jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (27 posts)

Is There a Politcal Party Middle Ground?

  1. GA Anderson profile image87
    GA Andersonposted 3 months ago

    Is it time to consider a coalition government?

    It is my opinion that neither party, Democrat or Republican, can win a national election with just their base. Both parties need some part of the Independent or undecided vote to gain an election victory.

    The far Left seems to think that only they know best and cost does not matter, and the far Right seems to think their vision of God's edicts and their interpretation of individual freedoms are the only truths.

    Where does that leave the rest of us? What if us Independents and undecideds just said the hell with it and voted our conscience with 3rd party candidates? How many election cycles would it take for the message to get through?

    I think this election cycle provides the most stark proof that the "change" we need isn't a particular  Republican or Democrat candidate, but a change in the voter's perception that it must be one or the other.

    I also think that voters that hold their nose and vote for the lessor evil are the biggest part of the problem. Candidates proclaim they are the change we need, when the real change we need is the disruption of the power of the two party system. That means voters think for themselves instead of blindly following their party.

    GA

    1. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      You're right, GA. I don't think I've ever been so disgusted with our choices for POTUS. 330 million people, and Hillary and Trump are the best we can do? In this election, I think most people will be voting AGAINST a candidate instead of FOR a candidate.

      1. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        I agree, but I also see another very worrying perspective - us voters are so upset with our politicians that many are willing to embrace, (or at least accept), a Trump candidate.

        GA

        1. habee profile image90
          habeeposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          I will be voting AGAINST Trump.

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      You speak the truth Kemosabe.

    3. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Hear hear. I've been saying that if we could just have a third party who puts fiscal responsibility at the foreground and keeps their noses out of the business of individuals we'd have a winner that the majority would support. Push the candidates forward.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Isn't that the Libertarian party?

        1. promisem profile image93
          promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          No. The Libertarian philosophy is dog eat dog. You might read Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism" when you have a chance. It's the party's manifesto.

          “The question isn’t who is going to let me; it’s who is going to stop me.” - Ayn Rand

          On a related note, Rand Paul, the Kentucky senator, pseudo Republican and U.S. Presidential candidate, was named after Ayn Rand.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            I have read that and am reasonably familiar with Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. However, I often hear Libertarians encapsulate their philosophy in that way.. It's when you dig deeper that you become horrified by the lack of concern for helping the less fortunate.

      2. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        I think we could at least promote a third-party that would be necessary for a major party's win - if we resisted the party promoted logic of voting for the lessor evil candidate. If we would vote our conscience instead of the party line.

        If we did that and it caused the losing party to lose by a ton, then it seems logical they would reach out for that third-party's support next election. It might take a couple election cycles of pain, (depending on your ideology), but I think it would serve to promote a third-party's importance.

        Would an Israeli or British-style coalition government be untenable to U.S. voters? Might such a government be more in-tune, (and thus responsive), to voters desires?

        GA

        1. promisem profile image93
          promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          What prevents a flood of money from corrupting that party as well?

          1. GA Anderson profile image87
            GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Nothing, except an educated voter. At least another party would dilute the flow and give the voter another choice. Which should lessen the pressure on the voter to follow the party-line regardless of desire.

            GA

    4. promisem profile image93
      promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      No. The parties didn't cause this mess. We the voters did by forcing them to act the way they do.

      Or don't we live in a democracy?

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        While voters may have "forced" the lying and wild claims about what a candidate will do if elected, they haven't forced the taking of bribes. the use of political power to punish those that don't agree, the tremendous partisanship, etc.  And most of all they haven't forced a lifetime tenure in congress.

        1. promisem profile image93
          promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          They "force" the taking of bribes by tolerating an election process that requires an enormous amount of money. They force political punishment and lifetime tentures by re-electing the same people over and over again and allowing them to act the way they do.

        2. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          I think you both are right. The voters ignore the downfall while the politicians gorge on the greed. The greed is now part of the system for the politicians survival. An endless cycle.

          1. promisem profile image93
            promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Excellent point, Rhamson.

      2. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Nope. It's not the voter's fault. We may be calling the tune, (even that could be doubtful), but the piper does not have to play it. And no again, we live in a republic.

        GA

        1. promisem profile image93
          promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          We don't live in a democracy? We don't all have the right to vote? We don't have the ability to kick out a bad politician?

          We did it with Nixon and nearly did it with Clinton. We can do it with anyone.

          The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution based on a combination of democratic and republican principles. That's why we have the right to vote. That's also why we get the government we deserve.

          1. GA Anderson profile image87
            GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Nope, (again), we live in a Republic that uses the democratic process to elect our leaders. Semantics?

            If our votes were from our own unmanipulated(sp) decisions then you would be right. But our votes are manipulated, and the major parties are the manipulators. We may give them the power, but it is they who choose how to use it.

            If we were not susceptible to the influence of the power and money that the parties wield, then you would be right, the blame would all fall on the voters shoulders.

            GA

            1. promisem profile image93
              promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              I agree if it's semantics. So it is not nope again.

              It is unrealistic to think that our votes have never been or never will be manipulated. For that reason, we have a free press that the right hates so much.

              The fact that it is declining has led people to other sources of information that they accept without question. Much of it is propaganda that they want to believe. So once again, the voters bear the responsibility.

              If conservatives truly believe in individual freedom and responsibility, which is suppose to be a core value, then they must believe in the individual's duty to have a say in government.

    5. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 3 months ago in reply to this

      If the voters think for themselves, would there not still be a disparity in political viewpoint among the vast numbers of independents and undecideds?

      The right had its fiscally Conservative party in the GOP up till 50 years ago, after that they invited themselves into America's boudoirs.

      What makes you believe that if everything were shook up we would not find ourselves back in this basic place again? The opposing views of right and left in this country are quite stark, I see no hint of the traditional tactic of the moderate holding sway in the foreseeable future. Because in today's political climate, it appears that it always must be 'all or nothing', compromise is a lost art.  Harken back to a time when we, as Americans, had much more in common with each other and shared the fundamentally the same beliefs than we do today, 1940-1964, for example.

      1. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Yes, the disparity in ideologies would still exist. But, I think the combination of a significant third-party, and, voters willing to vote their conscience, would make the compromise we need in our political system necessary.

        As we are currently seeing, the power of only two choices is the force behind our lack of that needed compromise. As mentioned, it looks like a lot of voters will be voting against a candidate instead of for a candidate this election, (like yourself). I think a major party might not be so hard-line if they could not count on that scenario. They might be more flexible if they knew their voters did have another choice to make.

        We could force that change if we were willing to take that what if? bet. As bad as many folks think Trump would be, (and I mostly agree), I am willing to take that chance, (and vote third-party, or no presidential vote), because I don't think he could do irreparable harm in one term. But I do think Hillary will continue to do more of the harm we are currently suffering. Without the willingness to take that chance, we are agreeing to more of what we are so ardently railing against.

        It hurts to lance a boil. But that hurt is temporary compared to the on-going and increasing pain of the boil.

        GA

    6. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Honestly?  I think even if we could somehow dismantle the two-party system, alliances would be formed, and over time, bigger alliances would win out over smaller ones until we would be left with two, or maybe three, parties once again.

      My idealistic self agrees with you about voting for who you truly believe would be a good president, rather than voting for the least offensive Democratic or Republican.  My practical self, though, just couldn't do it in a close election, knowing that my idealistic vote could result in something as awful as a Trump presidency.

      I agree with that voters should think for themselves.  The irony is that everyone thinks that is what they are doing when, in reality, so many are just  blindly accepting information from biased sources without challenging it.

      GA, I'm an eternal optimist.  I believe that our good and intelligent nature will eventually win out. I believe that Trump came along at the right time, demonstrating to the Republican party what their 30 years of pandering to a certain type of voter has done.  Maybe that will also eventually happen on the left. Or, maybe the left will take note and avoid a liberal version of the Trumpocalypse.  ;-)

      1. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        I mentioned coalition governments in a response to Live to Learn. And though even those include the "alliances" you speak of, wouldn't it be possible that those would be lesser alliances, and alliances more answerable to voters?

        Alliances aren't always, (or even usually), a bad thing. But only having two choices seems frequently be a bad thing. I have done some reading on the history of the Israeli and British governments, but I think I should revisit those to get a better grip on this idea of considering a coalition government for the U.S.

        GA

        1. PrettyPanther profile image86
          PrettyPantherposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          I need to learn more about how coalition governments work before I contribute more to this conversation.

        2. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 3 months ago in reply to this

          A parliamentary system common in many Western Democracies?

 
working