Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: Are two parties enough?

Bigthink — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:38:56 +0100

I believe that Ralph Nader took enough (Florida) Democratic votes in 2000 to throw the election to George W. Bush. It is certainly true that Ross Parot captured enough Republican (and Independent) votes in 1992 to elect Bill Clinton.

Republicans think Parot gave the Presidency to Bill Clinton, one of the worst Presidents ever, while Democrats blame Nader for allowing George W.Bush to sneak into the White House, and they consider him to be the worst President in history.

Regardless of the merits of the last two presidents, it is a fact that two of our Country's last four presidential election's outcomes have been determined by the presence of a third party candidate. And, though seemingly remote at this moment, the possibility of a last-minute third party candidate emerging still exists for the 2008 election, which would make it three of the last five.

Enough of these marginally elected Presidents who half the Country thinks is the 'worst President ever'.

I think the Country is ripe for the emergence of an organized, permanent third party.

Comment on: Are two parties enough?

Bigthink — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:38:56 +0100

Comment on: Are two parties enough?

Bigthink — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:15:54 +0100

The issue is we are not following a democratic rule. Voting is a prove fraud not just in Mexico or the Ukraine but USA. www.blackboxvoting.org Then you have the media manipulating the facts and not allowing others to view an opinion and then offshore company donations for the two that work as one.

Lets just inject some truth here. Democracy is an illusion in America. The proof is there for all to see and it is stored in archiving databases worldwide. There is no escape from this truth.

Comment on: Are two parties enough?

Bigthink — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:33:53 +0100

@Thunder Thor--
I presume you speak of the Know-Nothings and the Whigs. The Know-Nothings were essentially just the Free Masons in political party form. The Whigs... Basically, their platform was simply Anti-Jackson. Neither lasted long as a political force.

Oh! Forgot the Populist and Free Soil Parties. These parties were basically just ways to defend the farmers that wanted to move out West.

The point is that none lasted long. The Democrats and the Republicans have switched their Liberal-Conservative orientations over the years, but it's really just been those two parties.

I have heard it said that requiring a majority for election is conducive to a two-party system. I don't know, and I don't really have an opinion on this, I'd just like to put it up for discussion.

Comment on: Are two parties enough?

Bigthink — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:50:20 +0100

Two parties will be enough if the people think that two are enough. Becuase we use to have more then two parties in this country. If people feel that two parties are Not representing them then a thrid one will spring up.

Comment on: Are two parties enough?

Bigthink — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:03:55 +0100

Where as I don't care for either party, I don't really want a third party not to care about. The last election for me was like deciding on whether I wanted to eat from a bowl of vomit or a bowl of poop. The third party decisions haven't been any better either.

Comment on: Are two parties enough?

Bigthink — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:41:34 +0100

the two party system is absolutely broken. Our process of democratic elections is absolutely broken. The people's opinions are not represented. The taxpayers are being taken for all they can be taken for short inciting real resistance. Maybe you have time for http://www.bigthink.com/policy-politics/2008-elections/5842

it's just my take on the state of affairs.

Comment on: Are two parties enough?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:32:47 +0100

Democracy isn't supposed to be one or the other. People should vote for candidates that they actually support, not for the democrat or republican that they hate the least. I think claiming that people voting for Ralph Nader in the 2000 election is what allowed Bush to win is completely ridiculous, and is generally the mindset that will make it difficult for a much needed third party to rise to any significant power.

Comment on: Are two parties enough?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:32:34 +0100

The USA is full of diverse opinions and possible pathes. Two choices can never encompass that reality. For instance why does "right ot Live" correlate with "pro death penalty". But eventually a single candidate must be chosen, that implies a compromise of some sort. In an vote, 3rd, or 4th, or 5th party candidates effectively rob votes from one of the two leading candidates. Unless the election process is changed to allow an ordered preference rather than a single choice, two choices (rather than more) will give the outcome favored by the most voters. Votes for third party candidacies are simply protest votes and are about as effective as not voting at all.

Comment on: Are two parties enough?

Bigthink — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:02:03 +0100

I think sooner or later a more moderate party will rise that may force the dems and GOP farther to the left and right to find their voters.

Comment on: Are two parties enough?

Bigthink — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:53:35 +0100

I believe that we need to have "instant runoff" elections. In "instant runoffs" voters put down a second choice, so that if there are no majority winners, those who voted for third party candidate would have their vote actually counted instead of wasted.

Comment on: Are two parties enough?

Bigthink — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:51:36 +0100

I believe thattwo parties are sufficient. In the 2000 Presidental election I believe Ralph Nader took enough votes from Al Gore to elect Bush,who is probably the worst President in our great history.