Solution for all this political bickering?

[gstmitsueclipsespyder]

makeing someone join a single suposidly now independant party will not keep them from voteing party lines
( they still need those party's to run and get money and suport )

I see it this way. I don'e just drink two cola'a,
or only decide between two item's on a menue when i eat out; but I only have a one or the other choice when I vote.
we need more than two political party's dominateing our elections, a good third party that repesent's the vast middle area of the american people. based on a real platform, not something like the green or whatever, but a commom sense platform. but that's just me.

 

[moribundman]

I have to go scrub my brain now.

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

We need a third party? In many areas we need a second party.

 

[integrare]

I second that, Groucho

 

[MAJA]

We need more candidates, that is my point. We currently only have two realistic choices. What my crazy, and I mean crazy, idea is to have a third incumbant party, which if they did a good job should have the advantage, in addition to the regular Dems and Reps at every national election.

In my opinion, there is no viable way to start a third party, and have it succeed. We had many party's, including the Bull Moose party, the Progressive party, the Federalist party, the Whig party, etc. (for a current listing see http://www.mondopolitico.com/parties/us/federal/us.fed.pp.htm ) But will any new party ever remotely be able to challenge on a national level? I dont see how.

 

[camaddy]

I think the only problem with your theory is that you will never be able to make politicians abandon their partisianship or curb special interests. If they are elected to office on a Rep. or Dem. platform, they will remain true to that (at least as true as is possible for a politician) whether there is a "all inclusive party" or not. Politics is the dirtiest profession on earth, always has been and always will be.

 

[Doug]

get rid of the socialist left and we'll be fine.

 

[MAJA]

I know I promised not to add to this political discussion, but I have a crazy a$$ idea to end this left/right, Dem/Rep bickering and jabbing found in politics today and, unfortunately, also on this board. I thought this is a good time to post this.

What if, on the national level only, after our Senators, Representatives, President, and VP are sworn into office, they automatically have to drop their Democratic or Republican affiliations and become members of the "Today Party" or some other named party. Then, in essence, they are all of the same party and do not have to vote along their old obsoleted party lines, expected to vote for something which they may fundamentally oppose. Vote on each bill according to their constituents, and their own, conscience. Make each decision one by one. No need to worry about voting against "their party", as there is only one party.

Then, during an election year, the currently well established Democratic and Republican partys both nominate candidates to try to unseat the incumbants. In most elections, excluding the presidency, the incumbant will have the edge. In my opinion we can then take each candidate, one by one, and vote according to who would be best and not along a party line (which we should be doing anyway).

OK guys, now shoot it full of holes.

 

[olddognewtrks]

I've got a good solution. Vote for me for King

. Bonus...I'll take care of my BITOG associates with cushy cabinet posts.
My basic idea; if you can't PROVE a law or regulation will accomplish GOOD things, it's GONE.

 

[lloydbob1]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MAJA:
We need more candidates, that is my point. We currently only have two realistic choices. What my crazy, and I mean crazy, idea is to have a third incumbant party, which if they did a good job should have the advantage, in addition to the regular Dems and Reps at every national election.

In my opinion, there is no viable way to start a third party, and have it succeed. We had many party's, including the Bull Moose party, the Progressive party, the Federalist party, the Whig party, etc. (for a current listing see http://www.mondopolitico.com/parties/us/federal/us.fed.pp.htm ) But will any new party ever remotely be able to challenge on a national level? I dont see how.

---

We do need more candidates, but, we need candidates radically different than the Dems and Reps who are just different wings on the same bird of prey.
The Libertarian Party, the third largest party, around for more than 30 years, every member pays dues(!), has had, virtually, the same platform in every election: A smaller government, that stays out of it citizen's business and stays out of other country's business. They, pretty much, adhere to the type of government that our founding fathers created.
Some say that the press is left and some say right, but, in my 30 plus years of paying attention, the American Press, lapdog of the government, ignores the Libertarian Party.
Lloyd

 

[k1xv]

The party system (both parties) perverts the political process because individual legislators are beholden to the party leaders for campaign financing, appointments to key committees, etc..

Decisions on how to vote on issues and legislation are made in caucuses, and those who buck the leadership risk political ostracism.

I think that we need to reform our election process to significantly reduce the cost of running for office. Otherwise, all we get are party hacks or people very wealthy and able to finance their own campaigns out of their own pockets, such as Senator Corzine of NJ.

In much of New England, local officials are elected at a town meeting by voice vote. There is no limit to the number of candidates, and no party affiliations. No campaigning either. For our last town meeting, I did not see a single political sign on anyone's front yard.

Now, we live in a small town of 500. That may not work in the "big city".