I’m really sick of all the partisan bullshit that goes on in this country, especially when the Dems and GOP are nearly the exact same (only difference is where they want to throw money).
I’m curious, what does the T-nation think about a multiple party system? And not the Pat Buchannan, Ralph Nader, etc. bullshit that’s more of a novelty than a force. I’m talking a legit third party, maybe even fourth, a la England. Thoughts?
A legit 3rd party tends to weaken whatever main party is closest to it in beliefs - i.e. a 3rd party that was hardcore conservative, or a strong libertarian 3rd party would weaken the Republicans, while a strong socialist or green party would weaken the Democrats. See Canada and Britain – in Canada, the Conservatives split back in either the late 80s or early 90s and haven’t been in power since, although they re-combined recently and came close to getting power in the last election. In Britain, the conservatives are worried that the anti-EU nativist party will strip enough votes from the Tories to render null their challenge to the Labour government.
So, I guess, it depends on how you view things. In a truly multi-party system, such as in Israel, you rarely see a majority government – the government functions via alliances of various parties. This leads to governmental instability, as the exit of the minority partner can destroy the majority coalition.
Multiple parties will never occur, unless we switch to a parliamentary system that designates representation based on voting percentage, ie, if the Greens get 10% of the vote, the Greens get 10% representation in the legislative assembly.
As is, the US has a winner-take-all system, and like-minded political factions will align and consolidate power to keep from handing elections to political movements they largely disagree with.
That’s most of the time - Nader is an example of someone who doesn’t buy into that approach.
I prefer this system - it has a tremendous moderating effect on who gets to the highest seats of power and it pushes fringe elements back to the fringe where they belong.
As for intense, petty partisanship, I agree, it sucks - that’s why I think the way we draw political districts in this country needs an overhaul. Incumbents are too easily protected and they don’t have to justify or have their performance challenged in debates or communications with the public because the have jiggered the maps to keep them comfy in their jobs (like teachers’ unions). This political monopoly, in my opinion, must be broken to restore good politics.
I just think we should get rid of the electoral college. Things would be a lot clearer then.
I don’t think a third or fourth or fifth party would change anything. We sort of have multiple additional parties, anyway – you have all sorts of mini-parties inside the republican and democratic parties which don’t align themselves 100% with the main party platform.
[quote]kindofblue78 wrote:
I’m really sick of all the partisan bullshit that goes on in this country, especially when the Dems and GOP are nearly the exact same (only difference is where they want to throw money).
You’re right, the Dems and GOP are nearly the exact same. Why just look at their given positions on: abortion, gay rights, welfare, taxes, war, affirmative action, and gun control just to name a few.
Pretty similar huh?
I hope you’re joking.
Term limits, term limits, term limits! At all levels of government! This will render extinct that parasitic subspecies of Homo sapiens known as the “career politician,” colloquially referred to as the “Ted Kennedy.” The Founders’ intent, I believe, was to have “average Joes” representing the other “average Joes” in their respective discticts, thereby genuinely having their best interests at heart.
Did I mention we should have term limits?
All that said, I think third parties can be effective, either by reminding the mainliners that they are drifting too far the other way (as is the case with the R’s, IMHO), or by gaining publicity for ideas that may at first blush seem “fringe-y” to the mushy middle. If a third party costs someone an election, I’ll bet they’ll be drifting back next time around. These objectives can be accomplished whether or not the “winnability” factor is there. I personally think everyone should have the opportunity to at least make their case. The scope of political debate has become far too narrow.
[quote]CDarklock wrote:
I just think we should get rid of the electoral college. Things would be a lot clearer then.
[/quote]
It will never happen, because it would basically be the death of what’s left of our federal system. Because the little states would become irrelevant, and they would have a say in the process (remember, an amendment to the Constitution requires approval by the states), it won’t happen.
On that note, I actually like the electoral college precisely because it keeps states that aren’t named Texas, Florida, New York and California relevant.
[quote]bandgeek wrote:
Term limits, term limits, term limits! At all levels of government! This will render extinct that parasitic subspecies of Homo sapiens known as the “career politician,” colloquially referred to as the “Ted Kennedy.” The Founders’ intent, I believe, was to have “average Joes” representing the other “average Joes” in their respective discticts, thereby genuinely having their best interests at heart.
Did I mention we should have term limits?
[/quote]
Agreed. Unfortunately, that won’t do anything about gerrymandering, but it will help in the Senate.
Forgot to mention this:
If the reason you want a multi-party system is to see a decrease in partisan bickering, don’t bother. In a multi-party system there are just more people to bitch about/against/with. I wouldn’t exactly call the political climes in most of the multi-party countries more civil than ours.