FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


(for USA) How about a new political party?






Would you vote Small?
I want to be a member of the Small party!
41%
 41%  [ 5 ]
I'll stick with being Democrat or Republican.
16%
 16%  [ 2 ]
I won't vote at all. (inelligible, lazy or citizen of different country)
25%
 25%  [ 3 ]
Why not a Big party?
16%
 16%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 12

ocalhoun
I'm thinking of starting a new political party called the 'Small party'.
The platform would be cutting every program possible, and the eventual goal would be to make the government as small as possible.
On any issue, such as 'should we allow abortion?', or 'should we let illegal immigrants to get jobs?', this party's answer would be: 'The government should not be involved in that.'

You like?
S3nd K3ys
So long as we can keep our (small) tactical nukes and stuff I'm in.

Moderator Edit....you a bit over-the edge keys,
Davedough
How do you plan on bolstering your economy for this political party by not getting involved in anything which would in turn lead to loss of federal jobs, no military and an economic collapse like the US has never seen. Additionally, some militant group would rise up and attempt to gain control and make things worse (if thats at all possible).

I know you're just joking, just bringing the debate factor into it. =)
ocalhoun
Well, you see, I'm not planning for this party to take over the entire government; the other politicians will keep them in check by not letting them do whatever they want.

Also, I doubt the military would be cut; that is the most basic function of government.

As for loss of federal jobs; who's paying those federal employee's salaries? People with non-federal jobs. Let them work like the rest of us. Besides, for every useful federal job that was cut, a civilian would have to take that place (such as schoolteacher, or firefighter).
a.Bird
I'm pretty much annoyed by the entire partisan system in general but shortening the reach of the government and striving for a state in which the people run their government, not the other way around, sounds good to me.
nilsmo
Isn't that the same thing as the libertarian party?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_of_the_United_States

The Wikipedia Article wrote:
It is one of the largest continuing third parties in the United States, claiming more than 200,000 registered voters and more than 600 people in public office [...] favoring minimally regulated, laissez-faire markets, and strong civil liberties
HoboPelican
nilsmo wrote:
Isn't that the same thing as the libertarian party?



Dang, ya beat me to it! Yeah, I think this party already exists. Maybe you could differentiate your party by calling for the abolishment of all major roads and replacing them with bridle trails. Wink
Josso
A small party sounds good for your country.
mschnell
Since we have a first past the post system in the United States your party would never rarely win a position in any race. The Democrats and Republicans are deeply entrenched by now, and the chances that a new party would ever beat one of those two centrist parties is pretty slim. And, no, I wouldn't vote for your party. The bureaucracy might be too big and inefficient, but you know what, at the end of the day it gets the job done.
tribe
The UNITED STATE OF AMERICA is:

A two-party system---->a type of party system where only two political parties have a realistic chance of winning an election. Usually this means that all, or nearly all, elected offices are held only by the candidates of the two parties that get the most votes. Coalition governments are rare in two-party systems, though each party may internally look like a coalition.

If you want this Small Party stuff; then you will want to have a multi-party political system.......

GO GOP!
HoboPelican
tribe wrote:
The UNITED STATE OF AMERICA is:

A two-party system---->a type of party system where only two political parties have a realistic chance of winning an election. Usually this means that all, or nearly all, elected offices are held only by the candidates of the two parties that get the most votes. Coalition governments are rare in two-party systems, though each party may internally look like a coalition.

If you want this Small Party stuff; then you will want to have a multi-party political system.......

GO GOP!


Not true at all. There are a number of local and state elections where third party candidates win. It isn't only about the presidency, ya know. And simply because the Reps and Dems are the major players now doesnt mean it will stay that way. Remeber the Whigs? The Democratic-republicans? The Federalists? Parties come and go and I wouldnt be surprised if Americans are getting a little tired of the BS from both of the main parties these days.
tribe
HoboPelican wrote:
tribe wrote:
The UNITED STATE OF AMERICA is:

A two-party system---->a type of party system where only two political parties have a realistic chance of winning an election. Usually this means that all, or nearly all, elected offices are held only by the candidates of the two parties that get the most votes. Coalition governments are rare in two-party systems, though each party may internally look like a coalition.

If you want this Small Party stuff; then you will want to have a multi-party political system.......

GO GOP!


Not true at all. There are a number of local and state elections where third party candidates win. It isn't only about the presidency, ya know. And simply because the Reps and Dems are the major players now doesnt mean it will stay that way. Remeber the Whigs? The Democratic-republicans? The Federalists? Parties come and go and I wouldnt be surprised if Americans are getting a little tired of the BS from both of the main parties these days.


Sir... the USA is a Two Party System. I did a semester long composition on it last year at Youngstown State. You noticed my definition: a REALISTIC chance of winning.

For the last 150+ years; its been DEM vs. GOP.

The Reform-Green-Liberatian-Socialists-Communists will have no chance to win at any local level.... PERIOD!
nilsmo
The Democratic Party has existed since 1792 (it changed names from the Democratic-Republican Party to the Democratic Party) or 1820s if you want to look at the modern democratic party. The Republican Party has been around for around 150 years. At the national level, it's been pretty much Dems vs. Reps for 150 years. That doesn't mean third parties are worthless:

Wikipedia wrote:
America has historically had many minor or third political parties. They tend to serve a means to advocate policies that eventually are adopted by the two major political parties, i.e. the abolishment of slavery, and child labor laws. Some of these third political parties such as the Socialist Party, the Farmer Labor Party and the Populist Party developed an impressive degree of support, although limited electoral success.
HoboPelican
tribe wrote:
HoboPelican wrote:


Not true at all. There are a number of local and state elections where third party candidates win. It isn't only about the presidency, ya know. And simply because the Reps and Dems are the major players now doesnt mean it will stay that way. Remeber the Whigs? The Democratic-republicans? The Federalists? Parties come and go and I wouldnt be surprised if Americans are getting a little tired of the BS from both of the main parties these days.


Sir... the USA is a Two Party System. I did a semester long composition on it last year at Youngstown State. You noticed my definition: a REALISTIC chance of winning.

For the last 150+ years; its been DEM vs. GOP.

The Reform-Green-Liberatian-Socialists-Communists will have no chance to win at any local level.... PERIOD!


You did poorly on your paper, didn't ya? "Realistic chance of winning at any local level"? How about ACTUALLY winning? Look here for a history of just the libertarian party candidates who have won local and state elections. Maybe you shouldn't be so emphatic about facts that you aren't sure of.

Sure, the US is a two party system, but that is not written into the constitution, it just happens to be so at the moment. It is not that ununusal for third party or independant candidates to win elections at the local and state levels. I'm really curious why you are so insistent that the other parties have no chance of winning in the US.
mschnell
HoboPelican wrote:
tribe wrote:
HoboPelican wrote:


Not true at all. There are a number of local and state elections where third party candidates win. It isn't only about the presidency, ya know. And simply because the Reps and Dems are the major players now doesnt mean it will stay that way. Remeber the Whigs? The Democratic-republicans? The Federalists? Parties come and go and I wouldnt be surprised if Americans are getting a little tired of the BS from both of the main parties these days.


Sir... the USA is a Two Party System. I did a semester long composition on it last year at Youngstown State. You noticed my definition: a REALISTIC chance of winning.

For the last 150+ years; its been DEM vs. GOP.

The Reform-Green-Liberatian-Socialists-Communists will have no chance to win at any local level.... PERIOD!


You did poorly on your paper, didn't ya? "Realistic chance of winning at any local level"? How about ACTUALLY winning? Look here for a history of just the libertarian party candidates who have won local and state elections. Maybe you shouldn't be so emphatic about facts that you aren't sure of.

Sure, the US is a two party system, but that is not written into the constitution, it just happens to be so at the moment. It is not that ununusal for third party or independant candidates to win elections at the local and state levels. I'm really curious why you are so insistent that the other parties have no chance of winning in the US.


You should really do some reading on this one. The two party system is pretty much the equilibrium outcome of how the US constitution was written. I read a book that illustrated it all pretty well a few years back, but can't think of it's title at the moment. Here's one simple model or theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theory
HoboPelican
mschnell wrote:
HoboPelican wrote:


Sure, the US is a two party system, but that is not written into the constitution, it just happens to be so at the moment. It is not that ununusal for third party or independant candidates to win elections at the local and state levels. I'm really curious why you are so insistent that the other parties have no chance of winning in the US.


You should really do some reading on this one. The two party system is pretty much the equilibrium outcome of how the US constitution was written. I read a book that illustrated it all pretty well a few years back, but can't think of it's title at the moment. Here's one simple model or theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theory


Your link does nothing to support your statement, I don't think. The link you gave only says this about the two party system:
Quote:
This is supposed to explain why in a two-party system, candidates often end up looking strikingly similar they both have to pitch their platform to try to win the same median voter.


Maybe if you can remember the book you mentioned, you could post something from that, but the fact is that third party candidates exist and they win. Its a simple fact you can't deny.
mschnell
HoboPelican wrote:

Maybe if you can remember the book you mentioned, you could post something from that, but the fact is that third party candidates exist and they win. Its a simple fact you can't deny.


How often do you see them win? Do you think it'll happen in a Presidential election?
truespeed
What party was ross perot a member of?
reddishblue
truespeed wrote:
What party was ross perot a member of?

He was an independant, but then he founded the reform party
Aless
I'm all for it. Let's import the Greens!

You'd have to change the electoral system to a representative system in order for the multiple parties to work though. Or a combine system like Germany.
tribe
Vote Republican on November 7th.. A vote for the asino's is a vote for more Kerry comments... that our troops are dumb!
mschnell
tribe wrote:
Vote Republican on November 7th.. A vote for the asino's is a vote for more Kerry comments... that our troops are dumb!


The Republicans have been proving themselves incompetent for the past few years. First a recession, then a failing war, then so many people having to resign because of scandals. I don't see them winning too much.
Blaster
i'm in. What you say me Ocal and S3nd K3ys all in the party. We would rule the world. Them nukes would come in handy when we take over microsoft. Isn't that right S3nd K3ys.
Vrythramax
Since Hobopelican is scard....I'll do it.

-closed-
Related topics
Is the Tea Party a Political Party?
If we made the ultimate political party, what would it be?
How one state's bill is trying to trash the US constitution
Tea Party Protests
Voting: My ideal solution.
White House excludes "whining" Fox News from inter
Occupy Wall Street: a REAL grassroots movement for change?
The downfall of american society
Liberal...?
liberty
SEARCHING FOR MR. GOOD-WAR
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
Fork replaces donkey as "democratic" party symbol
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.