Allow 3rd parties to participate meaningfully in elections

16 Responses to Allow 3rd parties to participate meaningfully in elections

  • Anonymous says:

    Yes that will encourage meaningful negotiation and avoid the extremist politics that we have today

    • b_FirF says:

      Two extremists and a third party walk into a bar…

      Each look out over the crowd of rambling drunks and try to determine what part of the commotion best represents the interests of “their people”. In truth, all they will hear is the people who are closest and or yell the loudest.

      All three politicians then vomit onto the counter, and then start removing chunks that seem the most revolting to them and “their people”.

      In the end you still have a pile of vomit.

  • Maria Evangelista says:

    Lets spell this out more…

  • Jason T. Wicklund says:

    Party lines are useless and prevent innovation, growth and honorable representatives.

  • connie says:

    The key words are ‘meaninfully participate’ that means to be invited to debates, and being given media coverage, and in this state getting on the ballot again.

    • mr_seattle says:

      If you look online, there are actually a number of different political parties in the U.S., however, in order to receive government funding/recognition your party must receive (I think it’s 5%) of the popular vote in a general election. Until your party doses this, you will not be invited to a major debate, and your party will not receive financial funding from the government to run your campaign.

  • Kryws McKean says:

    I don’t understand – I thought we wanted groups and corporations OUT of our government. Can you clarify this?

  • policetac says:

    They are. They’re called “Independents.”

  • Monocle37 says:

    It’s disgusting that the Republicans and Democrats have such a strangle hold on the political process. They have a monopoly that always benefits the sides of special interests, and above all, the central bankers. If Americans truly understood what was going on with the Federal Reserve System, there would be a revolution overnight.

  • Anonymous says:

    How in the he’ll can anyone actually accomplish this? Parties are made up of people. People are the ones that make the parties. Parties have formed and gone quietly into the dark. A single tenant of the American political system has been a dual party. Since the beginning of the country there have been two. No where was it written that this would be the case it just was. The dual party system is fundamentally needed for presidential elections. Do you want the presidents decided in congress? Back room deals to decide the leader of America? Meaningful third parties would start this. No majority would ever be reached in elections. You could have a president elected that fewer than a third of people voted for. More money would equal more influence a lot more in a system of third parties.

  • CountMeIn says:

    Dead people and the unborn deserve equal voting rights too.

  • Donn says:

    Focus your protest. Demand something clear and simple.

    A humble suggestion….

    1) Public financing of all elections. All elections, from dog catcher to President of the united states.
    2) Every qualified candidate draws from the same pool of limited money.
    3) NO other monies/gifts/support is allowed. None. Not even your own.
    4) All candidates, from local to national get free air time (the stations who want their FCC licenses can pony up for using our airwaves).
    5) Any candidate, or elected official, who is convicted of taking any outside money/bribe/gift will be removed from office, or from running for office, for the rest of their lives and will never be able to run again.

    The benefits of this are:

    1) It will get money out of the process, totally.
    2) Candidates will be judged on how well they handle a limited amount of money (good thing, wouldn’t you say?).
    3) Candidates will have to run on their platform (it’s no small surprise that a majority of the winners are also who spent the most money).
    4) Rich candidates can no longer buy their own election.

    And the biggest benefit?

    The best one?

    Corporations and the Rich can stop rigging the game in their favor.

    How do we get this? We demand it. We demand it over, and over, louder and louder, not stopping until we get it.

    That is the only way out of this mess and the only way to change this country.

    Go ahead. Tell me how it won’t work. Tell me how money equals free speech but, if you tell me that my idea won’t work then fine…

    Offer up some better solution to the public.

  • garthfromseattle says:

    No matter what I say…no matter what proof or logic I might offer against the two-party system…the majority will remain in denial and the minority will follow just as surely as night follows day. There’s just not enough bright people in this country willing to put it on the line and take a look. But just in case:

  • occupationist says:

    This is NOT about demands. This is NOT about any particular policy. This is about building “a world in which many worlds fit.” I want to emphasize that this movement really does have something to offer EVERYONE. It is not about the 99% fighting back against the 1%. It is about establishing global democracy (people power) for the 100%. Everyone has something to gain from a movement which seeks to empower 100% of the world. Even those who currently hold slaves and “own” land have something major to gain: they may be lifted from their current impoverished state and begin to experience the world as a place of love rather than one of fear. Fear that they themselves have created by warring and robbing, but which they may always end if they chose to work toward living with a planet that is 100% instead of pretending that they can be against that which sustains them for much longer.

    • Schlubb says:

      Really? Is that what OccupySeattle and OccupyWallStreet are really all about? If so, you are not the 99%. If its really all about establishing a global socialist society, the movement only reflects a very small minority of the US population.

  • ElanaA says:

    Turns out that they do. 56% of people polled support the Occupy movement and their message…but feel that it won’t change anything:

    That consensus may or may not be true, but what if we could send a message that it was impossible to ignore — using the power of the 56% who also want change even if they aren’t standing in parks with the 99%?

    What if we….busted up the status quo by fronting our own candidates for local and national government?

    They say our message is amorphous and unformed. But people want change, WE want change. The system is broken and the politicians are purchased by corporations. The only way to stop that is to replace them with candidates who truly represent the 99%. What we lack in corporate financing we can make up for using the grass roots movement, the internet and free media — along with the coverage the protests are getting. The protests could be used to gather the required signatures to make it happen — not just in Seattle, but in all of the states where protests are occuring.

    What do people think about adding this proposal to the GA meeting on the 15th?