NEWS: Get Over Your Third Party Jerk Off Fantasy

POLITICS: Get Over Your Third Party Jerk Off Fantasy

Americans love to talk shit about the two party system. I know I do. They are both giant assholes, spewing out immense amounts of shit. The Republicans are obviously worse, as they have recently taken us into an absurd war, totally undermined our constitutional rights and turned to religion in a scary Taliban sort of way. Of course, the Democrats allowed it all to happen and in many cases went along with the opposing party. That being said, I’ll end up voting for the least horrible candidate because I am so scared of the most horrible candidate. And the two party system will remain intact.

But that won’t stop Americans from saying how much they would love a third party. Oh, just think about it! The party would be everything you wanted! A wonderful amalgamation of all your beliefs! Liberal when you want them to be and at the same time conservative on the right issues. And you could call it the “Not Real Party” because it’s never going to happen. It’s a ridiculous fantasy.

The current candidate giving everyone third party wood is Michael Bloomberg. Last week Bloomberg quit the Republican Party and the media went into a tizzy about his future “Independent” bid for president. Could he actually start a third party? Oh, my, I’m all a flutter!

Bloomberg, of course, quickly said he had no plans to run for president.

But the media just can’t stop hoping that he will run because they love to participate in the third party jerk off fantasy. Why? Because of the polls! People have been clamoring for a third party. They wanted one in 2004, for God’s sake!

57% percent! That’s a lot of people! And that was in 2004! Things have gotten so much worse with our citizen’s confidence in their leaders, just think what that number is today.

Wow. 57 percent. Feels oddly familiar. Now, just let that number roll around in your brain for a while. It is the number of people who answer that they want a third party candidate, when they are asked by a pollster, as they sit on their couch at 7 pm on a Wednesday. You know when they don’t want a third party candidate? On that Tuesday in November, when they walk into a voting booth and choose their candidate. Because when push comes to shove, people vote for the candidate who scares them the least.

So, how many people voted for Ross Perot? 8.4%

What about in the year 2000, when everyone desperately wanted a third party candidate? Ralph Nader pulled down a whopping 2.7%

Why? Because once third party candidates become real, nobody wants to vote for them. They are better as a fantasy. They are much more exciting as the unreal Third Party 58%. Take Bloomberg. The guy is a fucking piece of cardboard. He makes Al Gore seem like Tina Turner. Once America got a good look at Bloomberg, they would vote for one of the two big parties. And Ron Paul is a tool, so the same goes for him.

Get over it. It’s never going to happen.

your "obvious" assertions are both factually inaccurate, and pompous at the same time. What constitutional liberties have you lost as the result of the Republicans? Are you not posting a dissident piece of free-speech, no matter how garbage-laden it might be, on a site that showcases the fleshy goodness of thousands of young women? Do they have that right in Iran? How about Venezuela, where Chavez (the Democrat's darling - ask Jimmy Carter) is taking over television stations that oppose his administration's views?

For thos who say the war in Iraq is a useless war, I can only offer the observation that those folks are largely misinformed, and therefore unable to properly understand the war in its entirety, or the significance thereof.

A well-researched piece (as in the Camille Paglia mold) would do so much more for your cause than this partisan hack-job of an article that you have posted here.

the idea that the "third party" ideal is just an exploit for political superiority played by the dominant two parties was solidified for me when leiberman played independent just so he could selfishly still run after his party voted for the other guy. honestly, the dream is a joke and a crutch for those zany libertarians.

i thought you were on vacation, you freedom hating pinko.

Everything except the opening paragraph is golden. Even I, a registered Independent, find the people's clamoring for a third party disingenuous. I do think the two party system has worked for the American advantage though in many respects, I just wish people looked at the two party system as a constant tug-of-war, rather than allying to one side no matter what. Two party system + candidate accountability for principles = heaven.


Although that opening paragraph is a bunch of partisan, divisionist schlock.

Enlighten us. Please.

You, my young, white, straight, american male friend, may not have noticed any change in your constitutional liberties.
But any progress that has been made to give those liberties to minorities or even women, have been put on halt and in some cases taken steps backwards.
I don't even know where to start.

Giuliani, Hillary, and Bloomberg!

New York, Fuck yeah!

They're just so adorable when they're this noob.

On the one hand you're right, and on the other hand you're wrong. You're right that given our current electoral system, a third party doesn't do any good. You're right that each person wants a *different* third party, so the mere fact that they all want a third party doesn't mean that when one pops up they will vote for it.

But you're wrong to suggest that the problem doesn't need to be solved. The two-party system is a virtual requirement in our system of government because of the way we vote. But it works really poorly - it's not like the democratic party right now is a useful substitute for the republican party. Both parties are wreckage.

I don't know how to fix the problem, but personally what looks good to me right now is a hostile takeover of the Republican party. They are weak right now, because a lot of their constituents are fed up with the screw-ups. If enough good candidates ran in Republican primaries in Republican-dominated counties and states, it could really make a difference.

I'd like to think it'd be the Democrats that hold the hope for the future, but they seem more focused on regaining power than on making a difference, so while in the short term I think it makes sense to support them, just to get the current batch of Republicans out of office, it's no more than a bandaid solution. If you want to really fix the problem, the Republican party is where it's at.

The Republicans have been completely made over several times in their short history, so it's not even a stretch - it's been done before.

I'm waiting to get on board the Spitzer 2012 (or 2016) train, myself.

Stephon Marbury/Donald Trump: 2012

Fuck that noise. Charles Oakley/Marty Markowitz 2012.

Schwarzenegger/Granholm! the dream ticket from the new formed "constitutionally disallowed" party!

Hilliary is not from New York.


She's from the right side of the THRONE OF HELL.

"GET TO THE ELECTION"

"Ask not who is your daddy, ask what does your daddy do for you."

Arkansas?

Thanks. You should read the article again, realize it is not a "partisan" hack job because I am not a Democrat. But really good, totally invalid points. Keept it up!

Chicago Suburbs.

Yall.

Well, her BODY is from there.

Her soul is definitely from hell. Poor Bill

I knew that, actually, but it sounded better the other way. Way to harsh my buzz, man.

I agree with reaper, what we have here is a case of empirical degradation. This has been shown in several super powers as they rose and fell. The beginning of our country saw the demise of many different parties, the wiggs for one. Now we have only two solid and yet pathetically inept political parties. In our constitution it plainly says a government for the people by the people, how many people are actually lawyers. Why is it we continue to elect these people who do not represent the populations common interest, nor can they even identify with the middle class person. Almost all of our presidents have been rich some disgustingly so, that represents less than 5% of our population. You want to know why we do not have presidents that can actually represents us, because a law was passed that to run in any political election you had to have mandatory funds to do it, I think the number was 250,000 or 500,000 dollars. Now why would they do that, it is to keep the people out of the government. I think I am like all of you, when I say all that I want from our 2008 president is, better health care, education, economic and foreign policies social security and concentration on our debt as a nation. Our country is not doing what is important to its citizens and that clearly shows that things need to change, maybe a little operation Mind Crime would help, sigh those were the good old days.

I voted for Nader

Rich people, i.e. people with power, will always be in control of any establishment. Even the Socialist states and dictatorships became that. It's the nature of the human beast. At least our system allows the rich people to bicker and fawn for us more than most, and every now and against you get someone you can truly get behind.

What I'm for is more states rights, since in that way they represent your local interests a little more. other than that, it's impossible for anyone to be truly represented on a truly national scale.

On Edit: And that thing about the president isn't completely true. The original framers did not trust the people, hence the electoral college. It was the "safety switch," the original safeguard for the "enlightened" over the "populous." Again, the nature of the beast.

You want to be wary of idealizing the past. For a long time there were property qualifications just on voting, and the right to vote restricted effectively to white men until the 1920's, when white women women were allowed to vote, and then 1964, when blacks were finally allowed to vote - and until recently the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was a man who, as a legislative intern, had advised his congressman to vote against that extension of the right to vote.

As far as the influence of money in American democracy, you can look to the Gilded Age for a time that was at least as bad, and for corruption, Tammany Hall still remains pretty definitive.

That's not to say we don't have problems, and serious ones. Democracy is always a work in progress (which is what distinguishes it from ideologies like Marxism or Fascism), and, while there's been serious backsliding in the past couple of decades, many of democracy's gains have yet to be entirely rolled back.

As for the two party system, yes, it sucks. But a third party (or a true multiparty system) would have to face the same compromises when it came time to actually govern after the elections were done. It would make a difference, certainly, but probably not as big as most peiople might hope.

Why not if we kept the system that we have now, except when it was time for any issue to come up we as an entire nation could vote on it. We could submit bills and laws to be changed or added, and we could all vote on whether this should or would happen, we as a nation would choose to go to war, based on this type of system. Utilizing the internet for a complete democracy is easily possible, just like the ancient Greeks had, well similar with some obvious changes. It would be simple and we could never blame anything on anyone but ourselves, yeah your right though that will never happen. Damn you Utopia.