democracy is the majority forcing their will on the minority...theres nothing noble or good about that, its just tyranny...our country is ruined because of it
Partisan politics will always prevail. Who is to say a third party will be any different than the two parties that exist? I believe what we need to do as a people is stop letting the govt brainwash us into subscribing to certain political mindsets (which of course are tied to religion) and just vote for the most transparent honest person out there. Which let's face it won't EVER happen. But that's what I wish for anyway.
Well, when I say third-party, I really mean "alternative" or "progressive" politics. Maybe I'm misusing the term, because I'm not focusing on a specific party or trying to create a party.
Oh... why not? We can totally create a party if we wanted to :o) We could call it something really catchy too like the quazi-anarchy in a not so free world party? I dunno... just throwing it out there. And kidding, too, of course :o)
Well, if you can come up with something a little catchier (seems parties have to describe themselves in two words, tops) then we can consider it... but without any interest in corporate sponsorship, and me and probably anyone else interested being pretty broke most of the time, I don't think it would get that far
Well, the Lib Dems still don't play the role as a threatening opposition to Labour and Conservative, *currently*. Although granted, we do get similar shit, but it's misleading to say that a three-party system is no different simply because we have only a half-credible third party here.
The Lib Dems never form governments in the UK though, so that's hardly a good comparison. In fact, the UK is a "two party system" in practice, even in attitudes "AAAAAAAAAW, THE LIB DEMS CAUUUNT WIN!"
Fair, but I still think the weaknesses in our system are brought about by the first-past-the-post methods we use. If you look at the actual number of votes for lib dems, and if they held a proportional number of seats, they would be a much larger force in parliament than they are now.
Fair, but I still think the weaknesses in our system are brought about by the first-past-the-post methods we use. If you look at the actual number of votes for lib dems, and if they held a proportional number of seats, they would be a much larger force in parliament than they are now.
Getting rid of FPTP is a good way to make sure you have a government by the consent of the governed... runoff/instant runoff systems, if done right, mean that the majority of voters really do get either their first or second choice out of a plurality of options... We should be demanding this from our government in the U.S., but we can't, because we don't have anyone to vote for to make it happen. It's an uphill battle, but that's why I think we need to focus on scaling down to smaller elections.
Well just "Voting" I think is a rather poor exercise of democracy, we need some independent progressive groups to help demand progressive reforms (ones that aren't co opted by the Democrats just like about every progressive organisation here). However, I agree with third parties we should at first focus on city and state legislature offices, create a domino effect.
Exactly, I think a national movement which specifically focuses on winning smaller elections would have two effects. It would send a message on a national level and draw attention to the cause, and the fact is that a progressive movement in local politics could make changes that really affect people on a community level.
Plus it's easier to bargain as a political movement with elected officials, rather than just being an unfunded voting block where they'll just say who the fuck are you?
I couldn't agree more. I believe most city governments have autonomy over energy usage (such as the ability to "nationalise" or whatever it's called on a city level, the energy companies, like Cleveland still has), the ability to enact higher wages (Like SF has), and other progressive laws. I think honestly, we should all work via online (and other long distance methods, assuming you aren't in the area) in helping various progressive's win city governments, then state legislature seats.
democracy is the majority forcing their will on the minority...theres nothing noble or good about that, its just tyranny...our country is ruined because of it
longfootbuddy 10 months ago
Partisan politics will always prevail. Who is to say a third party will be any different than the two parties that exist? I believe what we need to do as a people is stop letting the govt brainwash us into subscribing to certain political mindsets (which of course are tied to religion) and just vote for the most transparent honest person out there. Which let's face it won't EVER happen. But that's what I wish for anyway.
imjustagirl776 2 years ago
Well, when I say third-party, I really mean "alternative" or "progressive" politics. Maybe I'm misusing the term, because I'm not focusing on a specific party or trying to create a party.
Capitalocracy 2 years ago
Oh... why not? We can totally create a party if we wanted to :o) We could call it something really catchy too like the quazi-anarchy in a not so free world party? I dunno... just throwing it out there. And kidding, too, of course :o)
imjustagirl776 2 years ago
Well, if you can come up with something a little catchier (seems parties have to describe themselves in two words, tops) then we can consider it... but without any interest in corporate sponsorship, and me and probably anyone else interested being pretty broke most of the time, I don't think it would get that far
Capitalocracy 2 years ago
I'm not being funny, but we have a three party system here in the UK- it's no different to a two party system, the power play just has more players.
Shadowadler 2 years ago
Well, the Lib Dems still don't play the role as a threatening opposition to Labour and Conservative, *currently*. Although granted, we do get similar shit, but it's misleading to say that a three-party system is no different simply because we have only a half-credible third party here.
OnyxMage 2 years ago 2
The Lib Dems never form governments in the UK though, so that's hardly a good comparison. In fact, the UK is a "two party system" in practice, even in attitudes "AAAAAAAAAW, THE LIB DEMS CAUUUNT WIN!"
TiradeFaction 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fair, but I still think the weaknesses in our system are brought about by the first-past-the-post methods we use. If you look at the actual number of votes for lib dems, and if they held a proportional number of seats, they would be a much larger force in parliament than they are now.
Shadowadler 2 years ago
Fair, but I still think the weaknesses in our system are brought about by the first-past-the-post methods we use. If you look at the actual number of votes for lib dems, and if they held a proportional number of seats, they would be a much larger force in parliament than they are now.
Shadowadler 2 years ago
Getting rid of FPTP is a good way to make sure you have a government by the consent of the governed... runoff/instant runoff systems, if done right, mean that the majority of voters really do get either their first or second choice out of a plurality of options... We should be demanding this from our government in the U.S., but we can't, because we don't have anyone to vote for to make it happen. It's an uphill battle, but that's why I think we need to focus on scaling down to smaller elections.
Capitalocracy 2 years ago
Well, yes this is the main problem- Turkeys rarely vote for Christmas and Thanksgiving!
Shadowadler 2 years ago
Comment removed
TiradeFaction 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well just "Voting" I think is a rather poor exercise of democracy, we need some independent progressive groups to help demand progressive reforms (ones that aren't co opted by the Democrats just like about every progressive organisation here). However, I agree with third parties we should at first focus on city and state legislature offices, create a domino effect.
TiradeFaction 2 years ago
Exactly, I think a national movement which specifically focuses on winning smaller elections would have two effects. It would send a message on a national level and draw attention to the cause, and the fact is that a progressive movement in local politics could make changes that really affect people on a community level.
Plus it's easier to bargain as a political movement with elected officials, rather than just being an unfunded voting block where they'll just say who the fuck are you?
Capitalocracy 2 years ago
I couldn't agree more. I believe most city governments have autonomy over energy usage (such as the ability to "nationalise" or whatever it's called on a city level, the energy companies, like Cleveland still has), the ability to enact higher wages (Like SF has), and other progressive laws. I think honestly, we should all work via online (and other long distance methods, assuming you aren't in the area) in helping various progressive's win city governments, then state legislature seats.
TiradeFaction 2 years ago
Then move on from there. I actually don't think on a city level, or even a state legislature level, it'd really be that hard.
TiradeFaction 2 years ago
I agree, first past the post systems are terrible, I want proportional representation like Northern Ireland.
TiradeFaction 2 years ago
I am totally with you on this! Rising Third Party is what we want.
realchangeraider 2 years ago
Well as you know, I'm already on board, ready to help in whatever matter you need :).
TiradeFaction 2 years ago