yay i live in florida ^^

Why do like 80% of forums have to be about politics... and the ones that's aren't get hijacked into politics >:|

i blame them americans. they got issues apparently :S

MrK: "no 3rd party candidate have been elected for president ever, and no 3rd party ever will, unless the system changes."

Not true. Republicans were a third party. They took the place of the Whigs; mostly because the Whigs were resistent to the an anti-slavery platform. The times had changed so the Republicans (a new third party founded in 1855 on anti-slavery) was elected. Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president.

Anyways; with a compelling candidate and platform any third can win the election. In fact; I think we are due for another big change in politics. My hope is that libertarians are able to replace the current Republican or Democrat party. Libertarians are currently 13% of the electorate and has been increasing each year. In fact; I think it is the fastest growing party; although not all parties have good statistics.

Chloe: "(great hijack btw dc) "

:p

@KDICEMOD

Thanks!

dead, I was aware, that is why I said "^^ also, if a 3rd party ever makes it to the top, one of the 3 parties will fall to obscurity within 2-3 elections."

tell me the whig did not fall into obscurit within 8 years

also the whig party where split in half, or close to, over slavery, and when the main population, and therefor electorial votes, where in none slave states, it can be said that the republican party is what the anti slavery arm of the wig party transformed into. these people already had an election base, and just continued to use thatone.

therefor I would say that the republican party is just whig, without slavery, and not really a new third party.

you should not quibble about minor details like this, it is cleary not a counterexample to what I am talking about.


I would also say that anything happening before about 1830, could be called the time before the twoparty system really came in place, and the only way one of the parties died, was over an issue that lead to the civil war, clearly there can be a disastorous event that changes which party that are in power, but then it will settle again.

So the only counter example you would ever accept is one where:

1. The other party didn't die in with in 8 years.
2. The ideas of the new party weren't a subsection the 1st.
3. Didn't happen before 1830.

Right... Let's move off of that topic then.

My main point is that it is possible to have a third party defeat a 1st party. The reason that hasn't happened yet; is not a failure of the system; it is merely because the majority of the electorate still hasn't made up their mind.

Personally I think this next election is an opportunity for real change. Bush failed Republicans; Obama failed Democrats. Significant portions of the two parties will be up for grabs in the next election/nomination.

I'm not sure why you think that a new system will solve the problem. Obama still would have won the election. The pendulum had to swing to the Democrats after the failure of the Bush administration. The pendulum will eventually swing for a third party; if the economy is not fixed.

As long as the current money-printing philosophy is in office; the economy will not get better.

btw there where two problems I pointed out, the one about not needing 50% have not been answered

any system where you can have the majority of the electorate AGAINST the winner, has a problem. many congressmen have taken advantage of this.

imainge an election circle where 40% vote republican no matter what (and hate all the democrats), and 60% vote the demcrats no matter what(and hate all the republicans)

if there are 3 candiats, 2 democrats and 1 republica, then the republican will get 40%, but the dems have to split the votes, and they might end up 35%, 25%. this leads to the winner being the one 60% would never want, and he/she only won because he had 2 opponents, instead of 1. (stuff like this is well documented, and does happen)

secondly, the same election circle, now 1 dem, 1 rep, dem win wth 60%. that means that the 40% that voted republican have not anyone to repesent their view.

however, if 3 congressional districts where combined, then you could make election list, and in such a case, then there would be elected 1 republican, and 2 democrats.

also, a new system, would alow these opposistion votes to be better heard. problem now is that the agenda of the party is different than the agenda of huge chuncks of the population, mainly the parts that are hurting from the policies. I think the system, that gives only room for 2 parties, are too much in th hand of the lobyists, the ideals of the candidates have a tendency to conform more and more with the party, the longer they stay in washington

I really don't think we will see a 3rd party again. In the last 100 years or so any major shift has been between the parties, any platform that gains major support with be co-opted by one of the major parties. The Tea Party movement is a pretty relevant modern example of this, if it gains more steam it will be co-opted by the Republicans or fade into obscurity if the faces of its movement remain Palin and Bauchmen(?)