(no subject)

[annissamazing]

I'm usually pretty vocal about not being a fan of the idea of a strong third political party. I have my reasons for this, but as I was falling asleep last night I wondered if maybe I was missing something. So I have a question for all of you third party supporters.

Why is a third party a good idea?

Comments

[nixxignatius.livejournal.com]

Ok, let me put it to you another way.

Let's say that there are only two diamonds producing companies in the whole world that you can shop at.

Each of them had good products and bad products. You can cherry pick your orders, which is good for you because it makes the two companies compete for your business.

On the other hand, the two companies can collectively decide that selling blue diamonds isn't cost effective or maybe it's not in their political interest. Maybe there are two sets of diamonds that you might like from one of the companies, but you aren't given a choice because the company decides which one of them they are going to sell.

The range of options are limited for you as a customer. If there was a third company selling, there would be more options and greater competition. If the companies would like to be on top, they would have to provide the best service to the most people. Choice is always good.

A third party, a true national third party, could provide the same type of environment.

[annissamazing]

But doesn't that argument break down when you have the ability to join one of the diamond selling companies and change it from the inside?

[nixxignatius.livejournal.com]

Not at all. :)

You can join one of the diamond selling companies and become very active in that company. However, there are trade offs. First, you start at the the bottom.

There are a lot more people that own more stock than you. Those people know that there are only two choices if you want to be active so there is less incentive for them to try to keep you.

If that company decides that all employees must be redheads or to ban rubies, you either support the company or you don't. If you don't, then you don't progress in the company.

[annissamazing]

Ah, I think I'm getting it! I see the reasoning behind it now. Thanks. :)

[annissamazing]

I just re-read my first response and it sounds very argumentative. I am truly not trying to argue with you, I'm just trying to see if I'm missing something. I apologize if I come off sounding rude. That's not my intent.

[nixxignatius.livejournal.com]

I'm not offended. :) I like discussions.

[staucher.livejournal.com]

I too love to have rouseing conversations on the ins and outs of the system.

And we love you nissi you know that /wink

[staucher.livejournal.com]

My only real question is whats the point in a party system at all. Compartmentalized politics is a throw back to when the information wasnt available to the general population to make informed decisions/sudgestions. Now as you so clearly put it "When you can join up and change it from the inside".

So If a common person who isnt part of the political elite can make informed ideas and sudgestions and in todays political field quite possibly make some influential changes via loby or action grouping then whats to say that the age old "Party lines" are any more viable than any other hide bound system we have stuck to or abandoned in the past?

Sounds Nieve prehaps. But i would then challenge with the second tier distinctions we use almost interchangably now. Liberal Vs Conservative... Moderate Vs Extreamist etc.

There used to be a time of alot ALOT more parties that were serious contenders in the political arena... Long live the wobblies !

s/

Uses of Parties

[nixxignatius.livejournal.com]

Parties have a lot of different uses.

1. Running for office is very expensive. While it seems like only the very rich seem to run, that's not the case. Many congressmen and senators are average, middle class people. If you want only millionares to be able to run for president, get rid of the party system.

2. Parties serve the same function as unions. The main advantage is collective bargaining. One of the primary reasons that the Republicans were formed was to get rid of slavery. They couldn't do it inside of the old parties and so they formed a new party so they could have clout.

The problem is when you think of parties as static and unchanging and when there are only two to choose from.

Re: Uses of Parties

[staucher.livejournal.com]

Isnt the salary for a congressman like 200k/yr while in office with a 100k/yr pention after completion of a few terms? That seems to breed wealth to me. I sure wouldnt know how to spend it all :) So almost by definition you by default of haveing been a political player become a wealthy individual in the interest of your party.

Re: Uses of Parties

[nixxignatius.livejournal.com]

Sadly, 200k is really only middle class.

And while having that type of job does generate wealth, parties ensure the possibility of people getting those jobs that don't start with the wealth.

Re: Uses of Parties

[staucher.livejournal.com]

How many candidates have there been in the last decade that havent had an IVY leage degree thow. Im betting its pretty small. And 200k a year is if "middle class" well and above the bottom rung of that. Heck 200k a year is more than anyone i know is gonna make in 2-5years. And if you cant live on and make 200k work for you to build wealth then.. well I wouldnt want that person in change of anything to do with control of tax dollars.

Does make me wonder thow how much of a tax write off going for a public office can be.

Just for the record thow since im doing research along this stuff tryin to find myself a new job. Your nominal technical engineer is gonna start out at around 60k/yr with a good shot at reaching 110-130 after 5years. A technician is likely to start at 40k and be around 75-90 in 5years depending on field and region. I for one am very much looking forward to that 75-90 /wink.

Re: Uses of Parties

[nixxignatius.livejournal.com]

Ivy League education is different than wealth.

:Heck 200k a year is more than anyone i know is gonna make in 2-5years.::

Don't be too sure of that. :)

Re: Uses of Parties

[staucher.livejournal.com]

I would say that for many more than not IVY leage sudgests that wealth is allraedy present. We all can rest assured that our great president prolly didnt get a scholaship (least not in english) to his harvard law school :)

As for the "Dont be too sure of that" im not sure what exactly im not suposed to be sure of?

Re: Uses of Parties

[nixxignatius.livejournal.com]

I would say that for many more than not IVY leage sudgests that wealth is allraedy present. We all can rest assured that our great president prolly didnt get a scholaship (least not in english) to his harvard law school :)::

Yes, I'm sure Daddy bought his way in. And there certain is a rich element at Ivy League schools. However, there is also a very large poor students from middle class or below incomes.

Harvard was one of the options I looked at when I was considering law school, but I got more money from Whitworth and it seemed cheaper, which it turns out wasn't.

::As for the "Dont be too sure of that" im not sure what exactly im not suposed to be sure of?::

That you don't know anyone that will me making 200k a year in the future or say 5 years from now. Some of us have high goals. :)

[garillama.livejournal.com]

I think (although I'm not really a third party person) that right now, politics is split right down the middle: There is the clear left and the clear right, there is white and black, the other side is wrong, and my side is right. Third parties have the potential to mix some shades of gray in.

Or at least that's my thought. Also, more choice is often better. In this past election, I didn't like either of the candidates, but if I had been able to vote it would have been for Kerry, because I know none of the other liberal candidates have any chance of winning.

[zeitgeist.livejournal.com]

Others have already explained it pretty well, but I figure I'll give it a go too, in a direct manner.

In the two-party system we have right now, your choices are so limited that most of the time your best choice is to choose gridlock. There are at least dozens of important issues in politics. Depending who you are, there may be hundreds or thousands. When there are only two parties to have positions on the issues, there is a rather slim probability that you will agree with them on all of the issues that are important to you.

By way of example, I feel strongly about the issues of reproductive rights and gun control. So do the two parties. However, I feel strongly about them in an offset way from the two parties; I support one and oppose the other. So, who do I vote for? Do I have to decide which of these issues I feel *more* strongly about?

Put simply, the more viable parties there are, the more fine-grained a choice you can make. Obviously, there are points (consider California) where the number of choices can reach the ridiculous, but I have no doubt at all that two is not enough.

To present another question: Should we be pre-emptively invading nations we think may someday threaten us, destroying the space-based technology of other nations, and producing tactical nuclear weapons for use by our multi-trillion dollar military complex? ..or should we dismantle our military down to about coast-guard size and just keep to ourselves? Shouldn't there be some middle ground?