.... am getting sick of haveing two choices for the person who runs this entire country. i have historically voted for third parties so that perhaps some day we WILL have more than two lousy choices. Seeing how i live in NY i will probably again be voting for a third party. last time i checked, one reason the US was so great was choice.
The last time we had a viable third party we elected Abraham Lincoln. The third party was the Republican Party. The result was Civil War.
I really wish we had a no-party system as that would be the best. We should judge each candidate individually, not based on their party. They should go to Washington DC representing us, not their party.
Yes and significantly raise the cost of information to make an informed choice. I don't know currently where the policy initiative comes from, the pols or the public, but party affiliation has certain advantages that are nigh on necessary for representative democracy to function.
For example, if I point out a candidate, who is Republican, the majority of people have a general sense of where that candidate stands on a variety of issues. The same stands for democrats, and for the better informed the third parties. If Bob Johnson came up and said he was running for congress, where does Bob stand? And if you were standing in the ballot booth in November, and saw his name and a list of others, how would you differentiate? yes, if you knew about him before hand, but what about the minor parties? (who currently have this problem) I personally think this is the most important role of parties.
Of course, in the US, party affiliation is a very loosely binding label. There are many on either party that ideologically fall closer to the opposing party than their own. This number has been shrinking over the last decade or so, but some holdouts remain. So really, unless you're totally uninformed, you're forced to decide on each candidate on their merits anyway.
Oh, and party isn't on the ballot everywhere, this would have the same effect as your system without eliminating the easy access to information the parties represent.
Well i for one (Score:1)
The last time we had a viable third party option (Score:3, Insightful)
I really wish we had a no-party system as that would be the best. We should judge each candidate individually, not based on their party. They should go to Washington DC representing us, not their party.
Re:The last time we had a viable third party optio (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, if I point out a candidate, who is Republican, the majority of people have a general sense of where that candidate stands on a variety of issues. The same stands for democrats, and for the better informed the third parties. If Bob Johnson came up and said he was running for congress, where does Bob stand? And if you were standing in the ballot booth in November, and saw his name and a list of others, how would you differentiate? yes, if you knew about him before hand, but what about the minor parties? (who currently have this problem) I personally think this is the most important role of parties.
Of course, in the US, party affiliation is a very loosely binding label. There are many on either party that ideologically fall closer to the opposing party than their own. This number has been shrinking over the last decade or so, but some holdouts remain. So really, unless you're totally uninformed, you're forced to decide on each candidate on their merits anyway.
Oh, and party isn't on the ballot everywhere, this would have the same effect as your system without eliminating the easy access to information the parties represent.