The way to break the "Two party" system...so simple!

This thought is very recent, within minutes of the thread. It, therefore, may be flawed in some way I haven't grasped as yet, so your input would be appreciated.

I have straddled the concept of a third party for some time now. In and out, lately more 'in'....until this thought.

The obvious flaws of a third party, or a fourth, is those parties are as equally subject to the frailties of the first two parties. Subversion, vested interests, the usual mechanisms affects all equally. Now add in no evidence that the multiple party nations are any better off than the two party system. None that I can see, at least.

It is also becoming obvious to more and more that the extremism that the current political scene isn't working and, in fact, is generated deliberately by various agendas.

The disaffection with both parties is at an all time high and when the U.S. was at it's best, the nation was, generally, centrist....at least when compared to today's standards.

So what's the solution? Perhaps, it's as simple as "none of the above". Huge numbers of centrists/independents attached to no party, owing allegiance to none.

The number of disaffected is mind-blowing. It HAS to be over half the population. Think of the political power that represents...if articulated as a deliberate and well thought out option to those disaffected.

(As I write this, the number of barriers that come to mind mount at a fantastic rate...)

Perhaps we should be issue oriented. Issue by issue. Banning parties as a concept is also disingenuous as human nature is to form groups of similar tastes and views and will not change just because 'Political Parties' are 'banned'. Multiple candidates is a possible route, not multiple parties. Independents. Some bought and paid for, some single issue driven, some locally or religiously motivated. No restrictions permitted, in that regard.

Bottom line is that sheer power that resides, potentially, in the disaffected is enormous. There MUST be a way of tapping into it. We are a good people. We just need to dig a little deeper, get out our collective comfort zones and do a little work....

a reply to: nwtrucker

“I don’t want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members.”

Groucho Marx

Id suggest completely doing away with the party system.
Let elected officials directly represent the people who voted for them.
Make them meet their constituents once a month to explain any votes they made and if the constituents dont agree with them they have a vote of no confidence on the spot and the official is fired.

This is the only way i can see democracy actually working as it should and not just representing big money

a reply to: nwtrucker

What 2 party system?

We live under a corporate Oligarchy that controls both parties; ruled by the neocons that have no allegiances to anything except greed and the Gods of Profit.

a reply to: olaru12


Lord, I miss that humor...

Why should we have parties at all?

I know it seems insurmountable to discard at this point, but at the beginning, President Washington used his "Farewell Address" to warn the nation about the clear danger of regionalization and political parties.

Your focus on individuals, I believe, is apt.

We have a Preliminary Voting Day 90 days in advance of the Actual Voting Day in November.

Every year. Whether it's a two-year, four-year, or six year term.

To register for each level of election, i.e. to get on the ballot, you have to have a signed petition with, what's reasonable? 10% of the registered voters in the political division (city, county, State, Nation)?

(This could be easily accomplished with secure online voting).

Those who make it past the Preliminary voting day with a reasonable amount of the vote (at least 20%, the two or three highest totals) move on to November Voting.

Something along those lines ... I'm spitballing as well.

It can be done.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: nwtrucker

What 2 party system?

We live under a corporate Oligarchy that controls both parties; ruled by the neocons that have no allegiances to anything except greed and the Gods of Profit.

OK. Your solution is?......

Primates are tribal by Nature.
I don't see that changing anytime soon.

a reply to: Gryphon66


I like it.

Rehabilitate the knowledge and understanding we have that power, I would think, is the first order of business.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I have never read anything in the Constitution about having to be in a party.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: nwtrucker

What 2 party system?

We live under a corporate Oligarchy that controls both parties; ruled by the neocons that have no allegiances to anything except greed and the Gods of Profit.

OK. Your solution is?......

There is no solution....we chose the capitalistic system and it bit us in the ass. It will eventually collapse from it's own unsustainablity and morph into a slave/master caste system.

You haven't read 1984 or Brave New World? That's our future. It's as plain as the nose on your face....

originally posted by: reeferman
a reply to: nwtrucker

I have never read anything in the Constitution about having to be in a party.

If one feels more secure or aligned to being in a party, whatever floats your boat. Go for it.

The rest of us? Pass....

a reply to: olaru12


Out of curiosity, if it is that 'inevitable', why do you post? What's your motivation?

originally posted by: skunkape23
Primates are tribal by Nature.
I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Yep and it's just too advantageous to "band togather" when counting votes is your measure of winning and losing.

a reply to: JoshuaCox


Yep, then let's get the new independents/disaffected to band together as well.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Come on now, if we take away the two party system our notion of the democratic process may actually start to make sense. And we cant have that now, or can we? LoL

a reply to: nwtrucker

JOHN ADAMS: There is nothing I dread so much as a division of the Republic into two great parties each arranged under its leader and converting measures in opposition to each other.

As far as banning parties you would have to nullify the constitution.

Amendment I.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As for you not being able to see countries better off with multiple parties I can say I have seen it.

The regime changes often and is usually mixed to the point where none hold overt authority which means they have to work together and compromise for workable solutions. The more parties there are then you will find less career politicians sitting in a seat for decades.

We have third parties here, but they are not allowed to sit at the big table for the debates. That will change if they get 5% of the votes this election so that next election we would have real debates and parties will need to find quality representatives to debate each other.

This election is done for already neither candidate has any business running the country so the next 4 years will suck.

As far as none of the above or abstaining from voting that will do nothing. The presidential election does not depend on the populace voting for them very few seem to understand that.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: olaru12


Out of curiosity, if it is that 'inevitable', why do you post? What's your motivation?

I'm motivated as a academically inclined documentary filmmaker, trying my best to record the American human condition.
And market my work to the highest bidder. I'm also a capitalist as well and feel blessed to enjoy the benefits before it's completely all ****** up.

ATS and other sites are my resource for the glimpse into contemporary American culture. In the past 4 years, I have interviewed and filmed well over a thousand people, form all walks of life. Now in post production.

I'm passionate about my art; perhaps it's egotistical and self serving and will ultimately result in failure. At least I'm doing something that I enjoy and has the potential to be a very profitable legacy for my family when Im dead and gone.

Your turn...what's your motivation for posting on the world wide web?

Theres only one concerned party. Of, by and for the people.

Everything else has been added on to confuse us. What choice do we have now except between them, and them?

We're supposed to elect representatives of the people, they are supposed to represent us, not each other.

Actually, it makes sense to have political parties at the national level, especially for the US Presidency.

The 12th Amendment says that if no presidential candidate gets at least half of the Electoral College votes, then the House of Representatives votes for the President. But here's the catch: only the 3 presidential candidates with the most Electoral College votes are eligible at this point. In other words, the November presidential "election" is only a voter-based vetting process for the House of Representatives' choice for President, if neither candidate can get the majority.

There are currently 538 Electoral College "votes", so a candidate has to get 270 in order to avoid this step. The simplest way to make sure the voters get to choose the President is by only having 2 presidential candidates, which practically guarantees one candidate will get that number. And what better way to ensure that candidate gets enough attention nationally to do this than to have a nationwide operation promoting him/her? (Actually, the simplest way would be to have only 1 candidate, since States have "winner takes all" elections to decide the Electoral College winners. But it's not much of a democracy if there's only one choice...)

Not to mention that each State has vastly different rules to get on the Presidential ballot in the first place. So it's almost like a candidate would need coordinated organizations in each State that know the local rules & laws, help with voter turnout there, and can help organize the local efforts of that candidate's presidential campaign. Now what would we call that?

And of course, Congress itself has various rules for the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader. These are the members of each congressional chamber who literally decide what issues and bills get voted on. It wouldn't make sense to have hundreds of independent Congressmen with no clear vision voting on issues because they wouldn't be able to agree on anything. And since votes need a majority or super-majority to pass in each chamber, the Congressmen would literally have to come together to get bills passed anyway.

Hence the need for a common set of goals and policies to unite members of Congress into organized factions that have enough numbers to get their desired bills passed. Now what would we call that?