For serious politics, U.S. needs more parties – at least two more

[corbe]

For serious politics, U.S. needs more parties – at least two more

by Quin Hillyer

August 19, 2019 04:48 PM
 
The idea of serious third and fourth American political parties merits two cheers, or maybe one cheer and a few quick claps.

During a paean to now-independent congressman Justin Amash of Michigan, columnist George Will touches on, without deeply analyzing, the idea that challenges to the Republican-Democratic duopoly might be salutary for the public weal.

“Voters need not invariably settle for a sterile binary choice,” Will writes. He is not averse to “the idea of offering temperate voters a choice of something other than a choice between bossy progressivism and populist Caesarism.”

<..snip..>

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/for-serious-politics-u-s-needs-more-parties-at-least-two-more

[truth_seeker]

Alas George Will WRITES.

But George Will does NOT DO.

Can anybody remember past last week?

Buchanan got 1/2 percent.

John Anderson, 1980 Republican alternative to Reagan, wound up as a Nader supporter in his later years.


You can't beat something, with nothing. Most of these 3rd party Kooks, are just that--and Nobody.

Amash, McMuffin, Kooks.

Ross Perot came closest as a 3rd Party alternative during my voting lifetime.

The lesson I learned from that, was to not waste my time.

I think Trump figured that out from the start.

[Cyber Liberty]

....because Presidential Elections are not bollixed up enough.

Would not mind seeing it for lower offices, however.

[Bigun]

For serious politics, U.S. needs more parties – at least two more

Nope! The U.S. needs more informed and engaged voters.  And a solid method of ensuring that only citizens vote would be nice as well.

[Cyber Liberty]

Nope! The U.S. needs more informed and engaged voters.  And a solid method of ensuring that only citizens vote would be nice as well.

I think yours is a very important point, and having more Parties is not outside of that, is it?  I really don't know about the subject matter, about more Parties.  That would rely on the existing Parties withering away like the Whigs, and that's takes a reason.  That said, the present-day GOP is really racing to the Whig oblivion by not addressing the issues that get them elected.

Smartin' up the voters seems a more likely way to effect change.

[Slide Rule]

Nope! The U.S. needs more informed and engaged voters.  And a solid method of ensuring that only citizens vote would be nice as well.

Nope is right.

Looking at a European choice to improve the US. Yea lets have open commies
rather than the dim party.

The thing that is right about politics is it forces a choice. But we have pus$ies
that prefer to never decide anything.

Nope!

[Smokin Joe]

Alas George Will WRITES.

But George Will does NOT DO.

Can anybody remember past last week?

Buchanan got 1/2 percent.

John Anderson, 1980 Republican alternative to Reagan, wound up as a Nader supporter in his later years.


You can't beat something, with nothing. Most of these 3rd party Kooks, are just that--and Nobody.

Amash, McMuffin, Kooks.

Ross Perot came closest as a 3rd Party alternative during my voting lifetime.

The lesson I learned from that, was to not waste my time.

I think Trump figured that out from the start.

I think George Wallace had a shot, until he got shot.

[Smokin Joe]

I think yours is a very important point, and having more Parties is not outside of that, is it?  I really don't know about the subject matter, about more Parties.  That would rely on the existing Parties withering away like the Whigs, and that's takes a reason.  That said, the present-day GOP is really racing to the Whig oblivion by not addressing the issues that get them elected.

Smartin' up the voters seems a more likely way to effect change.

If the GOP backs gun control, they'll bring about their own demise.

[catfish1957]

UK effectively has 4 parties doesn't it?

2 corrupt parties vs. 4.  Does it really matter?

[Sanguine]

UK effectively has 4 parties doesn't it?

2 corrupt parties vs. 4.  Does it really matter?

Good question.  We'd all like to slap the two parties leadership upside the head for not representing us, misrepresenting us and falsely representing us, but what good would having another two or three of the same? 

The problem is that the fed is too big and too powerful.  That's it.  Adding or subtracting parties won't make any difference in that.

[Cyber Liberty]

Good question.  We'd all like to slap the two parties leadership upside the head for not representing us, misrepresenting us and falsely representing us, but what good would having another two or three of the same? 

The problem is that the fed is too big and too powerful.  That's it.  Adding or subtracting parties won't make any difference in that.

As long as the National Government remains all-powerful, the incentive to corrupt will always be there.  Needful, in fact, to protect what you have from competitors who have pull with the lawmakers and bureaucrats.