POLL: 1/3rd want a 3rd Party!!

[Matt Collins]

A third of adults in the United States appear satisfied with the proposal to establish a third political party, according to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. 32 per cent of respondents think the National Tea Party would be a good thing for the country.


Read the whole article here:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/americans_ponder_new_national_tea_party/

[Matt Collins]

Wow... this is getting serious. Could these polls mean this?
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/GOPDinosaur.jpg

[LibertyEagle]

The problem is, any 3rd party that they introduce and give media attention to, will be controlled opposition.

[sofia]

o goodie...we can be like Europe...with a dozen or so corrupt parties instead of just two..

I have a better idea.....Let's heed George Washington's warning about parties.......

how about a BAN on the formation of national parties. Without parties, politicians dont have to grovel to "party leaders" in fear of not getting help with reelection. A ban on parties would bring government closer to the people.

While we are at it, we should go back to having state legislature s APPONT Senators instead of the people electing them, and also return to 15,000 population per Congressman.

So what if we have 20,000 reps? 20,000 can vote on bills just as easily as 434 do. Thats the democratic citizen legislature the funders envisoned....held in check by a deliberative Senate of appointed men.

[Matt Collins]

The problem is, any 3rd party that they introduce and give media attention to, will be controlled opposition.
Well I don't know about that... if a Tea Party came about I would bet that at least Fox would follow along at this point in time (subject to change). However the bigger concern is really ballot access which will be largely impossible.

[Matt Collins]

how about a BAN on the formation of national parties. Without parties, politicians dont have to grovel to "party leaders" in fear of not getting help with reelection. A ban on parties would bring government closer to the people.That would violate the freedom of association.


While we are at it, we should go back to having state legislature s APPONT Senators instead of the people electing themI completely agree. Let's repeal the 17th!

[Oyate]

Ha! Fascinating. Things are progressing nicely along. But take it for what it's worth and no more. And it ain't worth much. When we're talking about the public at large that is.

Consider that there is a third, fourth, fifth, six and seventh party right now. And here are the people saying "I want a third party duuuuuuh". Once the big media show cranks up again for elections most of these people will be absorbed right back into it. However, it does show a growing awareness of "none of the above".

So we have this little issue we'll be arguing out the whole time: go with GOP or step out. I'm not sure I'd advise people either way, if you want to run for office go for it no matter what party.

[FrankRep]

I still want the Constitution and Libertarian party to join forces.

[sofia]

That would violate the freedom of association.



Restrictions on government officials would not violate freedom of association.
We ban them from accepting foreign titles. We ban them from profiting from their office..etc. (of course, they do it anyway)

Factions will inevitably form in any group...but what I'm talking about is this dangerous business of National Parties overpowering individual reps.

Then again, if we went back to 15,000 population to 1 rep ratio, the National Parties would lose their grip anyway.

The founders had it right the first time.

[FrankRep]

http://www.stampandshout.com/_gfx/product_images/tshirts/thumbs/gop-dinosaur.png

[tremendoustie]

The problem is, any 3rd party that they introduce and give media attention to, will be controlled opposition.


I would not make such a broad statement. Paul got some media attention, and he's not controlled.

Let's not concede defeat before battle, or close doors before they even open.

[Captain Bryan]

While we are at it, we should go back to having state legislature s APPONT Senators instead of the people electing them, and also return to 15,000 population per Congressman.

Why would this be a good thing?

[kahless]

o goodie...we can be like Europe...with a dozen or so corrupt parties instead of just two..

I have a better idea.....Let's heed George Washington's warning about parties.......

how about a BAN on the formation of national parties. Without parties, politicians dont have to grovel to "party leaders" in fear of not getting help with reelection. A ban on parties would bring government closer to the people.


Bingo, we have a winner.

[MN Patriot]

I still want the Constitution and Libertarian party to join forces.

Never happen. The Christian fundamentalists hate the long hair dope smokers. Neither side is pure enough for the other.

Meanwhile back at the capitol, the collectivists are joining forces to enslave all of us...

[nobody's_hero]

I saw on O'Reilly two nights ago (I don't watch O'Really, it was at a friend's house and his parents were watching Faux News as I walked to the kitchen), a poll was up and 23% think that the formation of a "tea party" would be worthy of support.

Even at 23%, it's interesting. Of course, it all means nothing if it doesn't happen on election day.

The challenge is harnessing that 23% who likely come from both republican and democratic parties and are just dissatisfied with their own parties, and probably would be difficult to unite under a common banner.

[LibertyEagle]

Why would this be a good thing?

When we fell for the direct election of Senators, that took a great deal of power away from state governments. Senators were to be accountable to the people, through their state legislatures. If the Senator stopped doing the state's business, then the state legislatures could yank them on out of there. We the People would then focus our attention on our local and state governments and of course, the House of Representatives, from which all appropriations of money were to spring. House reps are elected every 2 years, so if we thought they were out of control, we didn't have to wait long to throw them out.

Now, with the direct election of Senators, who in Washington gives a flip about what the state legislatures think? No one. And in the end, we removed a very important check and balance that our Founders put in the Constitution and we inadvertently handed a great deal of power to the federal government.

[dr. hfn]

o goodie...we can be like Europe...with a dozen or so corrupt parties instead of just two..

I have a better idea.....Let's heed George Washington's warning about parties.......

how about a BAN on the formation of national parties. Without parties, politicians dont have to grovel to "party leaders" in fear of not getting help with reelection. A ban on parties would bring government closer to the people.

While we are at it, we should go back to having state legislature s APPONT Senators instead of the people electing them, and also return to 15,000 population per Congressman.

So what if we have 20,000 reps? 20,000 can vote on bills just as easily as 434 do. Thats the democratic citizen legislature the funders envisoned....held in check by a deliberative Senate of appointed men.

problem with Europe is that once a party is in power, all the other parties form a coalition and it turns into a 2 party system...

[Akus]

Read the whole article here:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/americans_ponder_new_national_tea_party/

are these peopel fucking blind?

LP has been around since the 70s. Why not, instead of whining about a third party, actually vote for one? Too radical a concept?

[ChaosControl]

o goodie...we can be like Europe...with a dozen or so corrupt parties instead of just two..

I have a better idea.....Let's heed George Washington's warning about parties.......

how about a BAN on the formation of national parties. Without parties, politicians dont have to grovel to "party leaders" in fear of not getting help with reelection. A ban on parties would bring government closer to the people.

While we are at it, we should go back to having state legislature s APPONT Senators instead of the people electing them, and also return to 15,000 population per Congressman.

So what if we have 20,000 reps? 20,000 can vote on bills just as easily as 434 do. Thats the democratic citizen legislature the funders envisoned....held in check by a deliberative Senate of appointed men.

Indeed, we'd be far better off as a nation without political parties at all.

[ChaosControl]

are these peopel fucking blind?

LP has been around since the 70s. Why not, instead of whining about a third party, actually vote for one? Too radical a concept?

Might help if they put up better candidates.

[Zippyjuan]

The poll does not ask them if they would actually considering voting for the "Tea Party" or any other third party.

[Captain Bryan]

When we fell for the direct election of Senators, that took a great deal of power away from state governments. Senators were to be accountable to the people, through their state legislatures. If the Senator stopped doing the state's business, then the state legislatures could yank them on out of there. We the People would then focus our attention on our local and state governments and of course, the House of Representatives, from which all appropriations of money were to spring. House reps are elected every 2 years, so if we thought they were out of control, we didn't have to wait long to throw them out.

Now, with the direct election of Senators, who in Washington gives a flip about what the state legislatures think? No one. And in the end, we removed a very important check and balance that our Founders put in the Constitution and we inadvertently handed a great deal of power to the federal government.
Ah.. I see. That makes a lot of sense now.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Might help if they put up better candidates.

Well Ron Paul getting 1% of the vote in 88, isn't exactly reassuring. What about Harry Browne? Now, on the local level, I can't say much about nationally, but generally the candidates aren't "that" bad, but even there seem to be many that at least get the Nozickian Minarchist view, which I wager to be a VAST VAST VAST superior view than pretty much any current D and R with exception to a few. There aren't that many An-Caps who run for office, sadly.

[coyote_sprit]

A third of adults in the United States appear satisfied with the proposal to establish a third political party

Implying that numerous third parties don't already exist, TPTB will just "establish" a faux libertarian party and stifle dissent; and Americans will buy hook, line and sinker.

[kathy88]

Implying that numerous third parties don't already exist, TPTB will just "establish" a faux libertarian party and stifle dissent; and Americans will buy hook, line and sinker.


This is more than likely exactly what would happen. People would get that warm fuzzy feeling that there has been a radical change, but status quo would prevail, per usual.