Author Topic: What this country needs (Read 395 times)

easymo · « **on:** January 30, 2002, 02:15:34 PM »

Is a third party. Not a single agenda, special interest, group. But a real party. The Dems are not going to help the Reps do anything, that might work, and make them look good. The same thing can be said of the Reps. We need another party, in the center, to swing legislation, preferably in the direction of common sense.

midnight Target · « **Reply #1 on:** January 30, 2002, 02:29:27 PM »

Here's one Grass Roots Party

Sikboy · « **Reply #2 on:** January 30, 2002, 02:48:38 PM »

In order to get a third party, we need to change the electoral system. It's so funny that you should mention this here and now, because the culprit behind our two party system isn't special interests or evil conspiracies (not that I'm saying you've implied that or anything), but rather our SMDP electoral system. I have to get back to work, but I'll explain more later lol

-Sikboy

Sandman · « **Reply #3 on:** January 30, 2002, 05:32:30 PM »

Change the electoral system...

Meaning... get rid of the Electoral College. As long as that exists, we'll be stuck with two parties.

Toad · « **Reply #4 on:** January 30, 2002, 05:39:01 PM »

Or... throw out every single incumbent in the upcoming election.

Cod, I'd laugh... all that money spent by the lobbyists wasted on the newly unemployed...

They'd have to bribe a whole new set!

Plus, that'd put the "fear of Cod" in the remaining scalawags... "get your butts to work for this country or finally, THIS time.. it'll be YOU looking for honest work!"

And I mean this in a most multi-denominational way.. Republicans, Democrats, Independents.. all incumbents.. OUT!

Change Representatives and Senators like you change socks!

I can dream, can't I?

mrfish · « **Reply #5 on:** January 30, 2002, 05:49:40 PM »

that's exactly what we need.

with heavy turnover emphasised too.

i'd like to see all kinds of people filtering through government with moderate positions from all sectors of society especially science and art.

not just the salesmen types we have now.

Raubvogel · « **Reply #6 on:** January 30, 2002, 06:17:40 PM »

mrfish for President! hehehe

Udie · « **Reply #7 on:** January 30, 2002, 06:40:16 PM »

I think that if we really want some sort of real term limits we should reduce the ammount of money we pay them to like $50k a year and they get NO RETIREMENT PENSION[/I][/U]!!How in they hell can they justify what they pay themselve, not pay S.S. and force us, under penalty of LOSS OF FREEDOM, to pay S.S. or any tax for that matter? Better yet, why in the hell do we put up with it? I am so disgusted with our congress I don't know what to do.

What would happen if say 100,000 or more say a million people filed a class action lawsuit agains the legislative branch? Is that possible? Wish some rich dude would get it started.

midnight Target · « **Reply #8 on:** January 30, 2002, 07:31:32 PM »

Nononono Udie, INCREASE the pay to make the job affordable for the common man. Only an independently wealthy person or someone with rich backers could survive on 50k in Washington. Plus after 2 years you may be out of a job. You get what you pay for. Lets not count on the lobbies to pay our legislators!

Sandman · « **Reply #9 on:** January 30, 2002, 07:55:58 PM »

I agree with Tahgut on the salary AND I also agree with Udie about the pension.

Public service doesn't require a pension. These people need to get real jobs.

Sikboy · « **Reply #10 on:** January 30, 2002, 08:41:17 PM »

Sorry this took so long, but at work I read the boards through a tiny "perescope" window, crash diving whenever the boss comes by. Anyhow, about the electoral system and two parties, I wasn't refering to the Electoral College, those ninnies just do what they're told. The real problem (if you want a 3rd party that is) is what is called "Duverge's Law" (I'm not sure on the spelling of that, the romance languages kill me every time. it's pronounced "du-ver-ZHEY") What this law states is that when you have a single member district plurality electoral system*, such as we do for the house and the Senate, you will wind up with only two parties, and those parties will vie for the center of the political spectrum. What happens is:

Let's say that we have a clean slate. We throw all the bums out and start over, but we keep the system as it is. We start off with 8 political parties, four on the left of center, four on the right. In the first year of elections we might very well have a pretty even coverage from all the parties. But soon, within a few cycles, two parties on one side are going to join up because after all, it's better to compromise with the guy who is closest to my beliefs, than to run the risk of letting that pack of weasels from the oposite side win. Now, instead of 8 parties there are 7 parties. Within a cycle or two after that, the oposition does the same thing, they combine two or more parties in an attempt to regain a majority. Now we have between 5-6 parties. And this continues, until there are two parties both struggling to grab those swing voters in the middle.

If you want to check out some cool alternatives (Personally, I like the two party "Push the middle" system, I think it works) check out France and Germany. In France (and correct me if I'm wrong here) You need a majority of the votes in order to win, and if no one has a majority in the initial election, they have a few run-offs until someone DOES get a majority. They just lop off the weaker candidates from the earlier elections. In Germany, they give each district multiple representatives, proportionally alloted according to the percentage of the vote a political party receives.

-Sikboy

*the SMDP means that the nation is divided up into districts and each district is represented by ONE person. That person doesn't need a majority (51%+) of the Votes, just more than anyone else.

easymo · « **Reply #11 on:** January 30, 2002, 09:14:23 PM »

The problem, as I see it, is that these groups always make a grab for the big brass ring. The white house. And people always see it as just a grab for power. That is no place for a referee. We need a third party in congress. The surprising success of the first Ross Perot campaign had more to do with people wanting a third party, than it did for Ross.

Octavius · « **Reply #12 on:** January 30, 2002, 09:52:24 PM »

Clone Teddy Roosevelt

We need someone human in office.

Sikboy · « **Reply #13 on:** January 31, 2002, 05:38:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by easymo
The problem, as I see it, is that these groups always make a grab for the big brass ring. The white house. And people always see it as just a grab for power. That is no place for a referee. We need a third party in congress.

The Greens and Libertarians have been losing local and congressional elections for years. I wonder how the British maintain the liberal democrats as a third party? Check out the Germans if you want a good model for having a swing party and coalition government.

Quote

The surprising success of the first Ross Perot campaign had more to do with people wanting a third party, than it did for Ross. [/B]

But look what happened whith the Perot campaign, many republicans complained that the Perot Voters "Gave" the election to Clinton. The idea being that the Reform Party Split the Republican Electorate. Tim Russert was just talking to Ralph Nader on Meet the Press, and he asked whether or not Nader felt that he was responsible for Bush's victory. Once again the idea is that he split the electorate, this time though it was the Democrats. If a party like the reform party or the Green party were to become a major player in US politics, they would replace either the GOP or the DEMS. I think that something Catastrophic would have to happen for that to happen.

-Sikboy

straffo · « **Reply #14 on:** January 31, 2002, 06:09:42 AM »

I've read a SF book with an great solution to get ride of the politics ...
President were choosen randomly in the whole population ...

A not so bad solution IMO