Third parties

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Why don't people like Third Parties in the USA? Is it that hard to join one and not the two stupid Main ones?

[Tiberios]

I think the US would benefit from having a third party.

[Jingles]

It would depend what role ideologically a third party would fill, especially in the US. There's probably room for either a Social Democratic party there, or a Libertarian one. However, the Dems and Republicans have swallowed up so much of the ideological playing field, there's not really any point.

[Random Emperor]

Because current major 3rd parties are extreme

[Hattushilish]

Why don't people like Third Parties in the USA? Is it that hard to join one and not the two stupid Main ones?

Because we have a 'winner take all' system for electoral votes, so unless your party has a legitimate chance at finishing in first place, you'd be throwing your vote away by voting for a third party.

It's not like a parliamentary system where if you get X percentage of the votes you get X percentage of the seats in parliament, and then the leader of the majority party becomes prime minister.

Flawed? Yes. Unresponsive? Yes.

But remember that our constitution was written in 1787.

[Darth Red]

No third party's for the US.

Bad idea all the way around. Third party's skew the electoral college, if no person has the appropriate votes, it goes to Congress to decide. I would prefer that Congress doesn't continuously get to put a crony in place because that's what will happen if a third party ever became something more than a novelty.

For a document that was written in 1787 it's truly amazing how prophetic it was. What would happen if we didn't have an electoral college and all you needed was to have the most percent of the popular vote. Sprinkle in the fact you could have 3-10 different candidates on the final ballot. What would be the percent the President would actually get? 20,25,40? It wouldn't be a good measuring stick to represent what the entire country would want. At least with just two you can make a decision based the fact that one out of those two are going to share most of your own ideas of what you would want.

Plus primary's are an excellent way to voice your opinions and pine for a certain person that would be considered a "third party candidate". In the way that a green party person would most likely be in a Democrat primary just as libertarian would be in a GOP. Perot lost to Bush Sr. in the primary fair and square, he shouldn't have run in the general election. Same with Nader and Gore. If either of them were viable enough of a candidate they would have won the primary. If you can't get like-minded people to vote for you, how are you going to win a general election.

Perhaps this is better explained this way; I won't be voting for Ron Paul in the Republican primary and I would be upset if he lost still continued to run anyway. However if he won despite my vote, I would have no problem voting for him in the general election because I would still have more in common with him than I would with Obama. Of course I am from Massachusetts and a Republican so it matters very little whom I vote for...

[Hattushilish]

For a document that was written in 1787 it's truly amazing how prophetic it was. What would happen if we didn't have an electoral college and all you needed was to have the most percent of the popular vote. Sprinkle in the fact you could have 3-10 different candidates on the final ballot. What would be the percent the President would actually get? 20,25,40? It wouldn't be a good measuring stick to represent what the entire country would want.

That's why you have coalition governments in many countries. If you don't represent more than 50% of the country, you have to form a coalition that represents more than 50% of the country.

[AK47]

No third party's for the US.
Bad idea all the way around. Third party's skew the electoral college, if no person has the appropriate votes, it goes to Congress to decide. I would prefer that Congress doesn't continuously get to put a crony in place because that's what will happen if a third party ever became something more than a novelty.
For a document that was written in 1787 it's truly amazing how prophetic it was. What would happen if we didn't have an electoral college and all you needed was to have the most percent of the popular vote. Sprinkle in the fact you could have 3-10 different candidates on the final ballot. What would be the percent the President would actually get? 20,25,40? It wouldn't be a good measuring stick to represent what the entire country would want. At least with just two you can make a decision based the fact that one out of those two are going to share most of your own ideas of what you would want.
Plus primary's are an excellent way to voice your opinions and pine for a certain person that would be considered a "third party candidate". In the way that a green party person would most likely be in a Democrat primary just as libertarian would be in a GOP. Perot lost to Bush Sr. in the primary fair and square, he shouldn't have run in the general election. Same with Nader and Gore. If either of them were viable enough of a candidate they would have won the primary. If you can't get like-minded people to vote for you, how are you going to win a general election.
Perhaps this is better explained this way; I won't be voting for Ron Paul in the Republican primary and I would be upset if he lost still continued to run anyway. However if he won despite my vote, I would have no problem voting for him in the general election because I would still have more in common with him than I would with Obama.

3rd party definately does suck in this country when it comes to running for president.
If 3rd partys focused on running for congress alot more instead of wasting money on presidential campaigns they could win some seats against some fiscally irresponsible GOP members and force the Republicans to get back to being fiscally responsible in order to get the 3rd partys voted out.
Primarys help alot but sometimes it doesnt and to get rid of the badfish the 3rd party option can help, for example I'd like to see the Californian Libertarians get Mary Bono voted out.

Of course I am from Massachusetts and a Republican so it matters very little whom I vote for...

I've been voting in california since 2004, the only votes of mine that have counted are for Congress and local goverment.
The first year I voted my county elected a Vietnamese American Republican to state assembly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Tran
He's now gonna run for congress against Lorreta Sanchez.
She's held that seat for a while for the democrats in the heavily Republican OC, I have a good feeling he might be able to take that seat back.

It would be nice to see Mitt Romney run against John Kerry in MA.

[Alkarin]

third party? parties are flawed in themselves, you should vote for representatives and presidents based on their values, not they're party.

[Jingles]

third party? parties are flawed in themselves, you should vote for representatives and presidents based on their values, not they're party.

That's funny, because I'd say the opposite. But I suppose in an American context you're right.

[Alkarin]

That's funny, because I'd say the opposite. But I suppose in an American context you're right.

Well even here in the UK, the very second you label someone with a party that's who's going to vote for them. And by restating myself, you should vote for someone based on their doctrine not the colourful nametag they wear

[Jingles]

But the nametag generally determines their doctrine. Besides when I vote here, I vote based on the entire prospective cabinet, not just the PM.

[Alkarin]

But the nametag generally determines their doctrine. Besides when I vote here, I vote based on the entire prospective cabinet, not just the PM.

or, people should have an incentive for looking into the politicians they are voting for. And I don't know about you, but I don't know one person who actually agrees with everything the labour party, or the conservative party or any other party stands for, infact that probably only agree with about 20% of what they say, but they vote for them anyways because if they voted for some underground politician who they do agree with, they know he wont get elected because hes not part of a major party. There are no real logical explanations for having a party system compared to one without it. All they do is make the system inherently less democratic then it was in the first place. And I for one am in favour for any spread of actual democracy. Even if its just a little thing like getting rid of parties.

[Armenum]

Of course, multiple parties is the best. Having 2 party system is too black & white.

[Exarch]

problem is that many many parties start to form coalitions; and in time, they become 2 major parties
like in oz when the National Party and the Liberal party formed a coalition

[Kjertesvein]

Why don't people like Third Parties in the USA?

I would presume they have little effect for their effort.

Is it that hard to join one and not the two stupid Main ones?

No, but since the effort will not have any effect, it will not last.

problem is that many many parties start to form coalitions; and in time, they become 2 major parties

That depends how the game is rigged. If there is room for a party, some party will take it's place.

[Henrik]

Ralph Nader, Green party...

[Azog 150]

I think it would be good for the US to have a third party. We have a fast-growing third party here in Britain (Lib Dems) who look like they could actually challenge the main two.

[empr guy]

In US politics it looks more like its about making the other party look bad or wasteing their time than actually doing the job sometimes. Do third parties generally fix this? Or is this just politics in general?

[Azog 150]

Politics in general I think. However, it is more prevalent in two party systems I would say. Its been one long ing match between Labour and Conservatives here in Britain for the last 50 years.