The US seriously needs a third party.

**HoreTore** · 11-12-2008, 11:42

Name: The respectable right-wingers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKVl...eature=related

This speech has stuck. The humble and honorable John McCain versus a hateful, rude and ignorant crowd. Why on earth should decent people like him need to be associated with people like this? Leave them to Palin and the other hatemongerers, where they can't harm the reputation of good people.

I'm quite sure that John McCain isn't the only republican like this. Those who believe in a small government, but aren't too high on the religion and xenophobic nonsense ought to leave and found their own party. There should be quite a lot of people in the party like that, a substantial minority at the worst, a majority at the best, and they're better suited to snag democrat voters.

Please, America, I beg of you; don't show that side of yourself again. It's unworthy.

**Kralizec** · 11-12-2008, 12:03

I like McCain, and that speech was superb. He's definitely not a carbon-copy of Bush, but to stand any chance against Obama he needed to appeal to as many conservatives as possible. There isn't really any point in picking him over Romney or any other republican if he's forced to pick up mainstream GOP themes and plans to get elected.

If John McCain and Lieberman were 10-20 years younger I think they'd be the ideal men to start a new centrist/moderate party in some of the states that are usually divided 50/50 among republicans and democrats. But even then it would be hard and probably fruitless.

**CountArach** · 11-12-2008, 12:09

When the two-party system controls everything, down to how you can get your name on a ballot and re-organising Congressional districts, there is NO chance of a third party succeeding at any point in the near future. With the ultra-politicisation of everything that I see in the United States the problem is more institutionalised than simply a two-party mindset. In essence, the system is run in such a way that two-party rule is enforced.

My two-party sense.

**LittleGrizzly** · 11-12-2008, 13:14

A third party is simply to hard to start, perot got something like 20% of the vote and didn't even manage a single electoral vote, in the UK this would probably at least give you a decent number of parlimentary seats, you could then prove yourself in opposition and have something to build on, but 20% of the vote in a presidental election is no use.....

I would like to see a third party, the likes of McCain lieberman and some dino and rino's... though to be honest i would like to see the republican party taken down to the palin base, these crazy's can be off on the side as an entertaining distracting while the democrats and new mccain party could get down to real issues...

**Gregoshi** · 11-12-2008, 14:04

"This video is not available in your country"

**seireikhaan** · 11-12-2008, 15:04

Indeed.

**LittleGrizzly** · 11-12-2008, 15:46

It was McCain's concession speech, im pretty sure you've seen it but if not just type in McCain concession speech into youtube and you should get a video...

Edit:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=J0xZ0k...eature=related

hopefully that should work...

**rvg** · 11-12-2008, 15:57

Third parties can succeed if they don't aim too high. An upstart party? Forget about the presidency at least initially. Appeal to Joe Voter. Win a city. Win a bunch of counties. Win a state. Win another state. Become a regional party of choice. *Earn* your right to become a recognizable name on the ballot. Small parties gripe about being non-players in presidential elections because they don't want to go through the hard work of making it through local politics.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 11-12-2008, 16:58

I don't think that we need a third party. The two party system - while flawed - demands a coalition and stability. We don't think coalition because we don't have a trillion individual parties, but one exists nonetheless.

The way our parties work is by looking at a bell curve and each taking a half. Radical fringe groups start their own parties because they are insulted by compromise, so you get Republican and Democratic parties that contain diverse issue groups felt by the large, compromising majority.

Smaller parties are unnecessary and serve us better as the internal factions with less rigidity that they are.

The GOP lost this election because it had an unpopular president in office for 8 years; one who over-stayed his welcome in office for his second term with a nation under duress. It then decided that it would nominate an extremely old man who was incapable of articulating a cohesive narrative.

This isn't some insane rejection of conservatism but a sensible change. Some policy views have changed (as they always do) and they will be addressed the next time around, but the GOP would be well served to find a team that is inspiring and has new ideas.

I don't believe that a two party system is the problem.

**Odin** · 11-12-2008, 21:30

We have a third, fourth and fifth party (libertarian, Green, and constitution all appeared on the ballot I voted on). What the U.S. seriously needs is a 3rd party who can compete with the near billion dollars spent by the big two on the campaign.

Its not about ideology, we have all kinds of crackpots over here, you see them posting in here all the time.

Its a matter of funding....

**CountArach** · 11-12-2008, 21:35

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I don't think that we need a third party. The two party system - while flawed - demands a coalition and stability. We don't think coalition because we don't have a trillion individual parties, but one exists nonetheless.

A Third Party would still require a Coalition. Where would the Democrats have been in the Senate without Lieberman and Sanders, two Independents? A Third Party would still force this on people, especially in your system where party lines aren't as rigid.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 11-13-2008, 04:01

The problem is that too often a third party wouldnt normally give the presidency to the best man or most popular candidate.

Too often the candidate that was everyones second choice would be eliminated and a more polarizing or fringe leader would emerge victorious.

Take the Bush Clinton race. Clinton happened to be kind of a moderate, but what if it was the other way around? Because Perot was in the race a number of people who would have likely voted for Bush didn't get either of their choices.

Without a run-off the system would be awful and allow some really terrible presidents.

**CountArach** · 11-13-2008, 06:17

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Without a run-off the system would be awful and allow some really terrible presidents.

Then I have an idea...

Either you have a run-off for your Presidential election if someone gets below 50% OR you have Preferrential Voting, which works really well here. This means that people can vote for their first party of choice, and if they don't win their votes will go to their second preferred candidate.

**HoreTore** · 11-13-2008, 07:54

Originally Posted by CountArach

Then I have an idea...

Either you have a run-off for your Presidential election if someone gets below 50% OR you have Preferrential Voting, which works really well here. This means that people can vote for their first party of choice, and if they don't win their votes will go to their second preferred candidate.

Or swap your president for a puppet-monarch and get parliament back in control

Though I would support any and all measures that would prevent me from seeing things like that idiot crowd again - imperialist US, fascist US, communist US, despot US, nazi US - all will be better than seeing that.