Sure, but if the overall goal is those "down ticket" seats, there are probably more cost-effective ways to campaign.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
61% of Americans want a new political party.
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
The system does allow for more than two parties. But I think that a third party is only necessary when the two parties fail to sufficiently represent popular opinion.
The rest of the time, I think that two parties seems natural. It gives the ideal number of choices for voters and forces the right amount of political compromise.
If two parties are relatively equally popular, then whoever is elected will be supported by close to half the population.
If three parties are relatively equally popular, then whoever is elected will be supported by close to one-third the population, but the other two-thirds will always be a bit salty that their party wasn't elected. This just seems like a bad idea to me.
The rest of the time, I think that two parties seems natural. It gives the ideal number of choices for voters and forces the right amount of political compromise.
If two parties are relatively equally popular, then whoever is elected will be supported by close to half the population.
If three parties are relatively equally popular, then whoever is elected will be supported by close to one-third the population, but the other two-thirds will always be a bit salty that their party wasn't elected. This just seems like a bad idea to me.
I always vote 3rd party for president. To those who say, "You're just throwing your vote away by doing that!" I reply, "Thanks to the Electorial College, my vote ain't worth squat anyway!"
I don't know where you live, but if you live(and vote) in a state that hasn't enacted "popular presidential voting" legislation you could work on that.
National Popular Vote
Many states already have. With a few more your vote would count.
Tom
Unless SCOTUS declares it unConstitutional which they might.
SoyLeche
meh...
SCOTUS might, but I would have a hard time seeing how they would justify the ruling. The constitution gives the selection of electors completely into the hands of the individual state legislatures. There doesn’t even have to be a vote of the citizens on the topic if the states don’t want there to be.
SoyLeche
meh...
These wouldn’t be faithless electors though.
I agree that the inevitable court challenge to the compact will be interesting.
Well, now that McConnell is blowing off the Constitution when it comes to SCOTUS nominations anything could happen. Trump and the Senate might put Stormy Daniels on SCOTUS.
What would stop them?
Tom
Since competence is not important to the current regime in power, some fox commentator perhaps?
dfnj
Well-Known Member
We do not have parliamentary system like England where the silly parties have power. A third or fourth power would not help one bit. The problems with our country are not rocket science. The billionaires pay the lobbyists to pass legislation creating cartels and monopolies in exchange for campaign financing. Money equals representation. We are the United States of Corporations.
If you had third and fourth parties they would just be run by people on the billionaire's payroll.
We have the worst wealth inequality in history. Our new age of robber barons makes the old robber barons look like High School interns. Wages are fixed. Prices of goods and services are fixed. Every year inflation drives down the median workers wage closer to becoming a poverty wage. Every year the rich get richer and the number of people living in poverty grows. Every year more and more money is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. We have no free-market competition to wring out the inefficiencies of exorbitant CEO pay and excessive dividends at the expense of worker's wages and healthcare.
The 1936 words of FDR during the Great Depression era are more true today than when he spoke them:
"An old English judge once said: 'Necessitous men are not free men.' Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.
For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.
Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government."
But do worry my comrades. Marx said laissez faire capitalism is always followed by communism. This is because unfettered greed would result in the government's currency collapsing to nothing in value. Once the currency collapses, people in the breadlines will demand MORE government not less. See you in the breadlines comrades!