I think there are a lot of people out there who generally fit that mold - small government and fiscal discipline, social issues equate to staying out of people's lives. I think if the Libbies could field a name candidate for Prez or a Congressional seat or two, someone people know and like, they could really shake things up at many levels.

 

I think there are a lot of people out there who generally fit that mold - small government and fiscal discipline, social issues equate to staying out of people's lives. I think if the Libbies could field a name candidate for Prez or a Congressional seat or two, someone people know and like, they could really shake things up at many levels.

 

I think the Libertarians are done as a party.

 

Actually I think the best third party chance we have now is the Unity Party, and that is if they can find a good Presidential candidate or two to bring them some attention. They have taken up many of the same mantles, and are a lot more moderate than either major party is right now. I have been following their stuff out of curiousity, and it is interesting, but I don't think they really have much of a chance at anything. If they could rope a Michael Bloomberg or a Joe Lieberman, they might get the ball rolling.

I think the Libertarians are done as a party.

 

Actually I think the best third party chance we have now is the Unity Party, and that is if they can find a good Presidential candidate or two to bring them some attention. They have taken up many of the same mantles, and are a lot more moderate than either major party is right now. I have been following their stuff out of curiousity, and it is interesting, but I don't think they really have much of a chance at anything. If they could rope a Michael Bloomberg or a Joe Lieberman, they might get the ball rolling.

My impression from what little I know of the Libbies is that they are a split party at this point. I think some see small government as being like the GOP model, but others are of the mind of a MUCH smaller government - like military and courts and that's about it. And those folks are not electable.

 

My impression from what little I know of the Libbies is that they are a split party at this point. I think some see small government as being like the GOP model, but others are of the mind of a MUCH smaller government - like military and courts and that's about it. And those folks are not electable.

 

Eh, I wouldn't read too much into party differences. Remember the Democrats have Lydon Larouche, Joe Lieberman, and Harry Reid all under the same umbrellas, and the Republicians have Dick Cheney and Ron Paul. The Libertarians just haven't been relevant in so long, they are forgotten about. A "new" party with the same ideas has a much better chance of success.

Eh, I wouldn't read too much into party differences. Remember the Democrats have Lydon Larouche, Joe Lieberman, and Harry Reid all under the same umbrellas, and the Republicians have Dick Cheney and Ron Paul. The Libertarians just haven't been relevant in so long, they are forgotten about. A "new" party with the same ideas has a much better chance of success.

That's probably true. Seems to me the time is ripe for a third party to get in there. The Unity party doesn't have a specific platform, just "we're not them". I think a new party, one who is fiscally and intergovernmentally conservative and socially liberal, could do really well if they had a few known faces out there. Want to start one?

 

That's probably true. Seems to me the time is ripe for a third party to get in there. The Unity party doesn't have a specific platform, just "we're not them". I think a new party, one who is fiscally and intergovernmentally conservative and socially liberal, could do really well if they had a few known faces out there. Want to start one?

The big issue with a third party is the "big two" shut them down faster then a blink of an eye. You ever notice how the voter laws change so quickly after a "scare" from a third party candidate?

The big issue with a third party is the "big two" shut them down faster then a blink of an eye. You ever notice how the voter laws change so quickly after a "scare" from a third party candidate?

Oh I'm not saying it would be easy - but it can be done. Ross Perot showed that, and he didn't even have a party.

 

The big issue with a third party is the "big two" shut them down faster then a blink of an eye. You ever notice how the voter laws change so quickly after a "scare" from a third party candidate?

 

The problem with that is you can only be "Us vs Them" for so long before people get sick of it. The whole rest of the world manages to have a system that includes way more parties and ideals than we do. I really hope eventually one or more of these group can break through.

The problem with that is you can only be "Us vs Them" for so long before people get sick of it. The whole rest of the world manages to have a system that includes way more parties and ideals than we do. I really hope eventually one or more of these group can break through.

But you know the remarkable thing about those systems, the parliamentary ones which allow lots of parties? They rapidly wind up breaking down into quasi 2 party systems as well. Because a lot of times, the new parties that appear are not these magical, centrist, "Everyone will agree with us" parties that for some reason people envision should pop up and make everyone happy. They wind up being vastly farther out on the fringe, and they wind up just making coalitions and governments harder to build, because you have to cater to that fringe party in order to build a government.

 

Give you an example...right now, you could probably get 30% of the vote for a party who's sole goal was to get the U.S. out of Iraq, and which would refuse to join a government without that. If you then wound up with 3 parties in a parliamentary type system, it might be nearly impossible for a government to form without the aid of that party. In other words, you would have to cater to the farthest wing in order to be able to form a government, and you'd have to placate that minority party to keep the government from falling.

I would love to be the third party that everyone had to come to to get anything passed. Oh how the pork would fly. Far better to fix the existing parties than have a three way split of power where everything would take coalition building.

I would love to be the third party that everyone had to come to to get anything passed. Oh how the pork would fly. Far better to fix the existing parties than have a three way split of power where everything would take coalition building.

I would really, really, really love to see how this system would work if we could just rebuild it so that people in Congress didn't spend 3/4 of their time raising money.

But you know the remarkable thing about those systems, the parliamentary ones which allow lots of parties? They rapidly wind up breaking down into quasi 2 party systems as well. Because a lot of times, the new parties that appear are not these magical, centrist, "Everyone will agree with us" parties that for some reason people envision should pop up and make everyone happy. They wind up being vastly farther out on the fringe, and they wind up just making coalitions and governments harder to build, because you have to cater to that fringe party in order to build a government.

 

Give you an example...right now, you could probably get 30% of the vote for a party who's sole goal was to get the U.S. out of Iraq, and which would refuse to join a government without that. If you then wound up with 3 parties in a parliamentary type system, it might be nearly impossible for a government to form without the aid of that party. In other words, you would have to cater to the farthest wing in order to be able to form a government, and you'd have to placate that minority party to keep the government from falling.

I disagree, and I think looking at other countries as well as our own shows that.

 

Look at the Congress in this country, up until the current decade. You didn't have any real 3rd party folks (other than whats-his-face the socialist from NH), but what you DID have is sub-groups within both parties that functioned like smaller parties. You had the Blue Dogs - southern Dems who tended to vote with the GOP on social issues. Same sort of thing from Farm Democrats from the midwest. Then there were the New England Republicans, who tended to vote Dem on social issues but GOP on other stuff. And guess what? A lot more got done when you had those groups that were closer to the middle, because that allowed for COMPROMISE. Something the current situation - with both parties hunkering down in their respective trenches - doesn't allow for.

 

Looking at the UK, the 3rd and 4th parties (Lib Dems particularly) usually have a significant enough number of seats that they act much like our Congress did before - those become important voting blocks, necessary to get things passed. Germany, same thing with the Greens, etc. (by the way, I love the German system of voting - way better than what we do). These situations make for much healthier, much more agile and effective bodies. Those 3rd and 4th parties may have some fringe views, but their actual result is to moderate the body.

 

So I actually think that the addition of another party or two to a few seats in the US Congressional bodies would in fact make for a better situation than we have now. More would get done.

 

But you know the remarkable thing about those systems, the parliamentary ones which allow lots of parties? They rapidly wind up breaking down into quasi 2 party systems as well. Because a lot of times, the new parties that appear are not these magical, centrist, "Everyone will agree with us" parties that for some reason people envision should pop up and make everyone happy. They wind up being vastly farther out on the fringe, and they wind up just making coalitions and governments harder to build, because you have to cater to that fringe party in order to build a government.

 

Give you an example...right now, you could probably get 30% of the vote for a party who's sole goal was to get the U.S. out of Iraq, and which would refuse to join a government without that. If you then wound up with 3 parties in a parliamentary type system, it might be nearly impossible for a government to form without the aid of that party. In other words, you would have to cater to the farthest wing in order to be able to form a government, and you'd have to placate that minority party to keep the government from falling.

 

We have those samethings going on right now. Think of the religious right and the union left. We are already catering to the fringes in this country. Any party that appears now is going to be centrist by nature, because unless they are in favor of mass executions or something like that, they are going to be more moderate than what we have now.

I wonder if centralist could envoke enough support to actually get elected in high enough numbers. I think a third party needs an almost cult like core and average doesn't necessarily do it, but it would be the best possible world. But then still, Balta's point that they would still need to join together to get anything done is the problem point. So it's a centralist third party needing the outer fringe to help. I still fear a pork fest of the highest calling.

I wonder if centralist could envoke enough support to actually get elected in high enough numbers. I think a third party needs an almost cult like core and average doesn't necessarily do it, but it would be the best possible world. But then still, Balta's point that they would still need to join together to get anything done is the problem point. So it's a centralist third party needing the outer fringe to help. I still fear a pork fest of the highest calling.

I think it would be vastly more effective and vastly easier to totally overhaul the campaign financing system than it would be to count on another party magically appearing and deciding that they'll be the good guys who will fix everything and who everyone will agree with.

I wonder if centralist could envoke enough support to actually get elected in high enough numbers. I think a third party needs an almost cult like core and average doesn't necessarily do it, but it would be the best possible world. But then still, Balta's point that they would still need to join together to get anything done is the problem point. So it's a centralist third party needing the outer fringe to help. I still fear a pork fest of the highest calling.

I think the best possible strategy for a 3rd party wanting to make real inroads, would have priorities something like this:

 

--Solid, simple platform (i.e. small government, socially liberal) - you can't have a 3rd party that is just "not like them"

--Start narrow and deep - pick a few Congressional seats that meet specific criteria (record of recent poor representatives, no big candidates lined up, not a big money area), and target those few places to spend all your money, just to get a foot in the door.

--Find a few candidates that are known names, and not necessarily nationally - could be local or regionally famous folks, that would garner loyalty

 

I would love to be the third party that everyone had to come to to get anything passed. Oh how the pork would fly. Far better to fix the existing parties than have a three way split of power where everything would take coalition building.

 

You're right, why would we want to encourage compromise and moderation, when we can have extremism and gridlock! More pork? LMAO.

You're right, why would we want to encourage compromise and moderation, when we can have extremism and gridlock! More pork? LMAO.

 

Because watching these guys just doesn't inspire any confidence that it would change.

I think the best possible strategy for a 3rd party wanting to make real inroads, would have priorities something like this:

 

--Solid, simple platform (i.e. small government, socially liberal) - you can't have a 3rd party that is just "not like them"

--Start narrow and deep - pick a few Congressional seats that meet specific criteria (record of recent poor representatives, no big candidates lined up, not a big money area), and target those few places to spend all your money, just to get a foot in the door.

--Find a few candidates that are known names, and not necessarily nationally - could be local or regionally famous folks, that would garner loyalty

 

That would be great, and easily the best for us, but would the public donate enough money to make them viable? I don't see corporations and special interest groups backing them with enough cash. And to borrow a Watergate era phrase, follow the money. That is one thing I loved about Newt's announcement. Straight to the money. Smart and practical.

 

A combination of your plan and Balta's and a pinch of SS vision and optimism would be awesome.

That would be great, and easily the best for us, but would the public donate enough money to make them viable? I don't see corporations and special interest groups backing them with enough cash. And to borrow a Watergate era phrase, follow the money. That is one thing I loved about Newt's announcement. Straight to the money. Smart and practical.

 

A combination of your plan and Balta's and a pinch of SS vision and optimism would be awesome.

Money is why I had point number 2 in there. You campaign and collect nationally, but run focused campaigns in a few places to begin with. You market it as part of a larger wave to support, and some people will donate even though you don't run in their area - yet. Focused money. It doesn't take $100M to win a House Rep seat. In some places, it may take only a few tens of thousands.

 

I wish I shared y'all's optimism that something like this could really happen. It's almost too perfect. We've had independent candidates win, it's how, and why, they would link together. It seems more likely we would have a big enough single issue (environment, immigration, defense, taxes?) that the public would pull them together.

 

Not the more optimistic scenario, but more likely in my book. I'm usually the optimistic, elected officials are good, one here. Y'all are scaring me with the rosy outlook. But I like it. Don't stop thinking about tomorrow

 

As I was going to hit send, I trhought of a way that SS vision could come true with a centralist party. Enough mainstream voters become disallusioned with the Big Two and the left of the right and the right of the left band together and find candidates that share that philosophy.

So, I'm pulling out of the research campus today and what do i see barreling down the drive behind me, but The "MittMobile Five Brothers Bus"

 

 

Meh, they''l let just about anybody into the damn place.

 

I guess the bus is on it's Florida leg of the primary state swing.

 

So, I'm pulling out of the research campus today and what do i see barreling down the drive behind me, but The "MittMobile Five Brothers Bus"

 

 

Meh, they''l let just about anybody into the damn place.

 

I guess the bus is on it's Florida leg of the primary state swing.

You should have let the bus hit you in the rear . . .

 

ba ba dum dum dum . . . .

 

*rimshot*

 

So, I'm pulling out of the research campus today and what do i see barreling down the drive behind me, but The "MittMobile Five Brothers Bus"

 

 

Meh, they''l let just about anybody into the damn place.

 

I guess the bus is on it's Florida leg of the primary state swing.

Its driving around Florida while covered in Iowa themes?

 

How was the dog?