Third Party has got to STOP!

[Latopazora]

We need the whole third party thing to stop! I don't care if I share more ideas with the libertarian than the republican, I'll always vote republican! To vote third party is throwing away a vote. It happened with Clinton/Dole with Ross Parole elections and the Obama/McCain elections with Bob Barr. McCain didn't lose because Palin, he lost because Bob Barr took away votes. The only time third party helped us was during the Bush/Kerry elections with Ralph Nadar- who took votes away from the democrats.
Had Bob Barr simply stepped down, McCain would be our president today and we would be in a much better situation. Had Hoffman gone in as a republican, he would've gotten more support from the GOP.
This is why people need to stop voting third party, the vote needs to be given to the republican, so the democrat wouldn't win.  

[Mythspeak]

You have many great points, but if Republicans are going to be effectively Democrats light and grow government and spend like drunken sailors it's only inevitable that people vote for a third party that represents fiscal responsibility and Constitutional values. My hope is that Republicans in power get the message sooner rather than later so we can reverse these country dooming policies and spending coming out of Washington.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Latopazora

We need the whole third party thing to stop! I don't care if I share more ideas with the libertarian than the republican, I'll always vote republican! To vote third party is throwing away a vote. It happened with Clinton/Dole with Ross Parole elections and the Obama/McCain elections with Bob Barr. McCain didn't lose because Palin, he lost because Bob Barr took away votes. The only time third party helped us was during the Bush/Kerry elections with Ralph Nadar- who took votes away from the democrats.
Had Bob Barr simply stepped down, McCain would be our president today and we would be in a much better situation. Had Hoffman gone in as a republican, he would've gotten more support from the GOP.
This is why people need to stop voting third party, the vote needs to be given to the republican, so the democrat wouldn't win.

McCain did not lose because of Bob Barr. McCain lost by 10 million votes, Bob Barr received 500,000 votes. Bob Barr could have received ten times as many votes as he did, and still get less than McCain's margin of defeat. McCain was beaten by two chief factors. First, there was his inability to embrace his passionate independent streak. This was largely a response to his fear of alienating conservative voters. But, secondly, there were a lot of externalities thrust on the campaign by a GOP that just. . . can't. . . stop. . . alienating. . . Americans. Bush made huge inroads on the Hispanic vote in 2000 and 2004. Those were wiped out by the simple-minded anti-Mexican "no amnesty" uprising in the GOP as a response to CIR. Goodbye Hispanic voters. Bank failures probably didn't help McCain's appeal to worried suburban voters, but neither did Sarah Palin referring to rural southern and western Virginia as "real Virgina," which alienated suburban northern Virginians. Bush carried Arab and Muslim voters in 2000, we can all figure out what happened there. Of course, the GOP's appeal to minorities wasn't helped much by incidents like George Allen's macaca comment in 2006.

How's it all tie in? Third parties aren't your problem. Your problem is the exclusionary politics practiced by particular factions of the right. Politics is about addition, not subtraction. You don't win by driving people out, you win by bringing people in. That's why the Democrats have a majority today. They ditched the purity police nonsense and started running more moderate candidates. Bob Casey of PA is pro-life. Jim Webb of VA and John Tester of MT are pro-gun. Then you have more budget-minded Dems, like Baucus of MT. Is it pure liberal? No. But it's a huge majority right now. So, the GOP has a choice. Continue the politics of exclusion, the next phase of which is going to involve purging moderates, or reverse this trend and start bringing people into the party.  

[Skibblez]

i think it's also important to point out, that a third party creates a good balancing point between the 2 larger parties, it kinda keeps them in check so to speak. and the original founding fathers of america didn't support the idea of a bipartisan government, because they could see what would happen down the road... 2 parties fighting over power with their politics instead of actually doing what the american people want/what's best for the people. i actually wish that a third party would come into play as a stronger presence than what they are today. so instead of 2 parties being divided against each other, we could kinda have some checks and balances... be nice to see the senate floor divided 33% 33% 33%, instead of today's nearly 50/50  

[Lord Bitememan]

Skibblez

i think it's also important to point out, that a third party creates a good balancing point between the 2 larger parties, it kinda keeps them in check so to speak. and the original founding fathers of america didn't support the idea of a bipartisan government, because they could see what would happen down the road... 2 parties fighting over power with their politics instead of actually doing what the american people want/what's best for the people. i actually wish that a third party would come into play as a stronger presence than what they are today. so instead of 2 parties being divided against each other, we could kinda have some checks and balances... be nice to see the senate floor divided 33% 33% 33%, instead of today's nearly 50/50

Of course, that depends heavily on which founding father you look at. Washington didn't like political parties, but Madison did and in Federalist 10 he lays out the basic theory for American political parties. He writes:

Quote:

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

In so stating he is laying out a basic premise of what our two party system does: it takes broad and diverse interests into society and channels them into a more broad-based political coalition that does not grant undue influence to any one particular interest.

So, it's important to remember that the founding fathers were men of diverse opinions, and the position of one doesn't necessarily reflect the opinion of all. This is especially true in the case of political parties. George Washington hated them, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison built one.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

You do realize the republican party was a third party?  

[Skibblez]

Rainbowfied Mouse

You do realize the republican party was a third party?

yup yup, if my memory serves me right, old abe lincoln was the first republican president... woot for republicans...
and don't get me wrong, i see the importance of having different parties... if there were no parties, then capital hill would be a big jumbled up mess of opinions. i'm just think the 2 need a 3rd one to keep them in check, so that instead of 2 parties just fighting to get power over the other, they would actually have to try to do what's best for the people, instead of themselves and their own interests. the government was set up on a principle of 3 branches keeping each other in check for good reasons, and america would greatly benifit if the parties did the same.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Skibblez

Rainbowfied Mouse

You do realize the republican party was a third party?

yup yup, if my memory serves me right, old abe lincoln was the first republican president... woot for republicans...
and don't get me wrong, i see the importance of having different parties... if there were no parties, then capital hill would be a big jumbled up mess of opinions. i'm just think the 2 need a 3rd one to keep them in check, so that instead of 2 parties just fighting to get power over the other, they would actually have to try to do what's best for the people, instead of themselves and their own interests. the government was set up on a principle of 3 branches keeping each other in check for good reasons, and america would greatly benifit if the parties did the same.

Who's to say that would work out to the betterment of the people, though. Who's to say adding an additional party wouldn't just turn into 3 parties fighting for power? In all likelihood, if a 3rd party were to achieve parity with the other 2, you'd end up with 2 parties that get about 50% of what they want, and 1 party that gets 100% of what it wants. Consider, for argument's sake, that our 3 parties are the Dems, Repubs, and the Green Party. Well, the Greens would occupy the far left, the Repubs the right, and the Dems would become the center. Liberal policies would get passed when the Dems join the Greens, more center policies would get passed when the Dems join the Repubs, but in either instance the Dems would get to call the shots. So, it's not so much that it advantages the people, it just advantages the faction that finds itself in the ideological center of the balance of power. Consider, also, the grossly disproportionate outcomes this could produce. Consider if the 33% Greens and 33% Repubs attained their seats by carrying nearly 100% of their districts, but the 33% Dems won tight plurality elections for their seats? That means the minority of voters end up having the power-broker faction in government.

The truth is the people have the form of government they've worked for. If you have a general public that would rather vote for American Idol than Congress, you will get the Congress that the people that care to vote elect. If unions vote, you will get Congressmen who represent the unions. If bankers vote, you will get congressmen who represent the bankers. People think politics is boring. So, they don't bother to get educated about it and vote. As long as people would rather have fun than good governance, it doesn't matter how many parties you put in Washington. They'll all suck.  

[Elf4God]

I totally agree with you. We can't afford to lose votes of upright people to parties that won't get a candidate elected in the forseeable future.  

[COMANDER COON]

ill add that the people in the republican party has not changed only the people running for republicans so instead of splintering of the great American tree tape it back up and get these politicians straight