My idea of change

[Christine]

A President, who is neither Democrat or Republican, one of the other parties instead. That would be real change! That has never happened in history. It has always been about Democrat or Republican, but someday a whole new party needs to get in there. I am neither Democrat or Republican, I don't agree with either one of them. I'm tired of it always being between those 2 parties. Perhaps someday, in my lifetime, I'll see that kind of real change and not the same old thing.

[Lady Cassandra Seahawke]

A President, who is neither Democrat or Republican, one of the other parties instead. That would be real change! That has never happened in history. It has always been about Democrat or Republican, but someday a whole new party needs to get in there. I am neither Democrat or Republican, I don't agree with either one of them. I'm tired of it always being between those 2 parties. Perhaps someday, in my lifetime, I'll see that kind of real change and not the same old thing.

Actually there was a third party at one time. The Whig party lasted approximately 20 years and two became presidents - Harrison and Taylor. Ah, they both died in office.

[Lady Cassandra Seahawke]

when the Whig party disbanned most of its members became Republican but for a time there were an overlapping and three parties were around.

OH the our second president was a Federalist. Washington had no party affiliation.

[oderlesseye]

A President, who is neither Democrat or Republican, one of the other parties instead. That would be real change! That has never happened in history. It has always been about Democrat or Republican, but someday a whole new party needs to get in there. I am neither Democrat or Republican, I don't agree with either one of them. I'm tired of it always being between those 2 parties. Perhaps someday, in my lifetime, I'll see that kind of real change and not the same old thing.

I vote for Ross Perot once because of the same sediments

[Red Bess]

A few years back Minnesota put an Independent in the Governor's office, because both the Democratic and Republican candidates lacked appeal and the public was ready to for something other than "politics as usual". It was an opportunity to show the country that we had something special going in Minnesota. But instead, it was a disaster, mainly for two reasons: 1.We now had 3 party partisanship, so no one was able to work together to accomplish anything. 2. That governor was Jesse Ventura, whose paranoia and it's-all-about-me attitude lead to fights, tantrums and outrageous comments and made him the laughing stock of the country.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not against having more than 2 political parties. But I myself will not vote for a 3rd party candidate any time soon. I have yet to see anything good come of it.

[Mission]

There are lots of 'third' parties, but none of them get many votes. I think I said this somewhere else, but about 40% of the people align with (and generally vote for) Democrats, 40% go with Republicans and the 20% in the middle decide elections. (These are very rough numbers. There are also a small number of voters who vote for third parties.)

There is a belief in the US that if you vote for anyone other than the main party, you're essentially 'wasting your vote'. Ross Perot's candidacy is pointed to as proof of this. Still, as long as this belief persists, we will have a two party system. Politics is nothing if not a social system, thus it is created by mass social beliefs.

I think if you wanted to start an electable third party, you'd have to fill a niche that most people feel the two current primary parties are really missing - and not just a sliver of one side's views or the other. (You probably won't get elected by trying to pose as a "more conservative" or "more liberal" party, thus attempting to steal from the two 40% groups. You need broader relevancy than that.).

Even with a good niche, you still run a risk of the major parties latching on to it and including it in the main party platforms. So your potential relevancy would be lost. I suggest it might be best to start with smaller elections than president and build credibility in the new party's message (whatever it is). That way it would also be easier to raise money from the citizenry, which is the lifeblood of any political campaign/organization.

It'd be a lot of work and would require some really slick marketing. (Of course, there are ways today to market such things effectively and cheaply if your message is sticky enough.) Still, it can be done. How much do you want to see your 'real change'?

[Christine]

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not against having more than 2 political parties. But I myself will not vote for a 3rd party candidate any time soon. I have yet to see anything good come of it.

I haven't seen anything good come out of Democrat and Republican either.

[Christine]

A President, who is neither Democrat or Republican, one of the other parties instead. That would be real change! That has never happened in history. It has always been about Democrat or Republican, but someday a whole new party needs to get in there. I am neither Democrat or Republican, I don't agree with either one of them. I'm tired of it always being between those 2 parties. Perhaps someday, in my lifetime, I'll see that kind of real change and not the same old thing.

Actually there was a third party at one time. The Whig party lasted approximately 20 years and two became presidents - Harrison and Taylor. Ah, they both died in office.

But the last time that happened was 1854. Since then it's been only between Democrat and Republican. I personally think the whole thing is ridiculous! Dividing a country like this with these political groups is really not a good idea, it only causes problems. That whole saying comes to mind, "United we stand, divided we fall". I think in the end it will be our down fall with all this kind of stuff that divides people.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Christine

[Lady Cassandra Seahawke]

Problem is if you have too many parties you can have chaos with none getting enough of the majority. If you go down to one party you have a dictorship.

The two party system gives a check and balance on the system. Not perfect, but then again, nothing is but, it is the best we have.

[blackjohn]

I'm all for the Bull Moose Party!

Bring back Teddy!

[rovingtar]

Perhaps we should all band together in 2012 and get as many of our friends as possible to write in Jimmy Buffet for president.

[Graydog]

I'm all for the Bull Moose Party!

Bring back Teddy!

The only man to have recommended himself for the Medal of Honor and then subsequently had it awarded! Of course, it was 89 years after his death. Wow, talk about lengthy processing times. (The whole discussion involves Black troops not getting credit for the assualt, vis-a-vi the current election, this makes this a bit of interesting trivia showing how the country has already changed before a discussion of change even took place.)

Edited November 6, 2008 by Graydog

[Quartermaster James]

If you want viable candidates from a party other than the Democrats or the Republicans you can't wait for them to show up on the presidential elections. Our system works from the ground up. Vote every chance you get. Vote in every municipal, county, and state election for which you qualify. Vote to put people with your values in positions from the school board to the water board to city commissioners, to county reps, etcetera. Then, and only then, will other parties have a viable base from which to elect leaders to the house and executive branch.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Quartermaster James

[Quartermaster James]

Problem is if you have too many parties you can have chaos with none getting enough of the majority. If you go down to one party you have a dictorship.

The two party system gives a check and balance on the system. Not perfect, but then again, nothing is but, it is the best we have.

I do not believe the two party system is the source of checks and balances, rather that comes from the division of government into the three branches: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.

Also, our system is not inherently limited to two parties but has simply devolved into such through non-participation and apathy.

[Mission]

Also, our system is not inherently limited to two parties but has simply devolved into such through non-participation and apathy.[/font][/size]

I don't see that. There have basically been two party election contests since the first one - Washington vs. Adams. At that time, the whole concept of a Republic was a revolutionary philosophical idea in which most of the people involved were excited about. (For a fascinating read on the founding of our country, read The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. Most people have no idea what a monumental shift in government structure the founding of this country was.)

Interestingly, it's actually been proven that if you give people too many choices, they lose their ability to tell the choices apart. (I think the original study involved different types of jams and differentiation became almost impossible in for most people at 6 choices. Several similar studies have been done with other object choices and the results are usually the same: 5 -7 items.) Still, this isn't to say that a valid third party couldn't become part of the process.

[Christine]

Perhaps we should all band together in 2012 and get as many of our friends as possible to write in Jimmy Buffet for president.

LMAO!!! I like that idea!

[Quartermaster James]

Also, our system is not inherently limited to two parties but has simply devolved into such through non-participation and apathy.[/font][/size]

I don't see that. There have basically been two party election contests since the first one - Washington vs. Adams.

Yarr! I'll grant you that point, and throw in that my comment on devolution (no pun intended) was hyperbole.

[Graydog]

1860 US Election, not one, not two, but FOUR political parties that all got electorial votes. The was preceded by the 1856 election that had three (3) political parties all getting electorial votes.:

Election of 1860

Candidates- -Party- -Electoral Vote- -PopularVote

Abraham Lincoln (Illinois) -Republican- -180- -1,865,593

John C. Breckinridge (Ky.) -Southern Democrat*- -72- -848,356

(Incumbent Vice President)

Stephen A. Douglas (Illinois) -Northern Democratic*- -12- -1,382,713

John Bell (Tennessee) -Constitutional Union- -39- -592,906

Many of the candidates did not appear on some of the states ballots. (Breckinridge absent in Northern States and Lincoln absent in most Southern States).

Lincoln won the office with less than 40% of the popular vote.

*Democrat Party broke in half at the convention with each half nominating its own candidiate.

Talk about a mess!

(Of course the norm for 90% of our history is two parties. Just showing an exception to the norm)

Edited November 7, 2008 by Graydog

[blackjohn]

I'm all for the Bull Moose Party!

Bring back Teddy!

The only man to have recommended himself for the Medal of Honor and then subsequently had it awarded! Of course, it was 89 years after his death. Wow, talk about lengthy processing times. (The whole discussion involves Black troops not getting credit for the assualt, vis-a-vi the current election, this makes this a bit of interesting trivia showing how the country has already changed before a discussion of change even took place.)

Which puts him in a rare category: one of two father-son teams of Medal of Honor winners.

[Graydog]

[

Which puts him in a rare category: one of two father-son teams of Medal of Honor winners.

It's those MacArthur boys always popping up into history!

[MadL]

The primary problem today is that the choos'n o' the captain tis allow'd t' be ran with $$, and unfortunately there be too may who think that if someone can raise th' most amount o' coin in th' shortest time "must be th' winner". Now perhaps some elections back there was some truth t' th' theory, but in today's world it now simply means that "he with the most money can BUY the most corrupt, Purchase the most chaos, and BUY people's opinions". He with th' most money can control too many persuading factors, and I do naught refer t' just th' media (which has been o' great controversy this time around) but also them 'back door shady folk', them 'behind th' scene wheelers and dealers'.

Did ye naught noticed how much th' media loves t' point out who has 'raised th' most money' during every election? Sure, in th' "good old days" that would show their skill at running a business, and th' government is a "business", but simply being able t' raise tons o' coin during a short run does NAUGHT mean they 'have the right stuff'; could simply mean they have all the Wrong stuff but someone really really bad had tons o' money t' shovel their way for some other agenda later down th' road...also, NAUGHT all good business men are 'good people' nor make 'good leaders'.

So, with that said, and much more I choose naught t' say fer me fingers be better for fight'n; I says we should take all candydates and stick them in a whole; the one what emerges alive be th' winner....but if they get out of line just once then I STICK'EM!!!

(truth be told; this be th' first one what has a might lot o' proven t' me before I will voluntarily toss me'self upon a grenade fer'em....something I say with great regret but all in honesty)

[Patrick Hand]

We have a system of "chocolate or vanilla"... unfortunately if you want mint sherbet with extra candy sprinkles.... you're kinda outta luck.....

[Red Cat Jenny]

Patrick, thats when it's time to find an island with a good fresh water source and line the shore with cannon!

I say throw em all out from the top down!

A lobbyist with a 35 year career said this past year ..that in his life he'd never seen a more corrupt Washington.

A poor excuse for picking a persons pockets every 15th of April!