Is it time for a third political party?

It has been time for a third party for quite some time. Ralph Nader has made some good points, as has Jello Biafra. If Al Gore would stand for a third party I would vote for him. And of course I disagree with some points that these candidates have made, but I would give them a chance because they are less likely to be bought and paid for puppets. For instance, Jello Biafra has issues with the second amendment which I disagree with, but he has also tossed out some good ideas like putting "None of the Above" on political ballots so that people can change their options if they do not like them. This country needs change, not lip service. But of course the president is only one part of the process.

Rick K: The libertarian party has some nice ideals. But I haven't seen any candidates there.

Rudy? Seriously, this guy promotes the same insanity that plagues the current administration (i.e. the current lack of leadership amounts to punching the country repeatedly in the nose because it was bitten by a mosquito).

Seriously, if we allow the actions of a handful of people (what is it nineteen or something not counting those who bankrolled this) to justify our own government taking away our freedom to somehow make us feel safer, then there is a much larger problem here than 9-11. Rudy runs a campaign based on 9-11.

The problem that we really face is not 9-11, it is our lack of energy independence and the current administrations' lack of leadership to pursue the goal of energy independence in a reasonable fashion.

And what I mean by a reasonable fashion is to disallow preemption and torture and to face the real problem head on and honestly.

Din2600: Al Gore running for the green party. I have thought about that one. Such a move would almost guarantee campaign funds matching. Whether or not he will stand in opposition to the current two parties is perhaps the real question. It would be nice. If he truly is tired of current politics then why not?

KIZIAH: The spoils vote argument is a slap in the face to democracy. Why bother voting for change when you can simply chose the lesser of two evils right?!?! Not everyone is satisfied with simply picking one or the other based on who has the most corporate sponsorship, best marketing, most scare tactics, etc.

Our current duopoly allows for a person to stand before the country, promise things they do not intend to even attempt, gain the peoples' vote (which is the basis of democracy and our freedom), and then these people are free to push their agendas without being held responsible for the promises made which got them elected in the first place. They simply lie to get the vote, do what they want, and then we can do nothing about it because congress will not pass such a law that would make them accountable.

rlstaehle: Perhaps we should just have a true democracy? Our communications structure has increased dramatically since the country was founded. We can now technically achieve real democracy if we open-source the code so that everyone can see the process, and then refrain from recording any relationship between a voter and who they voted for. Screw Diebold and their process. What is this representative structure, perhaps a vestigial structure?

Congress has this tendency to pass legislation without even reading it due to the sheer amount that crosses their desks. Perhaps giving the people the choice could lessen their burden; there are many more of us. And of course putting these people in the position of having to vote for or against a bill that contains many issues which they and their electors are both for and against is absurd. These bills or potential laws should be separated into their parts so that they are easier to understand and intelligently decide upon as separate choices. Then we could at lease intelligently decided whether or not congress is representing its electors. This of course is beyond the capacity of congress so I say give it to the people.

A computer programmer may recognize that congress is essentially vulnerable to a buffer overflow. Give them more information then they can handle, while putting the laws that you want passed somewhere in there. This process not only injects laws that were unintended, it also makes congress believe that they have an excuse for making poor decisions. This is absurd. Have them fix it or get out of the way.

There should not be a third party.

Parties shoud be abolished. They don't stand for anything anymore and their platforms are built around tearing each other down (you can actually see this by seeing both Demos and Reps post on these forums).

If we did away with parties it would save the money contributed to the Coke and Pepsi parties by the government. It would also make people choose a candidate based on what they present not just based on the lamb syndrome. It might make us use our brains. But it might still be a good idea.

Absolutely, and a 4th party wouldn't hurt either.

I'm in with Din....Al Gore would be a good candidate. Or Ralph Nader, is he running again? I could throw my vote away on him again!

Let's do away with both parties, and call it the people's party. That might sound a little socialist though.

z_nix, I do agree , we need the U.S. citizens involved in government. You know " For the people, by the people". My opening statement was more of a joke than anything else.

There are 0.33, fourth, 5th, 6th, (and extra)th applicants obtainable. there has been a black lady nominee for president in the past--her call is Dr Lenora Fulani. She ran as quickly as on the Peace and Freedom fee ticket, and as quickly as for the hot Alliance social gathering. there improve right into a photograph of her on the front internet site of my interior reach newspaper sooner or later in 1992. invoice Clinton had yet to be nominated because of the fact the candidate, he improve into yet certainly one of 8 or so. Dr Fulani improve into, although, her social gathering's nominee--on the pollin all 50 states. The caption study "Lenora Fulani of the hot Alliance social gathering interrupts presidential candidate invoice Clinton at his press convention Tuesday on the Blahblah Hilton." "the two" events are offered and paid for by ability of massive business enterprise. in case you carry out a dash learn, you will locate that maximum firms donate to the candidate from all the premiere events that they think of might maximum suitable characterize their particular pastimes. it is spoke of as hedging your bets. in fact that the countless different applicants merely make too lots experience, and so their ability to compete is intentionally squashed by ability of the networks (owned by ability of fabulously wealthy executives) who unquestionably do no longer choose a Ron Paul or a Ralph Nader to be elected president.

Did you miss your etiquette lesson this week? Your question is good, but the rest of your post is so lacking in class.

I'd love to see the Libertarian Party have more success, especially on the national level (not Ron Paul, though!).

Vote for Rudy!

Another party would just split the vote between it and the Democrats and allow the Republicans to win again.

Obama in '08.

I recently met an above-average Labrador Retriever

"Greenhouse Party" headed by the amiable & talented Al Gore."