cbr900racr

There's a movement to develop a "new" third party, where we (the people) will pick the candidates. Pretty cool idea, and the movement/website are starting to get airtime with the press.

http://www.unity08.org/

The_Jazz

OK, so you want to draft party loyalists for your campaign to run on a mixed ticket? Who in Washington would ever fall for this kind of thing? I'm sorry, but it's just not realistic on a national basis. Maybe you could get it started on a local grass-roots level first, but I don't see how this could ever work on a national level. There are far too many problems - would candidates allow themselves to be drafted for a third party run? Who would fund it? Can you get on all the ballots?

Nice idea but so was New Coke, and we all know how well that did.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

joshbaumgartner

I'm all for broadening the scope of our electoral choices. I loved it when Perot was able to run and get some significant votes. But realistically, I see no real potential for a thrid party, whatever their mantra, under our current political system. Any new party would be built on the ruins of an existing one, not a third distinct option.

Fundamental changes in how we choose our representation would have to happen to allow greater breadth of choice. Instant runoff voting is one of the most simple procedural methods to do this, but is only one of the things you would have to do to truly allow multiple choices and put any pressure on the existing duality.

ObieX

The reason Perot was able to get some votes is because he actually got some coverage, unlike the 3rd parties for the previous 2 elections. You wouldn't know there were parties other than the republicans and democrats the last two elections of you just watched tv news.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

The_Jazz

ObieX - I think that you've forgotten that most Democrats blame Ralph Nader for costing Gore Florida in 2000. I agree that there wasn't much talk of 3rd parties in 2004, but Nader caused significant waves in 2000.

As I see it, viable third part alternatives run in about 12-20 year cycles. Perot was in 1992, Anderson was in 1980, Wallace was in 1968 , Thurmond was in 1948, etc. We're due for another one. I just don't think that the basis of the thread is a viable alternative.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

kutulu

The problem with the third parties is that they are always the extreme wackos, never the moderate, reasonable people. Look at the Libertarians, they want to privatize everything and let big business rape the common man. On the other side, we have the Green Party. Umm, no thanks.

samcol

3rd parties are axtreme wackos huh As opposed to the wackos who continuely vote for corruption through the Dem/Rep ticket, they seem pretty reasonable to me. Only around half of the population ever votes for the two major parties, did it ever occur to you that this other half who aren't voting for Rep/Dems might be the rationale thinking ones?

And sorry, the only way big business can rape the common man is when the companies gain governmental protections through lobbying. Libertarianism is on the exact opposite end of the spectrum that we are in today that allows for big corporations to run the government.

dksuddeth

while I readily admit that there are some 'whackos' in the third party category, the libertarians are not one of them. Of all the third party groups out there, I'd say that the libertarians and the constitution party are probably the two best viable candidates, followed by the reform party.

The problem with a third party getting elected is us. the majority of the people in this country generally vote on one or two issues and they do it with little to zero knowledge of the rest of the crap that they vote for. The major parties depend upon that ignorance for their power.

I sincerely believe that 'we the people' will be the downfall of this nation because most of us don't care to think anymore. Just vote for a party based on our most important issue.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

kutulu

The libertarians aren't extremists? Are you kidding?

The Libertarians want to eliminate these essential govt agencies (and a lot more):

EPA - Who needs pollution control or environmental compliance, companies will stop polluting if the govt would just get off their backs
Consumer Product Safety Commission - Why do we need standards for safety in the products we use?
Federal Aviation Administration - Air traffic controllers are overrated!
Food and Drug Administration - Untested drugs are fun!
Public schools - Why do poor kids need to learn to read?
Coast Guard - Are you kidding me?
Department of Transportation - end publicly built roads. Let the slums have potholes the size of bowling balls
OSHA/MSHA - Replace it with consumer activist groups because angry housewives have the training to define a safe workplace and the authority to close unsafe plants.

Read their platform. Their solution to everything is privatize it and if people feel the company is doing something wrong, take it up in the court system. You know how the courts work, those with the deep pockets win.

tecoyah

Given the structure of our current Government, it is extremely unlikely a Libertarian President could accomplish the goals of his Party Line. It would be a fantasic wake up call to the two main parties however, a statement that the people they work for and represent no longer feel satisfied with the quality , or the honesty of the status Quo.
To me this is a best case scenario that is not likely to happen in the near future. We will likely see a democrat in the whitehouse in 2009....unless a miracle occurs between now and the upcoming presidential race. Will this person be any better than what we have going on now?....probably not. But we do need to change direction one way or another....if only for self preservation, at least...in my opinion.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

dksuddeth

no, i'm not. heres why.

when people find that they can't find a readily available source of clean water, they will find out why. when they find out why, they will find out who. when they find out who, they will MAKE that company fix it, or that company will cease to exist.

If a product is made that will injure people without the precursor of 'irresponsible use', then that company will cease to exist.

The air traffic controllers do not need to be federally regulated. As a former Air Traffic Controller, we all take our jobs very seriously. If an airport cannot maintain standards for safety, they will cease to be an inlet for air traffic, hence, their economy will suffer.

there are more issues to the FDA than untested drugs. don't latch on to one particular issue when attacking the whole organization.

everyone needs to learn how to read. Why do kids out of poor school districts not know how to read now? put responsibility back on the parents.

Do we have a Navy?

Let the communities (or as you would call them, slums) take responsibility for their own roads.

Those angry housewives would know alot better what to shutdown and what to leave alone if they didn't have a usurping federal authority trying to think for them.

With the current court system we have, yes. If we had a fair libertarian court system, they wouldn't. Those 'libertarian' justices would rule according to natural law and the constitution, not according to a political party principle.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Giant Hamburger

Sadly, a third party is unlikely to be able to generate enough money required to fuel the American politcal machine.

If they could they had better choose a mascot that can compete with the elephant and donkey...

Willravel

I don't particularly care that people think I throw my vote away. I vote with the candidate that I agree with the most. Last time it was Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate. I almost voted for Cobb, the Green candidate, aswell. Why vote for Bush or Kerry when real leaders that are A LOT less likely to cave into pressures and temptations are running? Simple: you're a slave to a two party system, and it'll never change until people learn to vote for a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th party. Voting shouldn't be like "paper or plastic". Voting should be a well thought out decision made to reflect your real views. It's alright that you don't agree with the Dems or Decepticons. There are real options that become more viable with each person that votes according to their real beliefs and principles.

The_Jazz

Oh, this is just too good to pass up. Thanks, dksuddeth, you just made my afternoon.

OK, who's going to pay to find out? Who's going to pay to do the monitoring? Do you expect a neighborhood of folks making $50,000 a year to pay a scientist $25,000 for his time and equipment to trace back the pollution? This is a nice sentiment, but it's the exact setup that the Soviets had 20 years aog and we all saw how that worked out.

No, they'll just buy more insurance from the likes of me. I'm all for this, but it would never happen. If anything, the Consumer Protection Commission would just be absorbed by some sort of similar entity to the Insurance Institute of America who already makes pronouncements on car safety. However, it's unrealistic for the IIA to do product liability safety on ever single product out there since there are huge differences between cars, paper bailers, ice fishing equipment, concrete mixers and childrens toys, just to name 4 accounts on my desk right now.


The discovery of failure to maintain standards of safety will only occur after an accident, not before. As a frequent air traveler, you will de-federalize the ATC's over my dead body, most likely literally. If the federal government is not responsible for a uniform standard of safety, who will be? How am I, as a consumer, going to know which airports are safe and which aren't?


What are the other issues? I'm all for food safety, and I've got evidentiary proof sitting right in front of me on failure to properly prepare and maintain food.

The burden of proof has been taken off of parents for generations. I suppose you harken back to the days when doctors were self-taught too.

Yes, you might be familiar with their work in Europe, Asia and Africa. The modern navy is rarely in US waters. The burden of keeping the Coast Guard as a separate branch is minimal in the greater scheme of things. I suppose that you would also hand over water safety on our nation's lakes and rivers to the Navy as well? Would you then bitch about the unconstitutionality of military use of police powers on US soil?

Using exactly what for money? You live in Texas, so I assume that you've made it over to Louisiana to see how well they managed this idea after they were left out of the federal highway bill in the 80's.

Um, thanks, I'd rather have trained professionals looking at my construction jobsite safety, if you don't mind. My wife, who would count as one of those angry housewives now that she's home with our son permanently, thinks that individual rolls of roofing felt should be loaded onto a roof as needed so that it won't collapse. Experts exist for a reason.


Those with deep pockets don't necessarily win. They may have done absolutely nothing wrong but they're going to end up paying anyway. Ask Anheuser-Busch and Clear Channel how their defense of the RI nightclub fire is going. The latest rumors that I've heard are that they're both willing to put up $10M each just to get out of it since they don't want it in front of a jury. Neither one even had an employee at the club the night of the fire.

Wow, I feel so much better now. Thanks for the softball lob there, dk!

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

kutulu

First of all, the problem here is that all action has to take place after an incident occurs. You have to get sick or die before you can take action. Second of all, it's nearly impossible to track down the actual company that is responsible for introducing the pollutants into the air or water since in most cases there will be multiple polluters exhausting similar pollutants.

I work as an environmental consultant. It is obvious that companies install pollution control devices and use practices that minimize environmental damage because they have to. They sure as hell don't spend the money out of the goodness of their hearts.
Please, be realistic. The parents will have to work a second (or third job) so that their kids can attend the school with the lowest prices with the teachers that take the lowest paying jobs because they can't get work anywhere else. Privatized education is yet another scheme to keep poor people in their place (as servants to the rich).
What's your point? If we fire 10,000 people in the Coast Guard, we have to divert 10,000 people from the Navy to take their place. You might as well say "let's eliminate the Marines, the Army produces soldiers"
Take a look at Mexico. Is that how the US should look?
Bullshit. Workplace injuries have decreased dramatically in the decades since agencies like OSHA and MSHA started forcing safety standards and levying fines on companies that failed to provide safe environments.
lol.

dksuddeth

and here we have the perfect example of why todays society is so dependent upon the nanny state. We have been force fed to believe that ONLY government is expert enough or qualified enough or powerful enough to care for us because we mere puny unthinking human beings are totally incapable of fending for ourselves or responsible enough to survive in the world without our government overlords watching out for us like children. Congratulations, you hit the home run on the nanny state diamond.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

But then we'd have no more warriors, because thats what us marines are. couldn't resist, sorry.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

maximusveritas

I think alot of this nonsense is built around the flawed premise that most of the people who don't vote would vote if they had "better" choices. The truth is that they don't vote because they don't care. There are lots of reasons for why they don't care, but most of them have to do with their stupidity, laziness and/or ignorance.

The real movement I've been noticing has been the exodus of moderate Republicans and Independents to the Democratic Party. All around the country in 2006, there are former Republicans, young Iraq War Vets, and other new Democrats running for office and trying to restore some sanity to Washington D.C. So, in other words, there already is a Unity Party and that's the Democratic Party.