A third party would lead to civil war

Most people seem to think a third party is a good idea, actually it would lead to regionalism which would lead to eventual secession. What is needed is a new concensus probably within the Republican party where conservative and moderate ideologies will be less influenced by less popular progressive ideologies.

We have more than 3 parties here in the UK and it works ( sort of) there are no civil wars going off over here.
Mind you they're all as corrupt as each other though.

nah, our government is already crumbling anyway. but i think if there is a 2012 election, an independent will win, since the GOP is in shambles and Obama is also making the Democratic Party that way.

reply to post by Donnie Darko

---

I love the way you said 'if' lol, because honestly it almost does seem like an if at this point, sad and scary as it is ...

P.S. I love your signature I get to see her on the 22nd lol

Hooey. No way is a civil war going to be stirred up just by having a third party. The two party system is only a pretence of democracy, with both parties bought by TPTB. As such it will lead to civil war if ever people both wake up and care about the wool being pulled over their eyes.

What's needed is proportional representation as we have in Australia so that a vote for a minority party is not a wasted vote and every voter is having some influence on parliament.

www.eca.gov.au...

If I want to vote for the Green party, the Marijuana party or the Death to America party (joke) my vote can be traded by that party to whichever more popular party will be influenced by their ideas, giving everyone some power and making voting worthwhile.

Allow me to make a better argument for my first claim.

In the US the only time there had been viable third parties was just before the Civil War. Why? Because the US party system is built on concensus, as opposed to a European national model where parties are built by exclusion and form coalitions afterward in government.

In the US 25.1% makes a majority so regions become dominated by single political views. If there is a concensus breaker, a third party, then regions become even more dominated by their constituent majorities and their minorities become under represented.

That is the path to extremism and definitely to
civil War.

25.1% does make a majority government int the US winner takes all system just look at the house of representatives.

50.2% of the house had to win 25.1% of the vote to beat their opponents.

This is vastly different from parliamentary systmes so you can't say "well multiple parties work over here."

This is why the Us works best with a concensus, two reconcilable and sufficient minorities make a majority government of divergent but compromising view points.

The Democrats made the last concensus before their communistic policies lost the conservatives.

Prove it. The polarization created by your two party system is absolutely fracturing. In multiple party systems people cannot completely demonize or idolalize, as the two options are only presented as "all in or all out."

You're literally Left or Right. Good or Bad. Evil or Godly. Communist or Capitalist. Black or White. Only this in no way actually reflects reality, and promotes significant internal polarization that is fuelling domestic extremism.

How is a third party using the south as an example going to further the needs of blacks and others? It would put into place an already dominant conservative movement into a position of supremacy because no matter what they greatly surpass the 25.1% needed electorate for a majority. In facthe south is over the 50% need for absolute rule.

A third party would exist either by capturing a fringe taking votes from the weaker party or majority through radicalization or it would exist to serve a specific regions desires. Both lead to regionalism.

dude that's awesome! another LIGHTS fan

and yes i don't think it's a guarantee ... i never believed bush would prevent the 2008 election tho.