06-02-2002 22:06									#1
	Is it time for USA to have a 3rd party? Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Would you like to see a third party?


I heard Pat Buchannon on MSNBC the other night. He made a good point that our political system should be more like Europe's, in that smaller partys have more influence. And coalition's should be built. He said the Democrats and Republicans should not be allowed to monopolize politic's the way they have. He said both parties are like a rotten apple(corrupt inside, juicy outside) thats outsides are still red and juicy. I actually found myself agreeing with him. Because we know that absolute power corrupts. Theres no one to challenge the conservatives or liberals... so both wings are becoming extremely corrupt. (business, promises, immigration, favors)


Theres that whole issue like what Gore said on the campaign "Dont throw your vote away to Nader, there is no chance he can win...". So Ameircans tend to vote for the lesser of two evils.



Firstly, what do you think of the 2 party system.

Do you want to see a European model used in America?

What do you think of Pat Buchannon?

	06-02-2002 22:47									#2
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Well, let's face it - with your first-past-the-post electoral system, you are not going to have a viable third party. People just don't want to risk splitting the vote of their ideology and allowing someone anathema to their values to take the seat. This goes for House and Senate as well as Presidency. I consider first-past-the-post to be one of the less attractive electoral systems, considering it allows people to get in office with less than 50% of vote (Clinton in 1992, Bush in 2000).

What you ought to use is the French system where, if no candidate gets over 50% of vote, second round is held between top two vote-getters. Single Transferrable Vote system also sounds interesting, but I'm too lazy to explain it properly.

	06-02-2002 22:53									#3
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Oh, and Pat Buchanan, from what I've seen, is a nut and a half.

	06-02-2002 22:56									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Firstly, I think we should do away with political parties. As our government was intended to be.


Second, I don't really like the European Party model, because it allows for single party (or coalitions) rule that can last for over a decade.


The Euro political scene seems to fragment with every cause imaginable. The US parties are coalitions of various platforms that come together under one banner. But, that being said, a viable third party (NOT the Green or Reform parties) should be created. I have a feeling that eventually, centrists from the Dems and Republicans will create a new party. And I'd be up for looking into different ways of getting people elected (like the one Stefu mentioned, though not necessarily that one).


As for Buchanan, he's changed quite a few of his political beliefs since leaving the Republican party.

	06-02-2002 22:58									#5
	Inflate your Upload Space

What you ought to use is the Swedish system.

	06-02-2002 23:05									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Juggernaut What you ought to use is the Swedish system.

which is what? you think americans know wha kind of government swededn uses? most of us probably couldn't even find it on a map

	06-02-2002 23:07									#7
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: What you ought to use is the Swedish system.

Do you still have parties deciding which guys are at the top of the list? Because that, man, that is the definition of democracy.

Finnish system, which allows some control at what kind of nuts they let in parliament (they could be wrong kind of nuts!) is bättre än svenska, eh, hmm, systemet?

quote: Second, I don't really like the European Party model, because it allows for single party (or coalitions) rule that can last for over a decade.

Like Democrats ruling both the executive and legislative for 20 years almost continuously between 1932 and 1952?

	06-02-2002 23:09									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

France political system is different from USA.

Our election system is direct, not indirect. So lotof party are necessary to allow democracy to work. So choice of people on the first round oblige parties to make alliance which are not statics and influence who will be ministers after the election.

	06-02-2002 23:19									#9
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

what I don't like about some systems is that you vote for the party instead of the individual

I would liketo do away with parties but think that that will ni=ever happen

in the maen time the US system does allow for more partyies, the reform party almost made it in but infighting and weakness has caused it to sink back in

in large party will need to be centrist (which is good)

the fringe parties make the centrist parties that lean there way react to them and so they are still usefull

the person is more important then the party over all (There are a lot of people who are independents or break party lines (there needs to be more))in the US and it need s to stay that way

Jon Miller

	06-02-2002 23:21									#10
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Stefu Like Democrats ruling both the executive and legislative for 20 years almost continuously between 1932 and 1952?

I could've sworn Republicans had control of at least one House during most of that time. Anyone know for sure?


Anyway, there's only absolute control, if the majority party can control ~2/3 of the Senate. That's why when the Republicans had control of Congress and the White House (and the current Democratic control of the Senate) didn't mean much. Plus, with the Parties being coalitions of ideals, not everyone will always vote on party lines. Several cross over votes occur.


In Britain, for example, Labour can almost literally do anything it want.

quote: Our election system is direct, not indirect.

How do you mean; in comparison to the US system?

	06-02-2002 23:21									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by H Tower you think americans know wha kind of government swededn uses? most of us probably couldn't even find it on a map

It's funny you're dissing your fellow countrymen.

quote: Do you still have parties deciding which guys are at the top of the list? Because that, man, that is the definition of democracy.

We introduced candidate-election in 1999.

	06-02-2002 23:23									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

faded glory for President

	06-02-2002 23:26									#13
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: We introduced candidate-election in 1999.

Not a moment too soon, either.

	06-02-2002 23:27									#14
	Got spare money?

What we need is Instantaneous Run-Off Voting. Here's how it works.

Rank every candidate, from #1 to #whatever, with #1 being your choice for President.

They look at the results. If one candidate got the majority of #1 votes, they are declared the winner. If no one got the majority of #1 votes, you eliminate the candidate with the LEAST number of #1 votes, and on those ballots where he/she was ranked #1, you go to #2. Repeat the process until one candidate has the majority of votes.

This way, liberals couldn't make that bullstool excuse of "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." (It wasn't, jackasses.) They could rank Nader #1, and if he had the least number of #1 votes, you'd go to #2 on the ballot (presumably Gore, although he wouldn't have been #2 on my ballot, that's for damned sure).


If McCain were to run as an independant/third party candidate in 2004, he could very well be the one to beat the system.

	06-02-2002 23:56									#15
	Increase the size of your Attachments

While were on the subject of the French political system, could someone explain to me why France still has a President considering the fact that comparatively he probably has less influence on French policy than the Queen of England, IIRC?

	07-02-2002 00:07									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

There are three ways on how candidates are voted into a parliament.

One way is what the US and UK are using: divide up the country in districts, winner of each district gets everything while the losers get none. This type of election system usually favors only 1 or 2 parties, and rejects smallers parties.

The other way is what Israel and German Weimarer Republic uses: the percentage of each party received in national election determines the make-up of the parliament. What you get here is that even the smallest party has a chance to show up in the national parliament. Both Israeli and Weimarer parliaments has or had over 30 parties.

Then there is the hybrid solution which is employed by Germany today: half of the parliament is made up from candidates from winners in districts, while the half depends on the votes parties received at the national level. If you want multiple parties and to avoid splintering of votes at same time, this is the way to go.

	07-02-2002 00:10									#17
	Got spare money?

I'd like to see a viable third party.

And like others, I believe that the only chance would be a centrist type party. (ONE THAT HAS NO CONNECTIONS TO EITHER EXTREME, and doesn't feel the need to throw them a bone every now and then)

Then maybe the TWO tradional parties could shift a bit away from the center and truely represent their constituancy. Then Americans would have a real choice instead of the current, same ole and more of the same ole. Right now, I support choice on the abortion issue. Being a republican, most of the candidates that I vote for, don't support choice. But I like most of the rest of the party platform. Oh well.

RAH
I wrote this in full knowledge that this type of thing will never happen because of the negative repercussions to the existing parties. They'll just keep pretending to move closer and closer to the middle of the road to confuse and attract the most voter.

	07-02-2002 00:11									#18
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

umm'

no

parties suck

anything that gives them power is bad

Jon Miller

	07-02-2002 00:18									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc While were on the subject of the French political system, could someone explain to me why France still has a President considering the fact that comparatively he probably has less influence on French policy than the Queen of England, IIRC?

It's the same in Greece. The one with power is the PM. The President is the «guardian of the institutions and democracy». He doesn't take part in everyday business of running the country and his presence is more for ethimotypical purposes.

But he does have the power to bring a government down I think although I don't think that ever happened (as long as I am alive at least). And he can also represent the country in foreign travels.

For example our president resendly visited Syria where we reaffrimed are very good relations and strengthened trade. He can carry the national agenda in his travels.

Inside the country he is respected as the paramount empersonator of the hellenic democracy.

The matter of how much power the President must hold is sometimes debated. But mostly he remains «decorative»

He is also an indication of the power each political party holds if there is no unanimity about which one would be the President the party. But eventually the majority of the parliement must agree for him which means at least the two major political parties.

The present Presidentof Greece is one of the most succesful of all. He truely serves his part which is to «embody» the values and principles of the Nation by the way he acts and speaks. He has something like 90% acceptance of the Greek citizens. That's extraordinary.

	07-02-2002 00:23									#20
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 It's the same in Greece.

Greece has a President???? That's almost as suprising as the fact that Isreal has a President as well.

	07-02-2002 00:28									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Is it time for USA to have a 3rd party?

A lot of people have said that what the US needs isn't a third party, it's a second.

	07-02-2002 00:29									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yes my dear Monneypenny it does

He is Kostis Stephanopoulos. He is really doing a good job.

He doesn't accept the salary of the President of Greece (which is significant) but he choses to live with his pension. He gives the money of his salary back to the State.
He doesn't live in the Mansion of the President but in his own house.

And many, many other things as well. His actions and values are truely those of a great man. One of the most loved and propably best Presidents.

	07-02-2002 00:34									#23
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

America needs a third party, but the current election system gives them no chance.

	07-02-2002 00:35									#24
	Remove this text

Isn't Chirac the French President, and Jospin the PM? I though Chirac had a good deal of power in that system.

	07-02-2002 00:36									#25
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Kyle Isn't Chirac the French President, and Jospin the PM? I though Chirac had a good deal of power in that system.

It all depends on the man. The office itself is pretty weak.

	07-02-2002 01:00									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: For example our president resendly visited Syria where we reaffrimed are very good relations and strengthened trade. He can carry the national agenda in his travels.

[political advisor in Civ 3 ]
didn't I already tell you they're evil?
[/political advisor in Civ 3]

yes , we also have a president. I met him a month or so ago. he's a good guy. This is probably a good time to contemplate the fact that we have one of the ugliest , and cheapest presidential residences in the world. ...

	07-02-2002 01:42									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

First off, the Republicans and Democrats are sucsessful for a reason- they manage to bring in most of America into their either one or the other party tent, with one party of the right and one party of the left. More political diversity is seen through conflicts that can regularly take place within parties, and with extremely weak party discipline. The United States government is more pluralistic then most if not all European countries-- a member of the House of Representatives has more power individually then a member of the house of commons(Unless that member is a minister). Power is distributed throughout the various parts of the Federal government and then spread out even further throughout the Federal system as a whole(I.E; States have some power).

While electoral reform could make it easier for third party candidates to get elected, it will probably never happen. The government right now is dominated by two parties, and so it would be against their interest to change their rules to help third parties.

	07-02-2002 02:18									#28
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc While were on the subject of the French political system, could someone explain to me why France still has a President considering the fact that comparatively he probably has less influence on French policy than the Queen of England, IIRC?

President have few power on internal policies. But He choose the headline of the international policies. He command too to all french army.

The president choose his first minister, who choose his ministers which will compose the gouvernment. The gouvernment will propose new law or propose law modification to the assembly.
The assembly will accept or reject the proposition.

In general he choose a first minister from his party. But his party have better to be majoritar in the national assembly. If not the gouvernment will have trouble to work.

The president, if not happy of the members of parlement could disolve one time the parlement, and hope french people will vote for parlement member of his party.

Chirac did it, but french people voted for the socialist party not the RPR (Chirac's party). So he was obliged to choose a new first minister from the socialist party (He wasn't really obliged, but if he didn't his gouvernment would have been unable to work).

So our gouvernment is in 'cohabitation' state. Which means that our gouvernment is from a party opposed to the President party.
In this case, the president have merely no power on internal policies.

I hope I was enough clear ... :/

---

Note :
I call 'direct election' when people votes directly for their President or their first minister.

I call 'indirect election' when people vote for senator who will vote for a President.

	07-02-2002 02:19									#29
	Put an end to popups!

Sadly, I think getting rid of political parties would cause people to vote absolutely based on looks personality etc. which is not a good thing. Political parties give the average person a general idea of what the person is going to be for, and they can decide which party they give their support too.

Ideally though, everyone would be much more informed about government and political candidates and no one would belong to any political parties.

	07-02-2002 02:48									#30
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior Note : I call 'direct election' when people votes directly for their President or their first minister. I call 'indirect election' when people vote for senator who will vote for a President.

Ok, but so you know, the President and Vice President are pretty much the only elective office in the US that isn't determined by direct popular vote.