HawkShack.com

**Edit:

Republican
Democrat

Any third party have a chance for 2014-16?

Not without major election law reform. The two major parties now are so firmly entrenched with their PACs that the most a third party can hope for is to effect the election.

Unfortunately the effect that they have is usually to give a greater advantage to the party with whom they are least aligned (I.E. a solid Green Party candidate hurts the Democratic party and a solid Tea Party candidate hurts the Republican party) by stealing their dissatisfied voters.

Election reform is why I voted Libertarian for a few elections until it became clear that such reform was never likely to actually happen.

c_hawkbob wrote:Not without major election law reform. The two major parties now are so firmly entrenched with their PACs that the most a third party can hope for is to effect the election.

Unfortunately the effect that they have is usually to give a greater advantage to the party with whom they are least aligned (I.E. a solid Green Party candidate hurts the Democratic party and a solid Tea Party candidate hurts the Republican party) by stealing their dissatisfied voters.

Election reform is why I voted Libertarian for a few elections until it became clear that such reform was never likely to actually happen.

That's it in a nutshell.

They appear to have more loyalty to their party then working together to at least attempt what is best for our country.

Not to mention that they are totally out of touch with the common person.

c_hawkbob wrote:Not without major election law reform. The two major parties now are so firmly entrenched with their PACs that the most a third party can hope for is to effect the election.

Unfortunately the effect that they have is usually to give a greater advantage to the party with whom they are least aligned (I.E. a solid Green Party candidate hurts the Democratic party and a solid Tea Party candidate hurts the Republican party) by stealing their dissatisfied voters.

Election reform is why I voted Libertarian for a few elections until it became clear that such reform was never likely to actually happen.

I have the same political philosophy as you Bob. Sad that the best a third party can do is to have a little effect here and there. Its ridiculous that we put up with such a system. But it is what it is.

Check this out...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&index=38&list=PLqs5ohhass_QZtSkX06DmWOaEaadwmw_D

Nice video, Sums up everything.

pretty much. ....

Yup, we're F'kd. Unless Rand Paul wins.

Ron maybe, don't trust Rand.

c_hawkbob wrote:Ron maybe, don't trust Rand.

Yes, agreed. I sometimes hope against hope that Rand will see the light. But he won't.

The problem with third parties is you get into minority governments where the special interest can and often do push their agenda onto the public who has voted in a massive part against their agendas.
They become the power brokers in an otherwise deadlocked gov't.
On the other side, it moderates a gov't because they have to provide legislation that is acceptable to all - and the opposition can't just say no to everything.

NorthHawk wrote:The problem with third parties is you get into minority governments where the special interest can and often do push their agenda onto the public who has voted in a massive part against their agendas.
They become the power brokers in an otherwise deadlocked gov't.
On the other side, it moderates a gov't because they have to provide legislation that is acceptable to all - and the opposition can't just say no to everything.

Well noted. But isn't that what we have right now as well? I would think that with a third party the special interest is already with the two BIGGER parties, and thus they can't weasel their way into the 3rd party? Am I missing something here?

On the other side, it moderates a gov't because they have to provide legislation that is acceptable to all - and the opposition can't just say no to everything.

You present this as inherently bad. Why? Why is "more legislation" (read: more laws) necessarily a good thing?

Eaglehawk wrote:

NorthHawk wrote:The problem with third parties is you get into minority governments where the special interest can and often do push their agenda onto the public who has voted in a massive part against their agendas.
They become the power brokers in an otherwise deadlocked gov't.
On the other side, it moderates a gov't because they have to provide legislation that is acceptable to all - and the opposition can't just say no to everything.

Well noted. But isn't that what we have right now as well? I would think that with a third party the special interest is already with the two BIGGER parties, and thus they can't weasel their way into the 3rd party? Am I missing something here?

There will never be a third party that will win or take any office of substance. We've maxed out our current system... The only way to change is an overall of our voting system of some sort.

makena wrote:

Eaglehawk wrote:

NorthHawk wrote:The problem with third parties is you get into minority governments where the special interest can and often do push their agenda onto the public who has voted in a massive part against their agendas.
They become the power brokers in an otherwise deadlocked gov't.
On the other side, it moderates a gov't because they have to provide legislation that is acceptable to all - and the opposition can't just say no to everything.

Well noted. But isn't that what we have right now as well? I would think that with a third party the special interest is already with the two BIGGER parties, and thus they can't weasel their way into the 3rd party? Am I missing something here?

There will never be a third party that will win or take any office of substance. We've maxed out our current system... The only way to change is an overall of our voting system of some sort.

Maybe get rid of electronic voting?

Electronic voting is merely a means of tallying the vote, changing that addresses nothing germane to this discussion. The overhaul of the voting system would entail doing away with PAC's and special interest funding altogether as well as dissolving (or at least greatly limiting the influence of) the current political parties.

You'd have to put all qualified candidates (there would have to be a vetting process so every nutbag who wanted to couldn't clog the system) on equal footing. Require networks to provide the same amount of air time to each candidate, limit campaign spending by each candidate to a reasonable amount (say $50 grand) so as not to make it a rich man's game, include all candidates in forum style televised discussions as opposed to 1 on 1 debates and do away with the electoral college.

Never happen, but that's what it would take.

c_hawkbob wrote:Electronic voting is merely a means of tallying the vote, changing that addresses nothing germane to this discussion. The overhaul of the voting system would entail doing away with PAC's and special interest funding altogether as well as dissolving (or at least greatly limiting the influence of) the current political parties.

You'd have to put all qualified candidates (there would have to be a vetting process so every nutbag who wanted to couldn't clog the system) on equal footing. Require networks to provide the same amount of air time to each candidate, limit campaign spending by each candidate to a reasonable amount (say $50 grand) so as not to make it a rich man's game, include all candidates in forum style televised discussions as opposed to 1 on 1 debates and do away with the electoral college.

Never happen, but that's what it would take.

Exactly - You want to fix the political situation in Washington DC? Two easy steps will yield significant results:

1. Ban all lobbying and special interest funding - Put a dollar limit on every campaign.
2 Term Limits - 2 four year terms - period done - This would greatly reduce the pressure that special interests and money can have on national agenda.

Ban all lobbying

I don't generally care for lobbyists, either, but how would you propose reconciling that with this (most notably, in this case, the last 10 words):

"[The Constitution] prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."

burrrton wrote:

Ban all lobbying

I don't generally care for lobbyists, either, but how would you propose reconciling that with this (most notably, in this case, the last 10 words):

"[The Constitution] prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."

Lobbying = petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances?

Certainly not on an individual level. Any individual would still be able to petition for or against any cause, candidate, proposal or haircut they wish to. Just not at the behest of any of the candidates.

Lobbying = petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances?

Emphatically, yes. That's what lobbying is, and has always been deemed to be.

I'm guessing we agree a bunch of leeches milling around DC should have a lot less influence, but the way to go about that isn't shredding the First Amendment- it's by reducing the lucrative nature of somebody glad-handing pols (read: reducing government power).

burrrton wrote:

Lobbying = petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances?

Emphatically, yes. That's what lobbying is, and has always been deemed to be.

I'm guessing we agree a bunch of leeches milling around DC should have a lot less influence, but the way to go about that isn't shredding the First Amendment- it's by reducing the lucrative nature of somebody glad-handing pols (read: reducing government power).

Burr, I actually agree with you! 100 percent!

Ridiculous.

Country is broken. If you see Bush and Clinton running against each other in 2016, the riots will begin.