Reasons why a Three Party system would be superior to a Two Party system

We dont need three parties the Dems and the Repubs should just merge, considering they very closely similar compared to the libertarian party.

 

We don't even need parties. They don't matter anymore.

 

coo..

I also wish the left right paradigm was replaced by "constitutionalists" vs "progressives". this left right paradigm shiat is buuuuuuuulllllllllllllssssssssshhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiitttttttt

 

Parties themselves should be gone. Instead of voting for a persons ideas they vote for their party.

 

The election system needs a total makeover...

Like i said, the left right, democrat republican paradigm is false and meaningless. It is used to distract and divide the country, and with that system, when one side is "fucking up", the other side, posing as the saviour (OBAMA), comes in promising change.

But we're smart enough to realize that this supposed "change" is merely smoke blown up your ass, to get you to buy into the saviour candidate.

Repeat, repeat, repeat. ect.

 

It's not a matter of how many potential candidates there are, the problem is voting itself.

You are consenting to a system where the desire to rule (continually more & more) over others is not only validated, but worse yet is encouraged. Whichever candidate can siphon the most funds from the general public and hand it out to the most constituencies whom are successful at lobbying the government wins.

So long as the state has power to exercise, the auction (voting) will commence.

 

That's the reason the United States is supposed to be plural, not singular (see the Constitution). The federal government should have very little power compared to what the do now, and the states should have way more. That way we don't have to all completely agree on issues that there will NEVER be a full consensus on. 50 states, 50 testing grounds. A couple states could try out some socialistic policies, some could lean libertarian, etc... and when one state finds success others could follow suit, or try something new.

 

Political philosophies can pretty much be summed up by 2 categories, statism (those who wish to grow the scope and power of government) and individualism. I don't count socialism/communism because it's not feasible in any way. The 2 parties in our system are statist. They offer extremely slight variations of statism, primarily in rhetoric, not action. We haven't had an individualist President since the 19th century.

 

And no system would be superior to any system. Let freedom reign...not statism.

 

Should there be a limit to how many candidates can run? What if there were say 8 people in the race? What percentage of the vote would they need to win? Is someone who can only get 13% of the vote entitled to govern over everyone? That means that 87% of the voters did NOT vote for that person, but if they have the largest percentage of the vote... do they win?

I say this as someone who almost always votes third party, but doesn't it make sense to narrow it down (via primaries and campaigns) to only 2 or 3 people so we don't have situations where the majority of voters did not cast a vote for the winning candidate?

 

[quote name='"Penelope420"']Should there be a limit to how many candidates can run? What if there were say 8 people in the race? What percentage of the vote would they need to win? Is someone who can only get 13% of the vote entitled to govern over everyone? That means that 87% of the voters did NOT vote for that person, but if they have the largest percentage of the vote... do they win?

I say this as someone who almost always votes third party, but doesn't it make sense to narrow it down (via primaries and campaigns) to only 2 or 3 people so we don't have situations where the majority of voters did not cast a vote for the winning candidate?[/quote]

This is why a big government fails. The more people you represent the less likely you are to represent everyone equally.

There shoudlnt be a president honeslty. Laws should he localized to cater to specific communities needs

 

I'm not talking about the presidential election, what I posted applies to any election, on down to electing student body president at the local middle school.

We have many laws which are localized to cater to communities, but that is really a different subject, and doesn't answer the questions I raised.

 

Pretty much what I was thinking, "well maybe that's why they shouldn't be governing over everyone." There is no possible way to fully and accurately represent so many people over such a vast area. No matter which way you slice it, the bigger the group of people the weaker their representation becomes.

There's definitely a need for a President; there are specific powers granted by the Constitution that the President needs to do.

What we don't need, however, is a Federal govt that reaches into every single moment of every single one of our lives. We don't need a giant, bloated bureaucracy to "represent us," because it inherently cannot. We don't need trillions upon trillions of OUR dollars stolen from us and squandered in ways and places we will never see or make use of.

You are right on about a more localized representation, though. The more local the govt, the more accurately it represents its constituency. Look at California for example. The bay and LA areas are all blue, while almost the entirety of the rest of the state is red. When the liberal regions pass something like MMJ, the rest of the state is forced to go along with it, even though they're much more conservative. When you go down to the county level, though, the conservative counties govern conservatively while the liberal counties are able to govern liberally. And on an even smaller scale, what is good for one city isn't necessarily good for another city, and those who live in a city should be the ones deciding the laws of that city, and on up the scale.

"One size fits all" policies are inherently flawed because it never "fits all." It's impossible to "fit all," when you're talking about 312,000,000 people spread out over 3.9 million square miles and 50 different States.

So rather than worrying so damn much about the Feds, we should be more concerned with local and State elections.



Of course, this is dependent upon 1) people paying more attention 2) people learning how things actually work 3) politicians who will do what needs to be done, reelection be damned, and 4) people who will actually vote for those politicians who will do what needs to be done.



It fails the very first qualifier

 

The scale of who is disenfranchised is far, far greater on a national scale compared to a State or county or even smaller scale. I think that's what he's getting at, specifically your "govern over everyone" statement. If the Federal govt wasn't so powerful to begin with, it wouldn't matter so much that the representatives only got pluralities rather than majorities. Isn't a plurality more accurate representation anyways? With a 2 party system you have a false dichotomy, because there aren't only 2 ideologies or ways of dealing with things. So while the winning candidate got 50% +1, a lot of those votes are simply cast because the people's true candidate doesn't even get to enter the race.

If Romney wins because the Paul supporters are forced to suck a dick and vote for Romney, did Romney really win the most votes...? Or were the third-partiers simply forced to enter the false dichotomy of R v D, and thus un/misrepresented anyways?