Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 3 votes

More Political Parties in the USA?

usa political parties

  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#1    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 19 May 2013 - 03:43 PM

If the USA were to  have more media-recognized political parties than just the two, Democrats and Republicans:

How many do you think the USA would need to cover the sentiments of the voters?

What do  you think they would be?

Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!

#2    Purifier

Purifier

    Psychic Eye

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Male

  • Wild Card

Posted 19 May 2013 - 05:49 PM

Hey! Let's bring back the Whig and Know-Nothing parties! :w00t:


Seriously though, it seems to me multi-parties have fail or will fail in our political system, like what happened in the past. I just don't think some of them would last long, because of some major issue in the future would probably split up the smaller parties or they'd die a slow death because of disinterest and they'd go the way of the small Whigs and Know-Nothing parties.

However, in a usual turn of events, which I think is happening now, I do see a possible replacement of both current parties in the future with new parties, like the Republicans being replaced by the ever growing popular Libertarian party. Or maybe the Libertarian party finally gets enough members in the House and Senate, causing everybody to think we might become a  three political party system, but only for a little while, because the Libertarian party could slowly replace the Republican party and the Republican party would become so small, it would eventually die out. But then again, maybe the Libertarian party ends up going the way of the mid 1960's American Independent party,  which the American Independent party lost it's momentum because it kept splitting up and never seemed to get big enough to make a impact; not likely for the Libertarians though, their momentum is still going, slowly but surely. Of course all this may depend on whether the Libertarian party ever gets enough members elected in the House/Senate or not, yet I have a feeling they will.

What about the Democrats? Not sure about this, but there seems to be a growing movement or separation from the old Democrats as well, who now call themselves Progressives. Now they don't seem to be as big as the Libertarian party, yet, but if the Progressives grow in popularity, like the Libertarians are continuing to do now, would they become a party and slowly replace the Democrats? Seems possible, time will only tell.


Anyway, multi-parties in our political system just don't seem to last, it somehow stays or eventually becomes a two main party system again. But the name of the parties and the political ideology can change and do. Just look back on our political history.

Study the past, if you would divine the future.
- Confucius

#3    darkmoonlady

darkmoonlady

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Medford Oregon

  • Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'-Shawshank Redemption/Life is a buffet and most poor suckers are starving to death-Auntie Mame

Posted 19 May 2013 - 06:25 PM

I think the two party system has evolved to not allow room for middle ground parties by keeping people constantly polarized. If we had a viable alternative that featured more common sense and less crazy I'd gladly vote for a different party. The way the system is now it's broken, the two parties spend too much time tearing each other down, keeping the other party from accomplishing anything and dismantling the old regime's policies without making any progress (both Democrats and Republicans). I think the Republican party as it is now, its days are numbered, if they don't change and get with the times, evolve a little they will inevitably fracture along socially progressive and fiscally conservative lines leaving the hardline fundamentalists and those unwilling to compromise out in the cold. If that happens we may see multiple parties splinter off from that but in the meantime if another party emerged with a solid platform and an intelligent, well thought out message and mission, then I'm sure a lot of votes from both sides would leave and join up. Voters are tired of the same (*&^ different day attitude both parties suffer from.

“The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance …or change... logic can be happily tossed out the window. Religious mania is one of the few infallible ways of responding to the worlds vagaries, because it totally eliminates pure accident. To the true religious maniac, it’s ALL on purpose” – Stephen King, The Stand

#4    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,009 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 19 May 2013 - 08:24 PM

View Postregeneratia, on 19 May 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

If the USA were to  have more media-recognized political parties than just the two, Democrats and Republicans:

there are like 30 political parties. What are you whining about?

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#5    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 19 May 2013 - 09:54 PM

View Postninjadude, on 19 May 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

there are like 30 political parties. What are you whining about?

Yet ONLY TWO are covered by the media.....


#6    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 20 May 2013 - 01:10 AM

I'd really like to see several Mainstream parties that are ALL covered by the media.


#7    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 May 2013 - 03:05 PM

View Postregeneratia, on 19 May 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

If the USA were to  have more media-recognized political parties than just the two, Democrats and Republicans:

How many do you think the USA would need to cover the sentiments of the voters?

What do  you think they would be?
It wouldn’t matter.  We already have several other media-recognized [minor] parties, i.e. Libertarian, Green, Socialist, etc.  Although, the Democrat (Progressive) party is the real Socialist party.  Our system only runs on two parties.  It’s been the history of our party system.  We’ve had five different party systems so far.  We started off with the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans (or anti Federalists) (don’t get terms confused with today’s meanings).  Since then we’ve had the Whigs and various versions of Democrats and Republicans.  All based on different ideologies than today.  The only real question is “more government or less government”?  We see that from the beginning with the Federalists vs anti Federalists.  But in that day, more government meant having a stronger central government over state government, not an all controlling one.

On the political spectrum, you have Anarchy (0%) at one end and totalitarianism (100%) at the other end.  I don’t think that the Founding Fathers wanted anything less than 10% but they also didn’t want more than 30%.  The Founding Fathers wanted the proper amount of government and I see that somewhere between 10% and 30%.  Now these are just numbers for example’s sake.  I’m sure they are certainly open for debate.  But anything more than 30% and it has a tendency gather critical mass to shift to the 100% end.  That is what Socialism and Democracy does.  It can be a lighting fast transition or long and slow.  It just depends on the charisma and cunning of the ruling elite.  But it eventually gets there.

The thing with multiple parties is that one very rarely wins a majority.  In order to gain the majority means to form a coalition between several parties.  In order to do that they have to compromise their (the people they represent) ideology.  They do that with making backroom deals with each other and by doing that, distance their office from the people they represent.  And when that happens, the ruling elite begin to think that they know better than the people.  And that begins the government down the path to totalitarianism.  So all of these designer parties only enable the progression into totalitarianism.  And if left to the sentiments of the voters will find degradation into a popular culture quagmire.

I think that our party system will transition into two new parties (sixth system).  The Libertarian/TEA Party and the Progressive/Socialist Party.  As long as the P/S Party stays within the 30%, it’ll remain a legitimate party under our Constitution.  If not, it will be right back at its old ways of trying to undermine it.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#8    aztek

aztek

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,879 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 20 May 2013 - 03:34 PM

View PostKowalski, on 19 May 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

Yet ONLY TWO are covered by the media.....

well yea, they are the ones paying the media.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#9    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,009 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 21 May 2013 - 02:04 AM

View PostKowalski, on 19 May 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

Yet ONLY TWO are covered by the media.....

funny I saw green, libertarian, TEA, ....But you're right, by membership and political power they cover two for good reason. We don't have a parliamentary system, but a winner take all - which naturally lends itself to two strong parties. This has been known for centuries.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#10    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,461 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 21 May 2013 - 03:36 AM

Parties just aren't good enough. I'm inclined to say that republicans are most likely to represent my line of thinking and most people vote based on similar feelings whichever way they vote. It just isn't true though. The spectrum is too broad from the Paul's, McCain to the guy who made some comment about rape babies during the election last year. They're all in the same party but their views are as wide and varied as anything and I only like one of those names but if all those guys were up for election in different offices for one state most people would pull the lever for all three even though they aren't close to the same in how they'd govern.

I think party labels ought to go. Without them people would be forced to take a better look at who they are voting for rather than voting along party lines and officials would be elected based on the best ideals. Sure there will still be the Obama's out there who may gain cult followings due to sales pitches and feel good mantras but after a term in office (not just presidents) they'd be re-elected, or not, based on accomplishment and merit and with the lack of an entire party backing and endorsing it'd be almost entirely up to the incumbent to get his/her own damn votes. Of course, there could still be endorsing by other politicians but not so unanimously. Lobbyists could still exist but they'd have to be more careful who they back and there'd be more lobbyists backing a far wider variety of ideals rather than a few popular party faces. Combine these things with term limits and there'd be a constant influx of new fresh faces and ideas and a nation of voters who pay attention to who's who and what's going on. Without term limits corruption ensues and parties form because what happens is in time groups will form based on a few specific ideologies and with enough time those groups become larger and more polarized against each other and viola, a party has formed. With term limits there just isn't enough time for long time good 'ol boy cliques to form and contrive ill conceived schemes and influence naive freshmen with good intentions.

Edited by F3SS, 21 May 2013 - 03:39 AM.

Posted Image

#11    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,461 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 21 May 2013 - 03:48 AM

I wonder sometimes how is it that at the time of the American revolution there was such a conglomeration of genius, insightful, foresightful and passionate wise men with a wide variety of ideals known as our founding fathers could get together a compromise on writing the greatest document the world has ever known, while today you can't get two people from equal or opposing parties to work together to do anything without their egos and personal futures superseding the importance of the country? Where are the great ones today?

Posted Image

#12    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 27 May 2013 - 10:23 PM

View Postninjadude, on 19 May 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

there are like 30 political parties. What are you whining about?

The mainstream media recognizes only two.

Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!

#13    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,009 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 28 May 2013 - 02:42 AM

View Postregeneratia, on 27 May 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

The mainstream media recognizes only two.

as they always have. Our government by design yields two strong parties because it is winner take all. We do not have a parliament.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#14    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,461 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 28 May 2013 - 02:45 AM

Nobodies asking for a royal rumble of political parties. Either a third or none. I prefer the latter but I'll take the former.

Posted Image

#15    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,009 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 29 May 2013 - 02:58 AM

View PostF3SS, on 28 May 2013 - 02:45 AM, said:

Nobodies asking for a royal rumble of political parties. Either a third or none.

our political system just doesn't work that way. PoliSci101

Quote

In political science, Duverger's law is a principle which asserts that plurality rule elections structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system. This is one of two hypotheses proposed by Duverger, the second stating that "the double ballot majority system and proportional representation tend to multipartism."[1]
The discovery of this tendency is attributed to Maurice Duverger, a French sociologist who observed the effect and recorded it in several papers published in the 1950s and 1960s. In the course of further research, other political scientists began calling the effect a "law" or principle. Duverger's law suggests a nexus or synthesis between a party system and an electoral system: a proportional representation (PR) system creates the electoral conditions necessary to foster party development while a plurality system marginalizes many smaller political parties, resulting in what is known as a two-party system.
https://en.wikipedia.../Duverger's_law

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users