If we have 3 branches of government, why not have 3 parties?

[MN Patriot]

We've heard all the explanations of why we can have only two political parties. Winner take all, no proportional representation, etc. etc.

But perhaps this is another piece of conventional wisdom that has been perpetrated by the Establishment who doesn't want a third uncontrollable party.

After all, two is company, three is a crowd. There are many situations where people are deliberately set up in groups of 3, to keep everyone honest. I've noticed armored cars have 3 people; 2 could conspire to steal the money, a third person makes it more risky in case one other person squeals on the other two.

 

[nist7]

There are plenty of 3rd parties.....libertarian, reform, socialist, etc. etc.

The problem is that the overwhelming majority of the public does not vote their conscience...but within the "electable" field. They believe the 3rd parties cannot win...and so they don't. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you never ate a certain food but was told that it tastes absolutely horrible..chances are you will find that food horrible tasting.

 

[MN Patriot]

There are plenty of 3rd parties.....libertarian, reform, socialist, etc. etc.

The problem is that the overwhelming majority of the public does not vote their conscience...but within the "electable" field. They believe the 3rd parties cannot win...and so they don't. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you never ate a certain food but was told that it tastes absolutely horrible..chances are you will find that food horrible tasting.

I was in the Libertarian Party 10 years ago, so I know how people say we can never win. But if Ron joins the LP, and tens of thousands of his supporters joins and keeps helping his campaign, then perhaps we can have a credible third party.

It would be great if some LP candidates actually win, proving that third parties CAN win, and use then for proof in future campaigns...

...just dreaming I guess.

 

[Somebody_Else]

Duverger's law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

A plurality rule election system tends to favor a stable two-party system.

 

[Devil_rules_in_extremes]

The ideal situation would be to have no factions at all, and all politicians working toward protecting individual liberty, but I realize that's not reality.

The Founding Fathers were against parties, or "Factions" as they called them.

 

[austin356]

The ideal situation would be to have no factions at all, and all politicians working toward protecting individual liberty, but I realize that's not reality.

The Founding Fathers were against parties, or "Factions" as they called them.

It was a dream in the late 18th century.

It is way beyond even a dream now.

 

[MN Patriot]

Duverger's law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

A plurality rule election system tends to favor a stable two-party system.

Thanks for the link, interesting reading. This caught my attention:

A third party can only enter the arena if it can exploit the mistakes of a pre-existing major party, ultimately at that party's expense.

So...perhaps the Republican Party is doomed with Ron Paul's success, that is, if he runs as a Libertarian. The socialist faction of the neo-cons would jump to the Democrats, and the Repulicans who value liberty go to the LP.

Or is there some way to modify the Constitution so we have proportional representation? I know it has been discussed, but I never paid too much attention. The conspiracist in me says the Establishment would never allow that.

 

[Somebody_Else]

Thanks for the link, interesting reading. This caught my attention:
So...perhaps the Republican Party is doomed with Ron Paul's success, that is, if he runs as a Libertarian. The socialist faction of the neo-cons would jump to the Democrats, and the Repulicans who value liberty go to the LP.

Well, we have had a major political re-alignment every 70 years or so. The Free-Soilers and Anti-Slavery Whigs joined together as the Republican party in 1860, ending the Whig party and forcing the southern democrats to adapt. Then there was the great depression re-alignment in 1932 when FDR was elected.

If Ron Paul were to win the republican nomination and the general election it would most certainly count as a major re-alignment, but it wouldn't destroy the party. It would just change its policies, similar to how FDR re-aligned the democratic party.

 

[MN Patriot]

Well, we have had a major political re-alignment every 70 years or so. The Free-Soilers and Anti-Slavery Whigs joined together as the Republican party in 1860, ending the Whig party and forcing the southern democrats to adapt. Then there was the great depression re-alignment in 1932 when FDR was elected.

If Ron Paul were to win the republican nomination and the general election it would most certainly count as a major re-alignment, but it wouldn't destroy the party. It would just change its policies, similar to how FDR re-aligned the democratic party.

Anything to take back the country. Reform the Republican Party, or end it and replace it with the Libertarian Party.

FDR had a lot of people working behind the scenes making the changes. How many people are there who have an actual PLAN to take back the government? Few, if any. Sure, we have the Cato Institute and Ron's organizations, and some others. But I have never read or seen anything to suggest there is a large organized movement to restore liberty in the USA.

If Ron gets the nomination, or if he doesn't and he runs as a Libertarian, there needs to be a broad based plan of how all his ideas will get implemented. I know the Cato Insitute has published a handbook for Congress, that is one step in the right direction. Then Ron and every Ron Paul candidate should emphasize and publisize that plan, so that people can see it can be done.

 

[FreeTraveler]

Let's let the GOP know that's where we're headed...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=89296