I have always felt that a third party has been needed in the United States, and I was just wondering what everyone else thinks. I was just saying this because when you get down to all today, it really is only about voting for the names and the party names than it is voting for people who have different agendas. I would like to see the Libertarian Party become that third party due to my anarchist tendencies; however, I do realize that some form of government will always exist -because theoretically anarchy is a form of government- and I would like to see a government that focuses on defending the individual and the nation, keep law and order, and provide a stable currency. That's just me though, I could be wrong and I welcome your opinion.   

 

And if I did anything wrong, please excuse me for this is my first post here.

Views: 89

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Of course there should. And a fourth and a fifth and so on. George Washington warned us about political parties and while we ended up with them anyway, if we are going to have them we certainly need more than the two corrupt monoliths we have now.
I am glad that there is someone else who agrees with me! I do not see the logic in have two parties that some how "represent" the people fairly. Surely America can not be summed up in one of two ways!
Well said Dave.
That is true and I agree with you there, and I must admit that I did not think of such elections that take place on such a large scale. But if you look at the other side of the coin, i.e. electing representatives to Congress, then having multiple parties is in fact beneficial. However for that the number of seats in Congress would need to be expanded for that to be the case I believe.

The weigh off is between representation and effective government. Belgium has good representation, but not very effective government. US has weak representation, but effective government.

Representation - Political parties spanning a variety of viewpoints held by the population.

Effective government - There is always a majority in government.

It can be, but when you have multiple major parties, alterations to the voting procedure may have to be made. One option is the ladder vote system, which I believe they use in Australia.

Nope, that's the parlimentary system. 

 

Checking Wikipedia, it seems that it is more commonly known as preferential voting.

If I understand what you are saying then I can see where it seems acceptable at first, but with an executive position such as the president (though I feel the president today holds to much power) you need one person in such a position. One can look at the French Revolution with its executive branch called the Directory, which was a group of men who were trying to lead the nation at once and failed horribly.

In my country you can't win if you don't have a majority, which means that, in the case you mentioned, the top 2 parties or candidates go into a second tour of elections facing each other and no one else. That way one of them will have a majority.

Given that the US has more than two parties (right?), what would happen if both of them got around 49%? Would the leader win without a majority?

Now what good did that comment do? If people never ask questions and dispute then we would never progress in human thought.
I don't know, to me the question is not as obvious as, "Should a parent stop abusing their kid?" The question really does not have a right or wrong answer since it is an OPINION! Thats all I was asking for, an opinion and not a belittlement. That's just a guess though!
Understandable, I will try not to take it personally next time. :)

RSS

  

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service