And the name of the new party is ...

[Scuba Pete]

As the Republicans become more and more the party of FUDDD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, Deception & Distortion) they are being ripped apart from the insides. I can see the Tea Party leaving them for good over Drumpf not being nominated. While this primary season seems to be ripping the Republicans apart, exit polls indicate that Democrats feel that it has energized their party. http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...rk-primary-trailguide-04192016-htmlstory.html

 

[Father Heathen]

What we see with Trump and Sanders transcends anything suggested by Perot and Nader.

Are we witnessing the waning days of the 2-Party system?

I certainly hope so.

 

[Valjean]

Another idea I like is Ben Franklin's suggestion of the Wild Turkey as our national bird...and it could double as our national drink, as well...

Edit: I was thinking of the bison because it is big, lumbering, and not-too-bright-but-awfully-stong--kind of like the American electorate...

Turkeys have a certain cache about them, as well...

My third thought was The Opossum...

But turkeys are self-sufficient, mind their own business and respect their neighbors. Bald eagles, on the other hand, never miss an opportunity to steal someone else's fish. They're rapacious opportunists -- an excellent symbol of the American character, IMHO.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

But turkeys are self-sufficient, mind their own business and respect their neighbors. Bald eagles, on the other hand, never miss an opportunity to steal someone else's fish. They're rapacious opportunists -- an excellent symbol of the American character, IMHO.

Yeah, you got a point there...

But remember, this is for the symbol of a new political party, something replace or at least go up against a Stubborn Elephant and Donkey that Never Remembers...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I understand it, the two party system is institutionalized in laws and regulations that make it extremely difficult for a third party candidate to get on the ballot in all states.

It doesn't have to be in all states.

One of the quirks of the first-past-the-post system is that it can give disproportionate power to regionally-focused parties. A party that only runs candidates in one state and does well in that state but poorly everywhere else could get a significant number of members of congress elected, while a party that is a strong third place across the entire country won't get any.

Canada has had a few new parties emerge over the years and they've always started from a regionally-focused base. For quite a while, the Bloc Quebecois (which doesn't even run candidates outside Quebec) was the official opposition.

Other parties that ended up with mainstream nationwide support also grew from regional bases: the NDP (Saskatchewan) and Reform (Alberta). Reform and the Conservative Party later merged and kept the Conservative name, but their ideology has significantly shifted because of Reform's influence.

The next party to emerge in the US will start in one small region and grow out from there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I voted 'No'. Nothing on the horizon that I think is a serious threat to the status quo. Perot and Nader I don't think even ran in a traditional party. And another thought is that our system requires a majority of electoral college delegates. How does this work if there are four or five parties?

What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

Interesting.

 

[George-ananda]

Interesting.

Yes, we have avoided that weirdness so far primarily because there has usually been only two major parties. I shudder to think of all the machinations involved in the procedures you listed.

 

[Underhill]

This is one of those issues that 80% of the population is in favor of but will never change. Right up there with campaign finance reform.

But when the people who write the laws benefit from the status quo, not much is likely to change.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What we see with Trump and Sanders transcends anything suggested by Perot and Nader.

Are we witnessing the waning days of the 2-Party system?

Perhaps beyond parties altogether? since neither of these candidates identify with any, and have been successful because of that

 

[Wu Wei]

I voted <no>.
I hope I'm wrong.

I too vote no and hope I'm wrong.... but I feel the pole should have a 4th option "Sadly no"

 

[tytlyf]

I voted no. The democratic party isn't going anywhere as there isn't any turmoil or corruption going on. The republican party will be dead after 2016. If conservatives want to have their own party, they need to avoid voting in another establishment candidate that is bought and paid for by special interests. The republican party has been controlled by corrupt corporations for decades, they just need to fool people into voting for them. Usually it's the 'conservative card', 'military card' and the 'religion card' that gets people to vote against their best interests.

If republicans vote for anyone besides Trump, the establishment wins. The republican elites use Fox and Rush to fool people into supporting republicans.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The democratic party isn't going anywhere as there isn't any turmoil or corruption going on.

I'm really hoping that Sander's campaign really brings to light the fact there is much corporate sponsorship and hawkish ways even within the Democratic party. I also wouldn't mind if more people realized the Dems, though vocally supporting various minority groups, also having a bad habit of "SS/DD" when it comes to advancing minority rights (we transsexuals are even often first to be kicked under the bus). And not too mention the "Deporter in Chief" hasn't really done much to fix our broken immigration system, a system that is so severely broken that even translators sticking their necks on the chopping block to help American troops live in peril for months and even years waiting to be cleared to come here. And then there is B. Clinton was "almost sorry" for his verbal altercation with BLM as they brought up things his wife said.
From my perspective, things have gotten so bad within the Republican party that it overshadows the bad within the Democrat party.

 

[Laika]

Voted "Other". I really hope the US two-party system starts to break down and it begins to open up to candidates from accorss the political spectrum. I say this however with a certian reluctance because I realise that a far-right candidate is signficiantly more likely than a far-left one. Decades of hostility to the left as well as mis-information means that even if a viable candidate could be found (i.e. left of Sanders who is really a "moderate") building a permanant political base for a mass movement is still a long way off. its something people need to start doing though.I wouldn't mind a Green or maybe the Libertarian Party becoming more mainstream and having a decent shot at the White House. its the extremist, anti-intellectual bigotry that worries me.

Do you realize you'd have Libertarians & commies represented?
Ew!

Libertarian Party membership is 411,250 (as of March 2016), whereas the Communist Party of the USA is 2,000 (2011 estimate) so its 205 times bigger. The Communist Party has been crippled since the McCarthy era and haven't run a presidential candidate since the 1984 and have just endorsed the Democratic candidate. They aren't really "Communist" in a recognisable sense now either, just very left of centre. even when they did have a candidate, they never scored more than 0.26% of the vote (that was in 1932, otherwise its below 0.1% since 1968). nor did the left-wing revival in the US during the 60s and 70s did not have much effect electorally with "other" far-left spliter groups in the US. The fact that the Libertarian Party got 1% of the vote in 1980 and 2012 still putting them "light-years" ahead of the Communists, making them comparatively mainstream (which isn't hard I grant you. ).

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

What we see with Trump and Sanders transcends anything suggested by Perot and Nader.

Are we witnessing the waning days of the 2-Party system?

More than likely not, however I sincerely hope that we are.

 

[Revoltingest]

Libertarian Party membership is 411,250 (as of March 2016), whereas the Communist Party of the USA is 2,000 (2011 estimate) so its 205 times bigger. The Communist Party has been crippled since the McCarthy era and haven't run a presidential candidate since the 1984 and have just endorsed the Democratic candidate. They aren't really "Communist" in a recognisable sense now either, just very left of centre. even when they did have a candidate, they never scored more than 0.26% of the vote (that was in 1932, otherwise its below 0.1% since 1968). nor did the left-wing revival in the US during the 60s and 70s did not have much effect electorally with "other" far-left spliter groups in the US. The fact that the Libertarian Party got 1% of the vote in 1980 and 2012 still putting them "light-years" ahead of the Communists, making them comparatively mainstream (which isn't hard I grant you. ).

I've heard that you can recruit women more easily if you have the boys.
(It worked for Bernie.)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It should be called the Reform Party. I propose a carefully selected platform that focuses on common ground between marginalized Americans on both the Right and the Left:

1. Overturn Citizens United (with a Constitutional Amendment if necessary)
2. Campaign Finance Reform
3. Don't disenfranchise voters / Reform the GOP and Dem nominating process (focus more on popular vote)
4. Term Limits (?)
5. Secure the border (?)
6. Level the playing field for American workers .... ? (The left wants things like more guaranteed maternity leave, the Trump-Right wants to re-think NAFTA ... Is there a bridge between the two?)
7. Foreign policy ... Non-interventionism?
8. Taxes ... Avoid the debate about raising or lowering them, let's just get rid of unfair loopholes, make it simpler / largely do away with deductions (and if you get rid of a deduction you can lower the overall rate to keep the total $ amounts paid roughly the same), maybe increase a bit for people making millions while lowering a bit for those "making" hundreds of thousands (like small businesses)? It would have to be about improving the way we calculate taxes, about making it more fair / transparent, not about raising or lower them in aggregate.

Hmm ... As I write this it becomes clear that there are relatively few issues the Left and the Trump-Right agree on, but they are big issues that are left largely unaddressed by the elite club that runs our current system.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

#7 above would have to be, non-interventionism broadly speaking, but that doesn't mean a weak military or not defending ourselves / our allies in case of attack.

 

[Revoltingest]

It should be called the Reform Party. I propose a carefully selected platform that focuses on common ground between marginalized Americans on both the Right and the Left:

1. Overturn Citizens United (with a Constitutional Amendment if necessary)
2. Campaign Finance Reform
3. Don't disenfranchise voters / Reform the GOP and Dem nominating process (focus more on popular vote)
4. Term Limits (?)
5. Secure the border (?)
6. Level the playing field for American workers .... ? (The left wants things like more guaranteed maternity leave, the Trump-Right wants to re-think NAFTA ... Is there a bridge between the two?)
7. Foreign policy ... Non-interventionism?
8. Taxes ... Avoid the debate about raising or lowering them, let's just get rid of unfair loopholes, make it simpler / largely do away with deductions (and if you get rid of a deduction you can lower the overall rate to keep the total $ amounts paid roughly the same), maybe increase a bit for people making millions while lowering a bit for those "making" hundreds of thousands (like small businesses)? It would have to be about improving the way we calculate taxes, about making it more fair / transparent, not about raising or lower them in aggregate.

Hmm ... As I write this it becomes clear that there are relatively few issues the Left and the Trump-Right agree on, but they are big issues that are left largely unaddressed by the elite club that runs our current system.

You get a frubal for your shameless (but understandable) theft of some of my ideas.
(I forget who I stole them from.)

 

[Scuba Pete]

A third party could only exist if the electoral system were junked. Completely junked. One person gets one vote. Primaries are open to everyone. The top two votes from all the states get into the finals. I don't care if they're Dem, Rep or Purple Rainers. If parties want to present just one candidate, then they have to figure it out on their own.

As for taxes, a simple sales tax would be easier to administer and far, far fairer than any income tax. Double tax expenditures from outside the US as a built in tariff but don't tax exports. Those who spend money will be more apt to save it. Don't tax food (not including restaurants) or medicine but everything else.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

A third party could only exist if the electoral system were junked. Completely junked. One person gets one vote. Primaries are open to everyone. The top two votes from all the states get into the finals. I don't care if they're Dem, Rep or Purple Rainers. If parties want to present just one candidate, then they have to figure it out on their own.

As for taxes, a simple sales tax would be easier to administer and far, far fairer than any income tax. Double tax expenditures from outside the US as a built in tariff but don't tax exports. Those who spend money will be more apt to save it. Don't tax food (not including restaurants) or medicine but everything else.

............I hope you know that third parties already exist........