Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinG  Sure it is. It is called a third party, or a fourth party. Libertarians share some views from both sides, and hold the belief that the country should actually be run based on the document that is was founded upon.
The system doesn't fail the people, the people fail the system. |
I hear ya with the other party thing, in theory, it's what I'd like to do (dare I admit I voted for Ross Perot). But in a major election where the main objective was to stop the damage, a non-vote or a third party vote would have been the same as a vote for the incumbants.
Come 2008 presidential race, I'd love to think that their could be a third party option, but come on, we all know that if someone even comes close to being realistic in the race, they will almost certainly be stealing votes from the Democratic side. It seems that in the politial spectrum, republicans represent 25%, and democrats 75%. All the third parties seem to erupt from a democratic perspective (which helps explain why democrats don't have a clear cut agenda like the republicans do, they span such a wide range of beliefs that of course they won't all agree). With democratic voters seemingly less motivated than republican voters, the races come out closer than they should. I think if every one in the country was educated as to what each party stood for, and they all voted, democrates would win hands down (assuming the standard two party race).
Getting back to your point about a third or fourth party, how do we get there from here? Currently, voting for a third party is a 'throw away vote', equivalent to either a non-vote, or a negative vote from the next nearest party to your preference. Perot got 20% or so, which was unheard of until then. Most parties can't even qualify for a debate. How do we change the process so other parties with realistic goals can be a part of the system, but we aren't overtaken by every "Joe for President" party that divides the nation into a thousand pieces?