (Democrats). That's it.

I was raised next door to Canada. I'm Green.

@Beach_slim, the Democrats cheated Bernie Sanders, who is a Democratic Socialist, out of the nomination. The party is pro-war, deported more foreign nationals than any other administration in history under Obama, voted against Universal Healthcare, and is funded by Wall Street.

They're a fucking disaster of Right Wing moron ideas. Hillary's campaign platform was nearly identical to Ronald Reagan's. THAT is how far to the political Right they've moved. And the only people who can't see it are Americans, because the entirety of the mainstream media here is owned by mega-corporations that have been veering Right the whole bloody time.

Learn another language. Read some real European press. Or at least the English editions.

@Beach_slim, holy hell, I actually agree with most of what Jorj said! Except we don't have a far Left party, the Green Party and Democratic Socialist Party are both considered moderate everywhere in the First World but the USA.

@Beach_slim, Bernie is a registered Independent who caucases with the Democrats because they're not Reich-Wing nutjobs who want to turn tRump into ein fuhrer, like half the Republican Party.

@Beach_slim, the ACA offers a small subsidy to help people with disadvantages, both economic and health, buy healthcare from PRIVATE insurers. It is a complicated, fucked up "gimme" to the health insurance industry. That's Capitalism run amuck, not socialism.

@Beach_slim, only because SOME states expanded Medicare. Many more people are still dying from lack of medical care in the self-proclaimed "richest country in the world." Not to mention medical expenses being the leading cause of bankruptcy.

Which almost NEVER happens in civilized nations such as Canada and most of Europe.

@Beach_slim, odd thing, free healthcare helps every other economy that had it.

@Beach_slim, yeah, because of interference from the USA. Bad example.

@Beach_slim, that the USA have the moral courage to not pick on the little guy. I'm not holding my breath, the USA always acts the bully in international relations.

@Beach_slim, Because, unless you're a refugee, the immigration criteria are higher. I'm actually working on relocating to Mexico, my Spanish is tolerable already. As for "anti-American," that's only to people like you who have some Ayn Rand-ish ideas on what an American should be, and she was originally RUSSIAN, may I remind you.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:49679
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.