|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 10:50 am
I have a dream, err, I mean idea. I believe there is a single chance that a 3rd party could become powerful enough to challenge the Democrats and the Republican party. Most voters are Conservative (at least most of the republicans, and are a little bit dissenchanted with the republicans straying a bit away from conservative views. I think if a Party were formed called the Conservative party it would get enough votes to be a contender in any election.
The problem: Having a Conservative party would mainly pull votes from the Republicans and less from the Democrats. This would mean that the Democrats would have a majority, I just don't see that as being an option iwith current events.
Any ideas?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 11:27 am
Wrong. There is no majority in voters in the U.S. more voters are independent followed by democrat then by republican. The fact is that the U.S. has a large swing vote A more conservative third party is not feasible. link
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 2:03 pm
So...you're for more representation, except when it'd interfere with Republican control of government? What?
((There already exist a wide variety of "more conservative" third-parties in the U.S.. They are predictably filled with xenophobic nutballs and hypocritical moralising ********, and have no chance of winning. Just like the far-left 3rd parties.))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 2:24 pm
Historically, third parties have only been successful on controversial issues and not lasted very long if they ever gained power. Perhaps one of the most successful is the Prohibition Party which still "exists" today. While they never gained major official political power, their influence cannot be mistaken in the passing of the Eighteenth Amendment.
Wikipedia has an outstanding and thorough analysis and history of third parties in the United States I would recommend looking at ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States).
Of course, during the "Era of Good Feelings" there were no opposing political parties, plus the Anti-Federalists did not develop initially into a political party(they would become the Republicans.)
Anti-Feds:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalist
Era of Good Feelings:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_of_Good_Feelings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 2:26 pm
the only two parties that can have a realistic shot at defating the major parties will be based on either libertarianism or Statism.
The libertarian party can actually become a force to be reckoned with if the pull their heads out of their asses and come t live in the real world with the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 6:56 pm
DarthNader the only two parties that can have a realistic shot at defating the major parties will be based on either libertarianism or Statism. The libertarian party can actually become a force to be reckoned with if the pull their heads out of their asses and come t live in the real world with the rest of us. Not to mention garnering more publicity for their candidates. I didn't even know who the ******** 2004 Libertarian candidate was until I drove up to Wisconsin to campaign on election day and saw the rare Badnarik sign on the way. The man had not one single billboard, lawn sign, or television ad in the entire city of Chicago, I swear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 12:59 pm
RavenMcCoy DarthNader the only two parties that can have a realistic shot at defating the major parties will be based on either libertarianism or Statism. The libertarian party can actually become a force to be reckoned with if the pull their heads out of their asses and come t live in the real world with the rest of us. Not to mention garnering more publicity for their candidates. I didn't even know who the ******** 2004 Libertarian candidate was until I drove up to Wisconsin to campaign on election day and saw the rare Badnarik sign on the way. The man had not one single billboard, lawn sign, or television ad in the entire city of Chicago, I swear. See thats what I think the major prob with the Libertarioan party is. You have to research it, see what its about, and find who the candidate is. Thats why I thought of the conservative party idea (which I know find very faulty thakyou) but my idea was that if you have a party a large number of people can relate to it might have a better chance. Not many people can say "I'm a Libertarian" but a heck of alot of people can say "I'm a conservative" for that reason alone more people might be willing to check it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 1:00 pm
A_L_R So...you're for more representation, except when it'd interfere with Republican control of government? What? ((There already exist a wide variety of "more conservative" third-parties in the U.S.. They are predictably filled with xenophobic nutballs and hypocritical moralising ********, and have no chance of winning. Just like the far-left 3rd parties.)) No, representation is good and at the time I was testing a theory, the problem I found with it is that it would pull votes away from the Reps and as a result it will really accomplish nothing but giving power to the Dems. That is a legitimate problem and you'd feel the same way were the situations reversed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 7:31 pm
Ephraim1222 A_L_R So...you're for more representation, except when it'd interfere with Republican control of government? What? ((There already exist a wide variety of "more conservative" third-parties in the U.S.. They are predictably filled with xenophobic nutballs and hypocritical moralising ********, and have no chance of winning. Just like the far-left 3rd parties.)) No, representation is good and at the time I was testing a theory, the problem I found with it is that it would pull votes away from the Reps and as a result it will really accomplish nothing but giving power to the Dems. That is a legitimate problem and you'd feel the same way were the situations reversed. Don't assume things. I was smacking kids whining about Nader upside the head in '04, with a hearty dose of "well maybe you should try to figure out why they're voting Nader instead of bitching about 'stealing votes'." That's sort of the point these days - most of the third parties have no illusions of victory, just a desire to see their pet issues get some national debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 12:38 pm
Ephraim1222 RavenMcCoy DarthNader the only two parties that can have a realistic shot at defating the major parties will be based on either libertarianism or Statism. The libertarian party can actually become a force to be reckoned with if the pull their heads out of their asses and come t live in the real world with the rest of us. Not to mention garnering more publicity for their candidates. I didn't even know who the ******** 2004 Libertarian candidate was until I drove up to Wisconsin to campaign on election day and saw the rare Badnarik sign on the way. The man had not one single billboard, lawn sign, or television ad in the entire city of Chicago, I swear. See thats what I think the major prob with the Libertarioan party is. You have to research it, see what its about, and find who the candidate is. Thats why I thought of the conservative party idea (which I know find very faulty thakyou) but my idea was that if you have a party a large number of people can relate to it might have a better chance. Not many people can say "I'm a Libertarian" but a heck of alot of people can say "I'm a conservative" for that reason alone more people might be willing to check it out. `1 wrong TGhe reason many people dont associate with libertarians is because the're a fringe party. if you support a minimum wage, any sort of gun control, oppose third trimester abortions or want to keep Social security public, the party will pretty much alienate you. (beleive me, I know). A big tent Libertarian party that could include both Ron Paul and Russ Feingold would, in fact, gather huge numbers if handled properly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 5:50 pm
I have enough faith in the Libertarian Party gaining support that I don't think we'd need a "conservative party."
Since Libertarianism is fairly new. To most people they either a) are afraid of it because no one's really tried it or b) they don't know much about the beliefs. I believe that as time goes on however, people will look into Libertarianism more and it'll get more support.
I think the main problem with third parties is debate. If we had Green, Independent, and Libertarian parties all in debates as well, I think people would get more options to voting and then be able to make more informed desicions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:08 pm
a third party doesn't matter. only two actually participate in the debates before elections, and it'll probably always be repub. vs. dems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:00 am
Lady_Giselle a third party doesn't matter. only two actually participate in the debates before elections, and it'll probably always be repub. vs. dems. you may be too young to remember this but Ross Perot got in on some of the debates when he ran.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
