Like England, can a third political party come along and challenge the ideology

[Texas Proud]

Re: Like England, can a third political party come along and challenge the ideol

Bright eyes....

as for your number one.... why would you think that having proportional respresentation would make it easier to get things done... you would have many more views of the problems and LESS getting done... Lets say there are 6% of the people who are 'green'... do you think they will agree to anything that is not 'green'?? Even if it is needed? They will obstruct all legislation... so now you need to get 50% from the remaining 94% to get something done in that area..

Yes, in many districts around the country that is true... where I am in Houston, almost all districts are 'taken'... they are either dem or rep (unless of course you are indicted because you are an ahole)... the primary election is when the candidates spend all their money.. they know if they win there they are 'in'... it is part of the gerrymandering crap that goes on...


Hmmm... maybe we should pass a law that would require each district to be as close to 50 -50 as possible.. THEN you would see some different candidates because they would have to appeal to the other side in the general.... in my district, the people are running as hard as they can to the right... we get the flaming nuts coming out and winning....

off subject... just because... my State senator is new... he went to the Texas Senate and proposed a bill (or rule, don't know).. it was against 'tradition', he was voited down I believe 36 to 1 (can't remember the total number.. .but he was the only vote for his side)... now, how can you get things done when even YOUR side thinks your a wacko

 

[Trek]

Re: Like England, can a third political party come along and challenge the ideol

I appreciate all these comments, especially those that know more about election politics in other countries. But I still stand by the simple fact that I would feel better having a bigger choice of people to vote for and actually voting for someone I agree with regardless of their chances of winning than picking from two parties I don't agree with.

 

[samclem]

Re: Like England, can a third political party come along and challenge the ideol

I want to vote for a person, not a party. Really, can any Republican or Democrat look back at the slate of folks running for the nomination of their party for president in 2004 and say "yep--they are all pretty much the same, any one would be okay." The integrity, judgement, experience, philosophy, and temperment of the candidate, whether for president or city council, is more important to me than his/her party.

 

[Cool Dood]

Re: Like England, can a third political party come along and challenge the ideol

And, the most fetching new parliamentarian from the Communist Party: Vladimir Luxuria!!

What a strange coincidence -- I was just talking to a communist transsexual earlier today. What are the odds!

P.S. I wholeheartedly support the idea of more than two parties having any chance at success, but I don't think it's even slightly likely to happen in the US in the near-future.

 

[Trek]

Re: Like England, can a third political party come along and challenge the ideol

Person or party! Heck, just something that makes sense I'll vote for. I have yet to find that.

 

[bright eyed]

Re: Like England, can a third political party come along and challenge the ideol

Bright eyes....

as for your number one.... why would you think that having proportional respresentation would make it easier to get things done... you would have many more views of the problems and LESS getting done... Lets say there are 6% of the people who are 'green'... do you think they will agree to anything that is not 'green'?? Even if it is needed? They will obstruct all legislation... so now you need to get 50% from the remaining 94% to get something done in that area..

Yes, in many districts around the country that is true... where I am in Houston, almost all districts are 'taken'... they are either dem or rep (unless of course you are indicted because you are an ahole)... the primary election is when the candidates spend all their money.. they know if they win there they are 'in'... it is part of the gerrymandering crap that goes on...


Hmmm... maybe we should pass a law that would require each district to be as close to 50 -50 as possible.. THEN you would see some different candidates because they would have to appeal to the other side in the general.... in my district, the people are running as hard as they can to the right... we get the flaming nuts coming out and winning....

off subject... just because... my State senator is new... he went to the Texas Senate and proposed a bill (or rule, don't know).. it was against 'tradition', he was voited down I believe 36 to 1 (can't remember the total number.. .but he was the only vote for his side)... now, how can you get things done when even YOUR side thinks your a wacko

i didn't say easy (and as it stands, how much are they getting done at all now? remember all of W's agenda, social security, stopping class actions, etc. etc. nada nada nada) but i've been involved in politics for a while, have seen many sides of the scenario, one party domination, close split, and several parties. the first scenario is obvious, people in the dominant party do what they want, even if they offer a token here or there, but most often people get carried away because it's easy to, in the second scenario, not much gets done (like current US congress and president), the third scenarios requires that people work together. there are many current politicians (and lots of us avg joes/janes!)who are frustrated by the party domination and i think some of your concerns are based on the current scenario. if nobody is dominant, then people will have to find common ground, which is usually toward the center, not on the edges, also, there could be multiple parties with similar interests - like a green party will work with the woman's party to fight some bad chemical that affects breast milk, or the enterprise party will work with the independent party to work on trade reforms etc...

so i'm less concerned about the wackos and even if the dominant party is one you support, after a while, the unhappy folks out in the world will get annoyed and start a revolt...if people feel they have representation, it solves part of the disconnect factor we suffer from so strongly in the US. and again, that is just one reform among many that need to be made, which leads me to your second point

i totally agree about the obvious manipulation of districts, i live in a city that is actually 50/50 in registered voters, but we are stuck with a bunch of 60/40 or 70/30 areas so we have near total republican domination - nobody even contested the last election. oh! and i think i just validated my own point about the need for proportional representation - so if you live in my area, or one of the 60 or 70 split areas where you are in the minority , you will never get represented (not likely) and feel disenfranchised, bitter, and it's difficult to get your side heard at all...

 

[janeeyre]

Anyother concern that is growing amongst many states is the primary system. May is when the primary is held in my state and, by that time, the party nominations are almost a "done deal". Once again, no candidate pool ---- until the general election in November. I am told that the cost of maintaining a campaign is the main reason for many candidates dropping out early (before May).

So much reform is needed.