Political History - First Third Party

Originally posted by OutoftheBoxthinker
I'm not saying the multi-party system is the way to go. I'm merely implying it is a better way than the two-party-system.

What are you talking about... I can't think of a single republic that doesn't have multiple parties. We have multiple parties in the United States. In any countries I look at, including some of the countries you have mentioned there are still dominant major parties that routinely have the most representation in the government. You don't seem to be understanding this... One reason that the Presidential elections are routinely dominated by the two parties here is that votes are not proportionally represented. We have an electoral college. Winner takes all so to speak. If you lose by .1 to your opponent in a state the states electoral votes go solely to the winner. You can have the majority of the votes and still lose the election. It has happened several times before.

Originally posted by OutoftheBoxthinker
In my country, pretty much anyone can start his own political party and be succesful. In the US, you need loads of money and/or connections to have a remote chance of getting enough votes to be noticed.

What makes you think that can't happen here? For one, I don't know what country you live in, but I am willing to bet it would probably fit into a single large state here in the US. We have local governments, state governments, and the federal government. All of which have elected officials. Alternative party candidates are elected in all of these. When it comes to running for President of the United States then yes. You need to have a track record of political achievements. Joe Shmoe can announce he is running for President, but this is a big damn place and that is arguably the most powerful position in the world right now. What do you expect? Not to disparage your country but these are apples and oranges. This isn't really even comparable.

Originally posted by OutoftheBoxthinker
In my country, the greens definitely managed to put forward their agenda. They didn't only have their own members of parliament but also their own ministers, in spite of them having been a fairly marginal party most of the time.

I don't know why you insist that your country represents the standard of elected official to government interaction...

Originally posted by apolluwn
Do I need to go over all the parties in the United States and other countries? An abundance of parties does not mean anything when only a minority of those parties are ever in control. You seem to be missing this point...

Originally posted by OutoftheBoxthinker
You seem to be missing the point that in multi-party states it is possible for radical non-mainstream parties to gain enough votes to be part of the government or at least put a lot of pressure on the government.

Am I taking your word for it? How is this the rule? There are plenty of countries, in fact, every republic where this is not necessarily the case. There is still a small number of majority parties that are in control of almost every government. Most countries do not have support for many different parties to stop this. Even when they do, like I stated earlier; This only leads to centrism from coalitions created between multiple parties. This does not forward specific agenda's only broad centrist agenda's that all the parties can agree on. So, in fact, 100 small parties isn't all that different from a few major parties.

Originally posted by OutoftheBoxthinker
What do you based this on? Other than Anglo-Saxon countries, I don't know any countries with a two-party-system.

If you are going to respond would you please actually respond to the statement I made and not just pick a section and take it out of context...

All republics are multi-party. You can form a party and individuals can run for office. Almost all republics have a few dominant major parties. Most countries that have many different parties that are elected -STILL- have major parties and minor parties. There are -VERY- few countries that elect -MANY- major parties to office that are successful at doing it. -MOST- countries that elect from many different parties -STILL- have major parties that routinely win elections, but the minor parties whose success varies normally do not ever have much power especially over more than a short time line. This is due to the fact that they have to become centrist in order to get anything done. Even if there is a power shift and they continue to be elected more this would only serve to make them become a major party and then other parties are losing out.


[edit on 8/6/2008 by apolluwn]

Originally posted by apolluwn
What are you talking about... I can't think of a single republic that doesn't have multiple parties. We have multiple parties in the United States.

How many of those US parties run federally? How many have a remote chance of getting even 5% of the votes?

Originally posted by apolluwn
In any countries I look at, including some of the countries you have mentioned there are still dominant major parties that routinely have the most representation in the government.

Sure.... but they also routinely have anti-establishment parties that routinely have significant representation in federal parliament and sometimes in government.

Originally posted by apolluwn
We have an electoral college. Winner takes all so to speak. If you lose by .1 to your opponent in a state the states electoral votes go solely to the winner. You can have the majority of the votes and still lose the election. It has happened several times before.

True. However, in our system 30% of the votes still means 30% representation in parliament and only 5% of the votes can still mean your party becomes part of the coalition. As such, anti-establishment parties have a greater influence on policy.

Originally posted by apolluwn
What makes you think that can't happen here? For one, I don't know what country you live in, but I am willing to bet it would probably fit into a single large state here in the US.

Correct.

What's your point? The EU as a whole is more diverse than my country.

Originally posted by apolluwn
When it comes to running for President of the United States then yes. You need to have a track record of political achievements.

Think of Jörg Haider. He was hated by establishment parties all over Europe, but in 2000 he still managed to become join enter the Austrian government. Many countries actually called for a boycot of Austria as a consequence.

Originally posted by apolluwn
I don't know why you insist that your country represents the standard of elected official to government interaction...

That's because I don't know any country besides Anglo-Saxon countries that have a two-party-system.

Originally posted by apolluwn
Am I taking your word for it? How is this the rule? There are plenty of countries, in fact, every republic where this is not necessarily the case. There is still a small number of majority parties that are in control of almost every government. Most countries do not have support for many different parties to stop this.

Again, I'd like to see some statistics.

Originally posted by apolluwn
All republics are multi-party. You can form a party and individuals can run for office. Almost all republics have a few dominant major parties. Most countries that have many different parties that are elected -STILL- have major parties and minor parties.

True. However, minor parties can easily become major parties and vice versa. That's the difference you don't seem to get.

Members!!!!!

This is EXACTLY how Political Ideologies should be discussed...

With intellect and composure..

Great thread and wonderful contributions all around.

Semper

In New zealand we have a New World Order Party!!! What do you think of that?!?!

They are newly formed and haven't issued any public statements as of yet, but I have heard it second hand their intention is to create a one world government, and rule the world!

Watch this space

the two party system simply arises from the fact that the constitution only allows for a winner take all system. if we had elections that worked on representation based on the percentage of votes candidates receive then we would have viable third parties. legitimate third parties can only arise out of the fracturing of a party over a polarizing issue ie. Republicans forming out of abolitionist factions in the whig party; so even when the third party does arise it kills the party it fractured thus becoming one of the two dominant political parties in the country, which continues the two party system.

New Zealand NWO huh?
I wonder if this is a party made to scare people.

I seriously doubt the NWO would make a political party called the NWO. That would be a little bit too obvious for their methods.

I would rather bet that this NWO is some extremist offshoot who dreams of becoming something similiar to the NWO, but they don't have the power or membership of the true NWO. just a theory.

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce
I seriously doubt the NWO would make a political party called the NWO. That would be a little bit too obvious for their methods.

I would rather bet that this NWO is some extremist offshoot who dreams of becoming something similiar to the NWO, but they don't have the power or membership of the true NWO.

Sounds very plausible IMO....

Now, the next part of the question.

If the third party was Anti-Masons, I would think that he would be running against he Masonic establishment.

Does this mean that both the Republican and Democratic parties are truly run by the Masons? Many people have thought that both of our parties are a "front", and that both parties work together behind the scenes.


Out of the box, I think it is hard to distinguish between 2 and 3 party systems around the world. Yes, we only have two here... but even if we had 3 or 4 major contenders, they all could be ran by the same groups.

I don't know if having 9 parties that at least get 1% really shows more political diversity. I don't even know if having 15% of the vote really shows major support.

What percentage of the popular vote should a party get in order to be a major contender? I would think that in a system of 4 contenders that anyone under 12.5% (which is half if all 4 split) would make them a contender.

I guess people in different countries have different ideologies when it comes to how political systems work. Some say our 3rd parties have no chance. I personally like to think (especially this year) that our 3rd party might have a chance, depending on who it is.

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce
Out of the box, I think it is hard to distinguish between 2 and 3 party systems around the world. Yes, we only have two here... but even if we had 3 or 4 major contenders, they all could be ran by the same groups.

In countries like mine, you usually have between 5 and 10 national parties and 4 of them having any power. Among those 4 parties, there is often one or two that hold dissident views. Also, it is possible for a new (dissident) party to be founded and gain 15% or more of the votes in the first or second elections it participates in.

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce
I don't even know if having 15% of the vote really shows major support.

It does... especially if a party is new and/or constantly defamed by the media.

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce
Does this mean that both the Republican and Democratic parties are truly run by the Masons? Many people have thought that both of our parties are a "front", and that both parties work together behind the scenes.

I seriously doubt this. We can take a look at history and see that this party was founded to become a major party in opposition to FreeMasons in the government, but later became much like current third parties eg. a spoiler. When it became clear the party was not going to become a major party the members were subsequently assimilated by the National Republican and Whig Parties.

I would have to do some research into who was running for offices at this time, however, to actually see how many "known" Masons were running.

Personally, I have no doubt that the Republicans and Democrats of today are working together, but I don't think the Masons are the "men behind the curtain" so to speak.

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce
I guess people in different countries have different ideologies when it comes to how political systems work. Some say our 3rd parties have no chance. I personally like to think (especially this year) that our 3rd party might have a chance, depending on who it is.

As stated above, our system makes it difficult for third parties and favors a two party system. I believe Thomas Jefferson wrote about this before. I could find a link if you are interested...

I, myself, do not believe that the two-party, or multi-party systems are of any consequence. It is relatively the same thing when it really comes down to it. Sure, the parties are varied, but the actual issues are not nearly as diverse as the number of parties there are because the smaller parties must form a coalition to compete with the major parties. This effectively destroys any chance of passing anything that is particular to a certain party because a coalition is only strong if they can agree.

[edit on 8/9/2008 by apolluwn]

Can we get a viable Third party candidate this time around?

Could an Anti Mason politician run and win?


Are Republicans and Democrats the same?

Do Masons = NWO?