If the Dems get crushed enough then we may see a third party yet.
Dick Meyer is a little weak on history and why things are the way they are. He should study a little harder before opening a bottle of the usual whine. I'm sure if the Democrats were in power, Dick Meyer would not be complaining about the need for a third party.
Look at countries that don't have the two party system, like Mexico during most of the 20th Century, the USSR, China, and Iran.
New Slogan: For the truly, truly UNIQUE Individualists... The newer uber individualist... And those just flat out unhappy. Come to us, join us! Don't worry -- Get Happy! Become a jokester! Enjoy!
I see no problem with a 3rd party so long as there is a run off between the 2 with the highest amounts of votes when it comes to the Presidential election. A 3 way Presidential contest will probably have a winner that most voted against. Like the classic 92' election where 60% plus of the voters voted against the winner.
More C-BS and a moron named Dick Meyer.
A third party is more likely to act as a spoiler for one side or the other. I still believe that H. Ross Perot was a RAT plant in the '92 election.
It was the third party candidate H. Ross Perot that gave us 8 years of William Jefferson "hummer" Jefferson.
Work within the system. With the way our political system is set up, a third party candidate has more of a chance of splitting conservative votes (as Perot did) and handing the election to the Liberal than they do in actually getting elected.
This article mirrors my bio on FR. - tom
The Founders didn't want political parties, for they saw the corruption and abuse of power that such parties would inevitably bring with them. My understanding is that the founders wanted our elected representatives to come together on an issue-by-issue basis.
I'd like to try a no-party system, not a 3rd party system.
Is this genius seriesly suggesting that Italy has a better political system than the United States of America?? LOLOL, not even the Italians would say that!
"Third parties do not exist because the two big parties don't want them to. It's bad for business and it's that simple."
You have to get up pretty early in the morning to be that wrong. The Republican party would love there to be a third party to split the D vote, and vise versa. The reason third parties do not exist is because whoever divides their vote will lose.
"The American system is winner take all: you win a plurality of votes; you win the whole state or congressional district. "
Congratulations- you've started on a journey where you will figure out the meaning of the word "Republic". There's value in actually being able to choose who you want to represent your interests, rather than just voting for a party.
This guy's whine is rather poorly conceived. The reality of the two party system is that anybody who is serious about winning joins one of the two major parties. Neither party is particularly discriminating on who they let in. People who can't win, but want to draw a lot of attention to themselves, go third party/independent. If you were to introduce a real third party- one that could compete with the DNC or the GOP, then you'd still have the same pool of candidates, just with some of them in a different party.
The reason we don't have "an independent spirit to break through the homogenized, cuisinarted horse manure that is modern American politics." come along and win all to often is because that's not who Americans want to elect. Every once in a while a freak show (like Jesse Ventura) comes along and wins, but their track records once in office tend not to be too swell.
The lighter side first: With a last name that's 15 letters long, it's no wonder he goes by "E.E.". I hope his parents didn't saddle him with two long first names like Ebenezer Emmanuel.
On the serious side, I don't understand why this article is an acorn, unless it's an ACORN like that left wing voter fraud advocacy group.
I don't see why advocating independent candidates could possibly benefit Republicans or conservatives.
In my opinion, independent candidates are usually too liberal or whacky to qualify as conservative Republican and only serve as straw men, by drawing votes away from the chosen Republican candidates.
The independents that are too "out there" to run as Democrats are usually so far out there they don't affect the race one way or another.
I'm afraid this is going to be the case in our current MA gubernatorial campaign.
We have Christy Mihos, who decided against competing in the Republican primary and chose to run as an independent. Because he has the money to pay for the ball and rent the court, he's going to have his little game, then take his ball home, and leave us to pay the mortgage on the court.
Then we have a self-described "white lesbian" moonbat who's running under some umbrella called "Rainbow Green" or "Green Rainbow" or "Technicolor Gag Me with a Dildo" or something.
While claiming to "love Massachusetts", the self centered, delusional, egomaniacal Mihos is going inflict a moonbat of Howard Dean proportions upon Massachusetts, in the person of Deval Patrick, by sucking votes away from our admittedly weak Republican Candidate, Kerry Healey. Massachusetts will effectively become a SINGLE party state.
The "white lesbian" candidate...well, I don't even want to go there...but she's something akin to a bug on the windshield and about as visually appealing.
This whole fiasco almost perfectly mirrors the 1992 debacle that was perpetrated by Perot (and the non-candidate Nader) and resulted in F-ing Clinton...and...I can't go any further without taking my blood pressure meds.