Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News It's time for both parties to go

  1. Jan 21, 2006 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Who agrees that the system needs a good shake-up?

    I'm registered as Independant. One thing that all Americans can do to send a strong signal to Washington is to register with alternative parties.

    Your thoughts on this?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 21, 2006 #2
    It's a good Idea the system is does need a good shake-up.The biggest problem between Republicans and Demorcrates that I think they forget they living in the same country and being elected by the same people.
     
  4. Jan 21, 2006 #3

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    How do you re-register anyways.

    I'm not even sure what i registered as... I think the Republican party called me once so i guess im a registered republican.

    Oh wait yah, I remember putting Rep out of anger because some typical liberal bobble head compared the Abu Ghraib prison to Aushtwitz and was on tv at the moment.

    Yup thats how much party offiliation means to me... i decided based on what was on tv...

    Hey im a real american!
     
  5. Jan 21, 2006 #4
    What kind of signal does that send, if Republicans and Democrats still get almost all of the votes?

    "I'm pissed off at BOTH Republicans AND Democrats... But I guess I've gotta vote for one of them..."
     
  6. Jan 21, 2006 #5

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm registered as "No Party." There was no option called "Independent" in WV, just "No Party." That sounds so much less fun, but gets the point across all the same.

    I too would like to see things shaken up. As it stands, it seems the two parties don't actually care if anything they're doing is good for the country or the people, just whether it's the opposite of the other party's platform (it seems it would be far too much for any of them to just say, "Hey, that's a good idea, maybe we should all agree on that.") The Democrats seem to go out of their way to oppose anything the Republicans propose, be it sensible or not, and vice versa.

    I also think all the recent scandals point out that both parties have also become too powerful and too corrupt. When the folks in Congress are scrambling to pass legislation to cover their behinds and make previously illegal activities legal, it's time to toss them all out the window and start over.

    Actually, it's not even having parties that I have so much of a problem with as it is the incumbents who have been in office for ages and have gained too much power because of it. I'd like to see them all tossed out, from both sides of the aisle, and make a clean start with some people who have fresh ideas and who don't have to spend all their time trying to cover up whatever messes they've made in the past rather than moving forward.
     
  7. Jan 21, 2006 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Oh, I think a radical shift in voter registrations would create quite a stir.
     
  8. Jan 21, 2006 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  9. Jan 21, 2006 #8

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Registration as "no party" or "independent" is useless so long as election laws provide for closed primaries which are party controlled.

    Needs: open primaries; campaign finance reform; term limits; and 24/7 financial disclosure for life following any term in public office.
     
  10. Jan 21, 2006 #9

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I kind of have to agree with Waste. I've been registered non-partisan since I first registered 7 years ago, but I've only once voted for a third-party candidate. Refusing to vote for any democrats or republicans would make far more of a difference.
     
  11. Jan 21, 2006 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    But they have to be able to win or your vote is wasted.

    Doesn't voter registration ultimately affect the economics of politics - who gets how much money?
     
  12. Jan 21, 2006 #11

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Go Independent!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 21, 2006
  13. Jan 21, 2006 #12

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Some states do have open primaries...
    anything specific for campaign finance reforms??...
    I don't feel we need term limits. If someone is doing such a job that he is constantly being re-elected... why toss out a good thing? I mean, if he's doing a poor job, I doubt he'll stay in office long anyhow. I mean if X Massachusettes Democrat or Y Texas Republican keeps getting elected... the people must think he's working in their best interest which is exactly what our Constitution wants.
    24/7 financial disclosure for life following election to office sounds HIGHLY Unconstitutional
     
  14. Jan 21, 2006 #13

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Dunno how various state funding laws read, but my take on the "Would you (and your spouse) like to contribute a buck of your refund to 'save the whales,' little league, or campaign funding" revenues is that they are prorated among party registration figures, with some odd default minimum for Al Sharpton, Pat Robertson, and the like plus maybe an additional share per ten thousand petition signatures to put names on state ballots. You, as an independent with absolutely no party affiliation, running on your name only, accepting NO money with strings attached, running for the U.S. House of Reprehensibles from the State of Oregon won't get enough federal funds to cover your gas money.
     
  15. Jan 21, 2006 #14

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think it used to be Independent long ago, but was changed to “No Party.”
    What we need are multiple parties that are formally recognized as such (with primaries, etc.). People from other countries laugh at Americans, not only because we have only two viable parties, but also to them there is little to no difference between the two.
    I agree that experience is a good thing. In the case of the presidency in which terms are limited, the "staff" become the source of continuity, and these individuals who are not elected often wield a great deal of power out of public view (think Rove and Libby).

    As for working in the public’s interest, unfortunately someone like DeLay can come to power and maintain power via monetary favors to colleagues. As a result, the public may not become aware of questionable activities until after many years have gone by or possibly never. This can be addressed with better election and campaign reforms.
     
  16. Jan 21, 2006 #15

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That is true, there are hold-overs from previous administrations. Bush had to deal with many Clinton hold-overs that were dead set against giving him a chance. I think the system should stay however based on historical precedent. Think of the problems one would have if these people had to be hired and fired every 4 years. Although there are obvoius problems with having people sticking around for a long time, I would bet their experience is well worth the handful of corrupt ones that spring up once in a while. I personally wouldn't want a new President walking in with a new staff and being told "good luck and have fun" by the outgoing government.
     
  17. Jan 21, 2006 #16

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Back on topic, the factions within the two major parties should be split into separate parties. If you split the Neocon Party and Religious Right Party from the Republican Party, I bet the Libertarian Party would take the lead for the conservatives. Also, this way it would be fairer for the Democrats, which lost votes to the liberal split of the Green Party/Ralph Nader.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 21, 2006
  18. Jan 21, 2006 #17
    I wonder how many individuals everywhere currently agree with the above statements when applied to their own nation.

    I'm thinking many.
     
  19. Jan 21, 2006 #18

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Better (ok not better but as far as our country is concerned, important) question: How many people give enough of a crap to actually do anything about all that we've been saying in this thread.

    Who here is ready to start plunking down cold hard cash to 3rd parties? The whole idea of "having money" is foreign to me unfortunately lately :cry:
     
  20. Jan 21, 2006 #19
    Why don't we just our party the anti-party party?Who wants to run in the 2008 election
     
  21. Jan 21, 2006 #20

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Hey SOS and Pengwuino, quit the bickering. A Penguin isn't a fish, either. Fish don't have wings or breathe air (okay, you were probably joking about that).
     
  22. Jan 21, 2006 #21

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    There is a party called the American Independent Party now. I think they may have changed non-partisan registration to clear up any confusion between non-partisans and people that are registered for the Independent Party (I believe it was Perot's creation).

    The primaries don't technically determine the nominations. Nominees are still chosen by party delegates; they just generally (well, always as far as I know) nominate the candidate that won the most primaries. My point is that I'm pretty sure third-parties could hold primaries if they wanted to. They aren't being barred from doing so, there just wouldn't be much of a point since the turnout would be virtually nonexistent.

    Regarding the funding question, I'm pretty sure that any presidential candidate that can garner 5% of the nationwide popular vote will win federal funding for his party for the next election cycle. I'm not sure if the funding is matching (dollar for dollar what the candidate raises himself) or equally split among all qualifying parties, though. Either way, it's not just a good idea to vote for a third-party because you think they are going to win the office. Winning only 5% of the vote will be a major accomplishment for third-party politics.

    Also, third-parties are stuck in somewhat of a Catch-22 with the mentality that Ivan portrays here. No one votes for them, in part because no one thinks they can win. But the reason they can't win is because no one votes for them. It's a vicious cycle and the best way to break it is simply to vote for more third-party candidates. It'll require a great deal more research, since they won't campaign as ferociously or get as much coverage, but (especially on the local level) there are viable candidates here and there that are worth voting for.
     
  23. Jan 22, 2006 #22

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Oh, I wasn't aware such a party existed. That would probably explain why the voter registration here didn't have the option named "independent." For clarity, they probably listed it as "no party" so some party called the "independent party" couldn't claim everyone registered as "independent." That makes a lot more sense with regard to voter registration (IIRC, there was an "other" option that you could fill in with the name of a party not already listed if you wanted affiliation to something other than the 5 listed officially on the registration card...one I had never in my life heard of, and as far as I can tell, it's local to the state, something like a "mountaineer" party, or something like that...wish they gave me a copy of the registration card so I could have made a note of the one I never heard of).

    I've lived places that had open primaries, or where you could declare your party the day of the primary, so didn't have to decide ahead. I need to look into that in WV still. They do voter registration when you register your car here, so the priority was getting my car legal, not worrying how they did primary elections when there weren't any in this state this year. I can change my party if I learn that I need to choose one for primaries when the time comes. In the meantime, I think it's worth sending the message to both parties that I don't approve of the crap either of them is promoting. If they actually had to think about what the people wanted rather than sticking to hard-line, traditional party divisions to win votes, I think it would be a really great move back to the right direction.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2006
  24. Jan 22, 2006 #23

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I agree on this point, that having at least some (though not necessarily all) staff continuity between administrations is helpful. However, what the staff are really good for is addressing matters of protocol. The person they work for ultimately dictates what they pursue as important issues beyond that, and will reappoint people who really don't share their same goals and opinions.

    Unfortunately, Ross Perot really screwed over the third party candidates. He really had a viable chance, but then turned loopy, and scared everyone away who had considered him. Since then, people have been very nervous to support a third party candidate (though, I have to admit, I haven't seen any I have considered a decent alternative either...that's what we really need to shake things up is a decent third-party candidate).
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2006
  25. Jan 22, 2006 #24

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    That's another major problems that the third parties face: most people with a viable opportunity to be a successful career politician join one of the major parties because that gives them a much better chance of being elected.
     
  26. Jan 22, 2006 #25

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That sort of thing happens every now and then, but your example of Nader (also, Perot) is the reason it doesn't happen often - it is far too damaging to either party's numbers for them to split, so the only time mini-splits happen is when some independently wealthy guy pays for his own campaign.

    So while I agree that splits like that would be a good thing, in order for a split to not just give the other party an easy win, both parties must be split simultaneously. And right now, the Republican Party is far too strong (though sliding in the wrong direction) for a split to be likely.

    Back to my proposal, mentioned in other threads: party hijacking (which would have a similar result). My parents switched to Democrat in order to vote against Clinton in the primaries. What if a lot of Democrats had switched to Republican to vote for McCain? He'd probably be President now.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook