Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

by **fadedpsychosis** on Sat Oct 12, 2013 3:06 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote: *reducing quoted quotes to conserve space*
The direction of a country is not only steered by the political but also by the market and civil society (i.e. the non-political and non-economic, e.g. charity, religion, quasi-education). Compared to China, the US is very economically free and more free in the civil society sense, thus people have a greater ability to steer their country.

This is why mrswdk's position doesn't make sense. If it's modified, then my response may differ. For example, if we limit power/influence only to the political, I'd still argue that the Americans have greater ability to yield influence than Chinese--in general.

ah, but the case still stands! it is true that there are many more factors than just politics involved, but all you're really pointing out is that there are more avenues to power in the US than in China... those avenues are still controlled by the same people: the US's aristocracy (those with money, because in the US money = power) I'll break it down by point

BigBallinStalin wrote: Most Americans for most elections do not vote; they choose not to exert influence because it's not worth it--it's somewhat of a luxury to do so. I'm not sure what the voter participation rates for very local elections in China are, but from what I recall the Head Directors/Whatever and the Provincial Governors 'elect' themselves. In regard to voting, the Chinese generally have hardly any influence over the selection of politicians while the Americans have a significantly higher influence over the selection of politicians.

it is true that Americans don't exert as much control as they could, but honestly what point is there? reffering back to the OP, as of present we "choose" between two politicians for any given major seat, but how are those two chosen in the first place? by the two major parties throwing massive amounts of money into election campaigns... thus it is those with money that determine our "choice" by deciding who we have to choose from

BigBallinStalin wrote:The US has a freer press, which allows greater range of opinion (and influence) from the intelligentsia to 'laypersons' and ultimately to politicians.

ah, but the press does not exist to inform people, it exists to sell itself and is run by businessmen seeking to make more money... once again placing our primary sources of information in the hands of those who already have money (thus power) who use it primarily to gain more money... do you see the problem here?

BigBallinStalin wrote: A freer internet in the US allows easier mobilization for activism and for becoming more aware of public policies at a lower cost--the Chinese have a less free internet and face much higher costs for activism and for attempting to uncover the opaqueness of their government.

no argument here really... though I feel I must point out that the internet, while useful, is most popular with the demographic that has the lowest voter turn out...

by **mrswdk** on Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:23 pm

The Chinese internet may be less free but Chinese people within China have nonetheless used the internet to topple senior politicians this year (by exposing their corruption on social media), and public outrage at government officials' lavish use of public money led to a government crackdown on excess that significantly lowered the market price of top end whiskey (amongst other things).

Fadedpsych makes some good points. I would like to add that having a wider range of media outlets to air one's opinions on does not in itself lead to greater government responsiveness. In fact, by giving people a greater range of 'soft' ways to express their resentment of the authorities the government is reducing the chances of them getting so angry and frustrated that they take to the streets and engage in 'hard' (and ultimately more coercive) action against the government.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:08 pm

Check out polity IV index levels of the US and China.

Check out the many 'Economic Freedom/Freedom/Freedom of the Press/etc' Indices on US and China.

I'm going to side with the extensive amount of research on this one.

If y'all can sufficiently demonstrate that the average Chinese exerts more influence over the average American in the direction of their respective countries, then your Nobel Laureate awaits you.

by **tzor** on Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:11 pm

muy_thaiguy wrote:Just re-establish the Bull Moose Party and put Teddy Roosevelt as the candidate for Presidency. Garunteed he would do a better job dead then most people in Washington do now alive.

Those who do not know history ...

Why in the world would someone want to re-establish the party from the progressive side of the Republican Party? Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive. The failure of the Bull Moose Party resulted in progressives migrating to the Democratic Party who they now completely own. The only ones left (McCain et al) are effectively Progressive Lite. Yes it would be nice if McCain left the party once and for all, but that isn't going to happen short of him getting too old to do anything anymore.

by **Metsfanmax** on Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:32 pm

isaiah40 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Don't need a third party if enough conservatives and libertarians get out there to vote for people who actually hold those values in order to restore the Republican party to those values. It's already been achieved in some capacities, which is why establishment Republicans fight harder against them than Democrats. They're scared that the people will vote them out of power and return the party to actual limited government values.

But why only give the people 2 choices?? I mean what if I don't like either candidate?

How many choices do you think we should have?

by **mrswdk** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:06 am

Freedom of the press does not = greater potential for proles to influence government. Neither does freer markets (lol). You didn't really address any of the points that FP or I made.

by **mrswdk** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:23 am

Phatscotty wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Americans currently have a Congress that only 10-20% of the country actually approve of. And yet, instead of heeding this and changing track, Congress is actually engaging in even more of the behavior that its citizens despise so much.

Even when dissatisfied Americans get organized and, say, entire states formally vote in favor of legalizing Cannabis, central government actually promises to do everything it can to prevent the democratically identified will of the people being realised.

But hey, at least you get to vote for your president, right?

That isn't the whole story though. Basically that questions asks how you feel about everyone else's representative as a body.

You have to also include the approval rating of people's representative. Many representatives are over 40%, 50%, and even 60% in their own districts.

Liking your local representative doesn't mean that your government isn't a bunch of unaccountable jackasses. US senators are no better than any other country's self-interested rents-seekers.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:49 am

mrswdk wrote:Freedom of the press does not = greater potential for proles to influence government. Neither does freer markets (lol). You didn't really address any of the points that FP or I made.

I already did. You talked about direction. Direction need not solely come from the political. If you don't understand, consider how influential Goldman Sachs is.

If you don't understand how crucial having a free press is, then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe it's got something to do with your faulty analytical framework ('proles'... then comes 'superstructure').

Again, internet those indices and read them. They'd do the job for me.

by **isaiah40** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:44 am

Metsfanmax wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Don't need a third party if enough conservatives and libertarians get out there to vote for people who actually hold those values in order to restore the Republican party to those values. It's already been achieved in some capacities, which is why establishment Republicans fight harder against them than Democrats. They're scared that the people will vote them out of power and return the party to actual limited government values.

But why only give the people 2 choices?? I mean what if I don't like either candidate?

How many choices do you think we should have?

I think we should have more than two choices, and to quote myself from the first page:

isaiah40 wrote:But why only give the people 2 choices?? I mean what if I don't like either candidate? Are you telling me that I should be forced to either vote for one of the "lessor of two evils", or forced to not vote at all? Give me choices! Telling me that I can only choose between Dr. Pepper or Dr. Thunder is just ridiculous!!

I mean, we have 50 choices for Miss USA, why not have more choices for president!? If we have more than the two, than there is a far greater chance that you will likely cast your vote for someone who you can actually align yourself with, one who has the same belief and values as you have, someone who you can proudly say I voted for him/her, even if they don't win.

by **oVo** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:39 am

There are other parties besides the Reps & Dems, but it will be decades before they have the traction/clout of the dominant pair that runs this country. That's why the Tea Party has grown within the GOP --like that little critter in the movie Alien-- and not started from scratch.

I think it would have been interesting if the 2000 Presidential Election had turned this nation on it's head and put Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke in the White House.

With the exception of NOT BEING ATTACHED TO EITHER MAJOR PARTY these guys easily had the best credentials towards actually having the right priorities and quite possibly could have done more for this nation than any elected official in Washington. Even if that was nothing more than shaking up the quid pro quo, good old boys, business as usual way of conducting America's affairs that has existed in America for all of modern history. But this country' voters are blindly attached to political parties much like the lifelong fans of sports franchises, an affiliation and loyalty that is often inherited down family lines. Success in an election brings the same euphoria as a home team win and the oval office is the Super Bowl, but nobody pulls for the underdogs in politics. It's human nature to back the home team always.

Nader/LaDuke would have taken a miracle for the nation to wake up and actually investigate who all the candidates were, where they came from and what they represented.

by **Metsfanmax** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:39 am

So you mostly just want more options so that you can feel better about yourself when you vote?

by **isaiah40** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:12 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:So you mostly just want more options so that you can feel better about yourself when you vote?

Isn't that what people do now?? Vote to feel better about themselves?? But no, I vote to make a change in this country. I vote on principle not on politics. Both major parties say one thing to get elected, and once elected they do the opposite because of their party. Now not all politicians do this, but for the most part they all do it. I vote for the person I believe holds the same beliefs and values I hold and not the party.

by **Metsfanmax** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:16 pm

If the person you vote for has basically zero chance of winning, why do you vote?

The point I am trying to make is that just throwing more options out there doesn't change the systemic reason why most votes go to the Democrat and Republican parties. If you want to fix this reason, which is essentially that there is a lot more fundraising for candidates for those parties than for other candidates, then you should seek to implement election reforms such as barring private donations and spending and only allowing candidates to run using public funds, with all candidates receiving the same amount. This would very naturally allow other candidates to have a better chance.

by **mrswdk** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:29 pm

Okay, my bad. I was trying to talk about people's ability to influence their government and its actions.

by **isaiah40** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:49 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:If the person you vote for has basically zero chance of winning, why do you vote?

The point I am trying to make is that just throwing more options out there doesn't change the systemic reason why most votes go to the Democrat and Republican parties. If you want to fix this reason, which is essentially that there is a lot more fundraising for candidates for those parties than for other candidates, then you should seek to implement election reforms such as barring private donations and spending and only allowing candidates to run using public funds, with all candidates receiving the same amount. This would very naturally allow other candidates to have a better chance.

Which is one of the things we in the Constitution Party are doing as well. Problem is that the duopoly makes the rules. For instance Ohio just passed tougher laws for third parties to get on the ballot. The duopoly has a monopoly on the elections, and hold the population hostage telling them that they can only vote for the duopoly.

As far has the person I vote for having a zero change of winning, at least I voted and didn't throw my vote away. If I vote for someone who doesn't hold my values and beliefs, then I'd be throwing my vote away.

Albert Einstein wrote:Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

This quote says it all. Vote for the same parties and expecting different results is just plain insanity!

by **Metsfanmax** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:54 pm

isaiah40 wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:If the person you vote for has basically zero chance of winning, why do you vote?

The point I am trying to make is that just throwing more options out there doesn't change the systemic reason why most votes go to the Democrat and Republican parties. If you want to fix this reason, which is essentially that there is a lot more fundraising for candidates for those parties than for other candidates, then you should seek to implement election reforms such as barring private donations and spending and only allowing candidates to run using public funds, with all candidates receiving the same amount. This would very naturally allow other candidates to have a better chance.

Which is one of the things we in the Constitution Party are doing as well. Problem is that the duopoly makes the rules. For instance Ohio just passed tougher laws for third parties to get on the ballot. The duopoly has a monopoly on the elections, and hold the population hostage telling them that they can only vote for the duopoly.

Indeed. And thus we come to the fundamental Catch-22 situation we are in. The rules will only ever be changed if we have enough politicians from different parties to do this; but the only way we can get enough politicians in there to do such a thing is if the rules are changed. So I think one could make the case that one's time is better spent trying to convince politicians from the existing parties to do what we want on various specific issues rather than attempting to change the entire system. Notice how the Tea Party is a wing of the Republican party rather than a separate political party.

As far has the person I vote for having a zero change of winning, at least I voted and didn't throw my vote away. If I vote for someone who doesn't hold my values and beliefs, then I'd be throwing my vote away

This is not necessarily true. While Republicans and Democrats fundamentally agree on many things, there are a number of issues (primarily social ones) where there is enough disagreement that I find a good reason to vote against one of the parties and therefore for the other. A vote for the Constitution Party wouldn't allow me to help make Republicans lose because that party is not going to win anyway. A vote for the Democratic party does allow me to help make Republicans lose.

by **oVo** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:55 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:If the person you vote for has basically zero chance of winning, why do you vote?

That is precisely one source of voter apathy in the USA. I haven't researched this but it's possible that less than half of the eligible citizens in America actually vote in Presidential Elections. The main reason being "what difference does it make" and until there is a genuine calamity to draw voters to the polls, it will stay that way. I do believe Obama encouraged many people fed up with the system to get out and vote, but it's likely that those same people are disenchanted now after seeing that the two party system is pretty much nothing but opposite faces of the same coin.

America is not a Democratic Government by the People and for the people --as advertised-- it is a Corporate Democracy. Money talks, period. Big money owns this government, determines policy, and law. That will never be altered without major election reform, and that will never happen because the two parties occupying Washington work together to maintain it.

The reckless way Congress is governing this decade just might be enough to nudge voters over the edge and initiate The American Spring!

by **fadedpsychosis** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:04 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Freedom of the press does not = greater potential for proles to influence government. Neither does freer markets (lol). You didn't really address any of the points that FP or I made.

I already did. You talked about direction. Direction need not solely come from the political. If you don't understand, consider how influential Goldman Sachs is.

If you don't understand how crucial having a free press is, then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe it's got something to do with your faulty analytical framework ('proles'... then comes 'superstructure').

Again, internet those indices and read them. They'd do the job for me.

actually I think you just made MY point for me... in the US we don't have the same structure as China, but we DO have a ruling class, those with money (and as I already said: in the US, money = power) in the states those with money make the decisions, NOT the "average american", no more than the "average Chinese citizen" makes the decisions for their country
I am NOT disagreeing that the US is influenced by far more than politics... quite the opposite, I think money has far more clout than pure political power because the 1st begets the latter... what I AM saying is that said influence is not nearly so strongly in the hands of the general populace as those in power would like you to believe

by **fadedpsychosis** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:16 pm

also, after looking at the polity thing? couple of remarks.
1st, it's focused on regime type. useful, but we all already knew that level of difference between China and the US; it doesn't remark on what level of actual say in the govt the average citizen posesses.
2nd, it is primarily a measure of regime stability and is in fact funded by the CIA to examine and focus on "State Failure"

by **Lootifer** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:21 pm

Night Strike wrote:Don't need a third party if enough conservatives and libertarians get out there to vote for people who actually hold those values in order to restore the Republican party to those values. It's already been achieved in some capacities, which is why establishment Republicans fight harder against them than Democrats. They're scared that the people will vote them out of power and return the party to actual limited government values.

Er.... arent a whole bunch of libertarians actually liberal? (in the non-political definition of the word - not the liberal left as US media refers to).

by **BigBallinStalin** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 4:06 pm

fadedpsychosis wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Freedom of the press does not = greater potential for proles to influence government. Neither does freer markets (lol). You didn't really address any of the points that FP or I made.

I already did. You talked about direction. Direction need not solely come from the political. If you don't understand, consider how influential Goldman Sachs is.

If you don't understand how crucial having a free press is, then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe it's got something to do with your faulty analytical framework ('proles'... then comes 'superstructure').

Again, internet those indices and read them. They'd do the job for me.

actually I think you just made MY point for me... in the US we don't have the same structure as China, but we DO have a ruling class, those with money (and as I already said: in the US, money = power) in the states those with money make the decisions, NOT the "average american", no more than the "average Chinese citizen" makes the decisions for their country
I am NOT disagreeing that the US is influenced by far more than politics... quite the opposite, I think money has far more clout than pure political power because the 1st begets the latter... what I AM saying is that said influence is not nearly so strongly in the hands of the general populace as those in power would like you to believe

and compared to China?

I mention GMS to show that it's not all about politics, which mrswdk has to acknowledge.

I think the main problem is y'all keep thinking in absolutes, whereas I keep insisting on the relative. In order to show that the Americans and Chinese are at least equal in influence as measured in 'steering the direction' of those countries, you'd have to explain that the differences in all those factors (intelligentsia, press, liberal democracy, one-party rule, economic system, judicial system, elections, blah blah blah) have no significance--and/or y'all would have to maintain that there is no difference (which there is).

Here's a basic example. American politicians have to balance between pleasing their constituents while pleasing special interest groups. Chinese politicians don't have to please their constituents nearly as much--they can simply quash rebellions by using the police/military (which occurs to a much higher degree than in the US). The Chinese politicians also have to please their special interest groups. The Chinese politicians can more cheaply ignore their 'constituents' whereas the American politicians cannot do so as easily. Therefore, we see how much influence Americans can have over the political realm of their country compared to the Chinese.

Or how about freedom of the press? Presumably, criticizing government for whatever has some demand from the general populace, which in turn influence their politicians by voting. If the Chinese can simply increase the costs of criticizing government by banning certain groups, imposing regulations which are not as nearly capable of being overseen as the American counterparts--etc., then the Chinese government can obviously reduce the influence of their media--into a narrower channel which is more favorable to how the Chinese politicians which to run the country. In the US, these factors are not as strong, so the freedom of the press in the US is greater; therefore, enabling more citizens to exert greater influence over the political realm.

You'd have to argue that even given these differences, the Chinese and Americans have equal influence over the 'direction of their country'. I don't see how that follows--given the relative differences and the relative outcomes.

by **fadedpsychosis** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:34 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote: *cutting previous quotes*

and compared to China?

I mention GMS to show that it's not all about politics, which mrswdk has to acknowledge.

I think the main problem is y'all keep thinking in absolutes, whereas I keep insisting on the relative. In order to show that the Americans and Chinese are at least equal in influence as measured in 'steering the direction' of those countries, you'd have to explain that the differences in all those factors (intelligentsia, press, liberal democracy, one-party rule, economic system, judicial system, elections, blah blah blah) have no significance--and/or y'all would have to maintain that there is no difference (which there is).

BBS, in the years we've been debating at each other, when have I ever thought in absolutes? also, I've been repeating that the situations in China and the US are completely different; the main point I've been arguing (which you've done a very good job in ignoring by the way) is that the average citizen in the US has very little influence on the direction of our country. am I exaggerating? possibly, but not from my viewpoint.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Here's a basic example. American politicians have to balance between pleasing their constituents while pleasing special interest groups. Chinese politicians don't have to please their constituents nearly as much--they can simply quash rebellions by using the police/military (which occurs to a much higher degree than in the US). The Chinese politicians also have to please their special interest groups. The Chinese politicians can more cheaply ignore their 'constituents' whereas the American politicians cannot do so as easily. Therefore, we see how much influence Americans can have over the political realm of their country compared to the Chinese.

I have underlined the heart of my own argument. "more cheaply" yes... but ignore us they do anyway. and yes, I agree the US doesn't use the same tactics, I've been saying that all along... US politicians typically resort to distraction and political smoke and mirrors to achieve their ends rather than force, and yes it is more costly, but then they're the ones with the money in the first place

BigBallinStalin wrote:Or how about freedom of the press? Presumably, criticizing government for whatever has some demand from the general populace, which in turn influence their politicians by voting. If the Chinese can simply increase the costs of criticizing government by banning certain groups, imposing regulations which are not as nearly capable of being overseen as the American counterparts--etc., then the Chinese government can obviously reduce the influence of their media--into a narrower channel which is more favorable to how the Chinese politicians which to run the country. In the US, these factors are not as strong, so the freedom of the press in the US is greater; therefore, enabling more citizens to exert greater influence over the political realm.

as I said earlier (and you ignored) the 'common man' is not in charge of the press in either country... and again, different tactics are involved... the US is more about sleight of hand and distraction than heavy handedness...

BigBallinStalin wrote:You'd have to argue that even given these differences, the Chinese and Americans have equal influence over the 'direction of their country'. I don't see how that follows--given the relative differences and the relative outcomes.

bad logic BBS... 'equal' and 'equivalent' are not the same thing. I have never been arguing that the situations in both countries are 'equal'... if I were to stab someone in the heart, or shoot them in the face, or poison them, the results would not be the same... but in any of those three situations, the person is still dead. (I'm using this only as a very colorful way of showing my point, don't read too much into it)

my whole point is this BBS... We the People of the United States have by our own complacency allowed control of the country to slip from the grasp of the public into the hands of the wealthy few. the means used to keep this state of affairs in place is not by any means the same used in China, nor are our people in the same position culturally nor economically... but the end result is that the direction of the country is being pushed by a minority that does little more than pay lip service to the people they are supposedly representing. if congress were to suddenly change their tune and begin actually listening to the general populace I would gladly recant (and I'll be the first to admit it's far more likely to happen in the US than in China)

by **BigBallinStalin** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:39 pm

fadedpsychosis wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote: *cutting previous quotes*

and compared to China?

I mention GMS to show that it's not all about politics, which mrswdk has to acknowledge.

I think the main problem is y'all keep thinking in absolutes, whereas I keep insisting on the relative. In order to show that the Americans and Chinese are at least equal in influence as measured in 'steering the direction' of those countries, you'd have to explain that the differences in all those factors (intelligentsia, press, liberal democracy, one-party rule, economic system, judicial system, elections, blah blah blah) have no significance--and/or y'all would have to maintain that there is no difference (which there is).

BBS, in the years we've been debating at each other, when have I ever thought in absolutes? also, I've been repeating that the situations in China and the US are completely different; the main point I've been arguing (which you've done a very good job in ignoring by the way) is that the average citizen in the US has very little influence on the direction of our country. am I exaggerating? possibly, but not from my viewpoint.

Oh, I thought you were supporting mrswdk's position. Nvm then.

by **fadedpsychosis** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:45 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
fadedpsychosis wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote: *cutting previous quotes*

and compared to China?

I mention GMS to show that it's not all about politics, which mrswdk has to acknowledge.

I think the main problem is y'all keep thinking in absolutes, whereas I keep insisting on the relative. In order to show that the Americans and Chinese are at least equal in influence as measured in 'steering the direction' of those countries, you'd have to explain that the differences in all those factors (intelligentsia, press, liberal democracy, one-party rule, economic system, judicial system, elections, blah blah blah) have no significance--and/or y'all would have to maintain that there is no difference (which there is).

BBS, in the years we've been debating at each other, when have I ever thought in absolutes? also, I've been repeating that the situations in China and the US are completely different; the main point I've been arguing (which you've done a very good job in ignoring by the way) is that the average citizen in the US has very little influence on the direction of our country. am I exaggerating? possibly, but not from my viewpoint.

Oh, I thought you were supporting mrswdk's position. Nvm then.

what I'd said is that mrswdk had a point that you seemed to be dismissing out of hand... I kinda went off on a tanget from there, sorry if I didn't make that clear :oops:

Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Re: Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

Who is online