Should the US have a third party?

[henry quirk]

It's not a third party that needed, but...

http://nota.org/

"If 'None of the Above; For a New Election' receives the most votes, no candidate is elected to that office and a follow-up by-election, with new candidates, is held. Note that even candidates running unopposed must obtain voter consent to be elected."

...and...

...no-party politics...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy

[BigV]

that would make for a lot of shaking up. what good do you suggest would come from having roles unfilled?

there are examples in our government (indeed, any organizational structure) where there was work to do but no one to do it. That doesn't guarantee a more efficient organization, though it often means more work for the people around that hole. Additionally, elections are expensive and slow paced, how would we function if many NOTAs were "winners"? Unlike you, I don't believe there should be no government.

[henry quirk]

"what good do you suggest would come from having roles unfilled?"

At least in part: NotA (binding, as described at the site) removes the finality/fatality of voting for the lesser of two evils (or incompetents). Consider NotA a training device for any and all potential candidates (you have to step up with something other that the tried/tired and true/trite).

In the same way: banning formal political parties forces potential candidates to 'think' and 'consider' rather than simply 'adopt'.

Together: NotA and no-party politics makes for a better grade of candidate and a better grade of voter...certainly: not all the problems get solved but the two together make for one helluva start.

#

"how would we function if many NOTAs were "winners"?"

How do you function now?

Governance (American) was never meant to be the foundation for an individual citizen's living. Largely: you are meant to be left alone to do what you can and will and like.

#

"Unlike you, I don't believe there should be no government."

As I've said before: proxyhood (hiring/electing folks to oversee and maintain the American esoteric and physical infrastructure) is preferable to 'governance' (governors directed the governed).

[Undertoad]

Tricking the people into the type of government, or the lack of government you desire, is a form of tyranny.

[henry quirk]

UT, is that addressed to me?

If so: I can't see how anything I've suggested amounts to trickery.

Quite the opposite: NotA and non-party politics removes much of the capacity for parties and individuals to run amuck, and, restoring extremely limited governance (proxyhood) is a simple return to the letter of the blueprint (the fed constitution).

Again: not seeing the tyranny.

Or: is expecting folks to take care of themselves, for themselves, largely by themselves, tyrannical?

The trick and the tyranny is turning the presidency and congress into 'directors' when, properly, they all should be *'janitors'.

The trick and tyranny is demanding my participation in anything beyond the minimal up-keep of what is supposed to be a bare bones infrastructure.

*shrug*










*only keeping the toilet of America **unclogged, not redecorating the whole damned house.










**frankly: as long as the status quo IS the status quo, I'm glad the toilet is clogged and overflowing...as long as the 'governors' squabble and in-fight they leave 'me' alone.

[Undertoad]

Well you've put out NOTA as a voting alternative, and now you've determined that it means "no governance". As opposed to what it normally means: "Neither of these bozos, let's roll again with two new selections".

Whatever is offered to the voters must be transparent and obvious. Tyranny is the outcome of elections that don't represent the will of the voters.

[henry quirk]

"Whatever is offered to the voters must be transparent and obvious."

Can't see how implementing binding NotA and banning political parties (no party politics) does anything but make things more transparent and obvious.

#

"Tyranny is the outcome of elections that don't represent the will of the voters."

Giving voters a choice beyond the lesser of two evils/incompetents, and, removing the obfuscating shadow cast by parties, it seems to me, does nothing but clarify and extend 'the will of the voters'.

[infinite monkey]

**frankly: as long as the status quo IS the status quo, I'm glad the toilet is clogged and overflowing...as long as the 'governors' squabble and in-fight they leave 'me' alone.

But they don't leave you alone and they don't leave me alone: they pick more pennies out of every handful you or I acquire and they don't leave you alone. I'm not even talking taxes. The price of everything is up. More pennies here, more pennies there, so the corporations can make more, so they can give more to their official du jour, so they can devise better ways to completely NOT leave 'us' alone (so they can get more pennies, so they can...)

If you think you're being left alone you are seriously not paying attention!

[henry quirk]

'Being left alone' is not synonymous with 'isolation', but -- yeah -- compared to most, mainly as a result of how I order and discharge my life (myself): I am left alone.

Most of what folks find absolutely necessary: I find luxurious and promoting of indolence.

Minimalism carries one a long way to living 'in' or 'among' but not being 'part of'.

#

"...you are seriously not paying attention!"

HA!

You think so?

Maybe you're right.

Or: maybe I simply have a different perspective (stand in a different place in relation to 'this' or 'that) than most.

[infinite monkey]

I think you do have a different perspective, and live minimally.

For me, I want a little bang for my buck. (insert inevitable comment on double entendre here.)

Because I am one of 'most' who naively believed that if I did the right things I could live, not minimally, but not to the max either...just comfortably.

[henry quirk]

Hey, I don't begrudge anyone the pursuit of what he or she sees as 'comfort'.

Each should do as he or she can and likes.

If 'comfort' is the goal, go for it...but pay the price.


And: I don't think it was naiveté... just misplaced trust (in the 'system' and the 'system' managers).

[tw]

The US has always had a third party. Called people who learn facts before knowing something. Who are not told how to think. Some are also registered as Republicans. Others as Democrats. And most as independents. They are, for example, the people who got John McCain nominated.

Moderates just don't have an organized party. Have no convention. Are not manipulated by radio rhetoric that even blamed citizens in New Orleans for five days of no assistance. Moderates are a less powerful party. Organized only in something not found among the extremist. Honesty. Are disenfranchised by laws intended to empower Democrats and Republicans at the expense of moderates. Moderates are defined by a word not associated with any extremist. Patriotism.

If America was dominated by patriots, then moderates could vote in any primary. Extremists hate moderates who have a bad habit of identifying scams and propaganda. Extremists have created gerrymandering to subvert the third party. Extremists even subverted the campaign of their party's best choice for president - McCain.

Congress cannot solve problems. Extremism is why even the paper dollar bill still exists. A solution that saves $1billion annually - something that simple - cannot happen because American politics is more and more dominated by extremists. Extremist Republicans and extremist Democrats cannot even fix a problem that simple since their strongest supporters are inspired only by emotion. Wacko extremists love the paper dollar bill because extremists even fear change.

The only reason for government that even massacred almost 5000 Americans soldiers for no purpose in Mission Accomplished? Wacko extremists who hate moderates and love to harm America for their own personal gain. Had moderates been in power, then Americans would have been told facts. Not outright lies intended only to feed the most emotional.

How to further subvert the party of the most patriotic Americans? Subvert and disparaged the truth. As lesson right out of Hitler’s book Mein Kampf. Never provide numbers. Obfuscation honesty with spin. All intended to empower the least educated. And to make life as a moderate that much more difficult.

Ross Perot inspired moderates. So much so that upwards of 20% of the American public voted for him. A number that temporarily scared extremists.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

An America dominated by the likes of you, tw, will be an America dominated by extremists. Real ones, not the obfuscated misdefinition you use. Where you write "extremist" anyone other than you would write "partisan, to a greater or lesser degree."

[Cyber Wolf]

Instead of a third party, it might be interesting if things were set up to have multiple front runners, instead of just two at the general election. Mandate, say, three red and three blue at voting time. They could be the top three survivors of all the caucuses and primaries. The name of a sitting pres can be one of the three if re-election applies. All six names are added to the ballot, not just the top two. The disenchanted voter would have a better chance of picking a candidate they liked instead of just picking whoever they hated least or voting along party lines just to get it over with or not voting at all.

The candidates seem to try a but harder when pots of money are still being allocated. By keeping the field large, contributions could be more spread out or even split between candidates, reducing how much each candidate gets individually.

[Lamplighter]

Cyber, check out the way California is voting this year.
The primary will be all candidates from all parties.
The top two vote-getters will be the two on the final ballot.
So there could be 2 Dems or 2 Reps or 1 of each.