Am I the only one sick of both parties?

[JoeDaSchmoe]

It's a growing frustration for me. I've gotten more and more into politics over the past couple of years, but at the same time, I've become more and more disgusted with the bloated, corrupt, and oftentimes completely un-American parties that run this country. They both do more than enough to convince me that they need to be taken to a corner and put in time out for a few years while the rest of us clean up the big mess they've created. And yet, most of the politically active people I know seem to be of the opinion that their party of choice is practically infallible and the Other Guys are some mutated combination of Communists, terrorists, and the Legion of Doom.

Am I the only one around here who sees this? Am I the only one who would absolutely love it if the Founding Fathers rose out of their graves tomorrow and added a clause in the Constitution that got rid of the Democrats and Republicans? Being stuck in a system where these two groups of people are in charge feels like being stuck in a bad episode of The Office where Steve Carrell gets cloned and both Steves spend the day arguing over who's more incompetent. Something needs to change.

[CNYSkinFan]

I personally believe there are good people on both sides of the aisle. I think part of the problem with American politics right now is the extremism on the left and the right getting out of hand and the political parties paying too close attention to them. I, being a Democrat, of course believe that happens in the GOp more the my party. But it happens in both parties too much for my liking.

I joined and work for the Democratic Party because I generally agree with most of their philosophy. If you are asking for any party to line up 1005 with all your philosophy, then you will always be disappointed. I personally agree with the dems about 75% of the time, the repubs about 5% of the time, and no one about 20% of the time.

Power corrupts. Any organization (business or even charitable) will have corruption at some level. It is part of human nature. That does not mean you should not get mad and ask your partyt leadership to correct it and demand it with your votes, but it does happen.

As for the founding fathers, they were wise men indeed, but had their failings as well. A few of them (Washington, Adams) were against political parties but men lkike Jefferson and Hamilton actually promoted the good that can come from political parties.

I know people bash the two party system and it is not perfect. But I still prefer it to the european style democracies where many small parties need to form a coalition to govern. Too often those parliaments become subject to the the threats of political idealists who will withdraw support from their coalition if their petty demands are not met.

So much like our Justice system, the one we got is flawed and imperfect, but no other system out there is without it's own flaws and imperfection.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Unfortunately, you don't have a choice. Any third party is either going to be smacked down or absorbed. Seems to me there are a lot of flakes in politics but I do hold on to the belief that there are a few good guys on both sides. Despite their political labels, they are individuals and should be treated as such. IMO, to just throw your hands up and say "they're all corrupt" is a cop-out. It means you are paralyzed by the fear of being wrong. Sometimes it takes guts to pick a guy and support him, and then when he screws up do yourself a favor and admit it, then move on.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Unfortunately, you don't have a choice. Any third party is either going to be smacked down or absorbed.

Historically, that's not really true. And the more I look at how the parties have re-aligned themselves over the past few decades, the more I think that we're going to see a big change with the rise of a new party in the next twenty years or so. (A large part of this stems from another one of my beliefs, which is that, in that same span of time, America is going to get hit really hard by a big economic downturn, which will be the impetus for the shake-up.)

Personally, I think I'll bring back the Whigs, and require every member to wear a hairpiece of some sort.

[akhhorus]

Historically, that's not really true. And the more I look at how the parties have re-aligned themselves over the past few decades, the more I think that we're going to see a big change with the rise of a new party in the next twenty years or so. (A large part of this stems from another one of my beliefs, which is that, in that same span of time, America is going to get hit really hard by a big economic downturn, which will be the impetus for the shake-up.)

Personally, I think I'll bring back the Whigs, and require every member to wear a hairpiece of some sort.

The problem Joe is that for a 3rd party to emerge, one of the parties has to look very weak. And the old party will have to die for the new one to take it's place. The Whigs were dying, and the GOP was able to kill it and take its spot.

[RedskinsDave]

The reason I agree there won't be any emergence of a third party comes down to money and money alone. It costs too much to compete with the two big boys and until some very wealthy people or groups chose to give their money to someone else, we are stuck with what we have. Unfortunately both of them live and die in the extreme as well.

[dj_stouty]

It's a growing frustration for me. I've gotten more and more into politics over the past couple of years, but at the same time, I've become more and more disgusted with the bloated, corrupt, and oftentimes completely un-American parties that run this country. They both do more than enough to convince me that they need to be taken to a corner and put in time out for a few years while the rest of us clean up the big mess they've created. And yet, most of the politically active people I know seem to be of the opinion that their party of choice is practically infallible and the Other Guys are some mutated combination of Communists, terrorists, and the Legion of Doom.

Am I the only one around here who sees this? Am I the only one who would absolutely love it if the Founding Fathers rose out of their graves tomorrow and added a clause in the Constitution that got rid of the Democrats and Republicans? Being stuck in a system where these two groups of people are in charge feels like being stuck in a bad episode of The Office where Steve Carrell gets cloned and both Steves spend the day arguing over who's more incompetent. Something needs to change.

I hear ya. Politics today make me sick. It gets so old hearing one party blast the other; its so damn hypocritical. Makes me roll my eyes most times I hear the two sides debate any issue.

I haven't been content with my party (GOP) for a while now. I remember hearing speaches from up-and-coming Republicans at the '96 Republican Convention and feeling as if the party was headed in a different (and better) direction. Folks like Susan Molinari and JC Watts gave me hope back then my party was going to evolve into something unique and better, but not too much later, both left office and no one has really stepped up to replace their ideas. I've been waiting in the wings ever since.

I vote my party line simply because my opinons and ideals reflect more with them than the democrats; however I have been moving more toward the middle in many social areas. None of the other 3rd parties, to date, have done a better job capturing my interests, but I'm not above leaving the GOP if one does.

I would totally welcome a 3rd party, assuming (as Dave said) they had enough money, power and influence to be a factor, AND, if they represented my interests enough.

[Biggie]

Personally, I think I'll bring back the Whigs, and require every member to wear a hairpiece of some sort.
If we get to wear hairpieces, I'll be your first registered member.

[Agrawog]

While i am the first one to trash the political extremists and their attendant media machines we can't forget another culprit in this issue - US.

The American voting public is apathetic and disinterested. This is bourne out in voting totals for national elections (sub 40%) while local elections have strong turnouts. Why? Because all politics is local? Am i to believe that the city council race will affect my life more than the presidential race? I hope women who thought that way don't get mad when Roe v Wade gets overturned by conservative Bush-appointed judges.

The federal government has a lot of power and is used by state and local governments as media cover. But if people are not interested in thorough political knowledge then what they get is Limbaugh and 50 debates with 90 seconds to answer (wtf?).

If we cared about politics then PBS would have huge ratings and the debates would rule the airwaves. If we want better politicians (my third party would be socially liberal and fiscally conservative and slightly libertarian in terms of the constitution) then we should demand them. You don't do that by turning off but rather by engaging and booing or cheering as necessary.

[CNYSkinFan]

While i am the first one to trash the political extremists and their attendant media machines we can't forget another culprit in this issue - US.

The American voting public is apathetic and disinterested. This is bourne out in voting totals for national elections (sub 40%) while local elections have strong turnouts. Why? Because all politics is local? Am i to believe that the city council race will affect my life more than the presidential race? I hope women who thought that way don't get mad when Roe v Wade gets overturned by conservative Bush-appointed judges.

The federal government has a lot of power and is used by state and local governments as media cover. But if people are not interested in thorough political knowledge then what they get is Limbaugh and 50 debates with 90 seconds to answer (wtf?).

If we cared about politics then PBS would have huge ratings and the debates would rule the airwaves. If we want better politicians (my third party would be socially liberal and fiscally conservative and slightly libertarian in terms of the constitution) then we should demand them. You don't do that by turning off but rather by engaging and booing or cheering as necessary.
I disagree with you here. I have been working local elections for 10 years on the ground. It is just the opposite. Turnout is ALWAYS much higher in even years, espesically presidential ones, then any other year.

Take Syracuse for example. in odd years turnout will run between 37=40%. In even years (non presidential) turnout will be about 50%, and then in Presidential years around 60%.

One of the reasons for declining voter tutrnout is not neccesarily apathy, but a program enacted in the 90s called motor voter. We have made it easier then ever for people to register to vote (which is good imo). Before Motor voter you would have to go to a voter registration office to actually register (I think I was one of the last 18 year olds to actually have to do this). If you were motivated to go to the registration office, you were always more likely to actually vote then if you just checked a box while renewing your driver's license.

What is amazing to me is that as easy as it is to register to vote, how many people still aren't registered. That is the true measure of apathy in America. some studies have suggested as much as 40-50% of the voting age population are not even registered.

I am not as worried about turnout figures because the sample size in modern ages are higher then in other times, however I am worried about the elections swinging on 30 second commercials instead of debates and policy issues. Or even worse on the spin after debates instead of the debates themselves.

[Agrawog]

Those were interesting numbers CNY. I guess my comments were based on the national perception of low voter turnout. I was born in South America and in my country everyone is required to vote (there is a national license you have to get and that is predicated on voting). I have heard many competing theories on the requirement to vote or not but whatever we do we need to find a way for people to get a better understanding of issues and candidates for each election. I don't want to tell people for whom they should vote but we need more informed voters willing to listen at length and try to understand complicated issues thoroughly. When that happens the 30 second spots will morph into something else. I don't see politicians doing this themselves - we will have to do it somehow. I just don't know how.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Agrawog, I both agree and disagree with you. I think it would be a lot easier to change our current system and structure if more of the general population was interested, but at the same time, I believe that a large chunk of the millions who are politically motivated are still disillusioned with both parties. I hear and read about it every day.

The biggest problem is the belief in exactly what people have said in this thread: there's an aura of impossibility around any third party. Hell, the Simpsons made an episode about it. Voting for anything other than Democrats and Republicans is supposedly "throwing your vote away." Sounds horrifically un-American, if you ask me.

It's a pretty bad Catch-22 - a third party won't be seen as legitimate until it has power, but it won't have any power until people see it as legitimate enough to stand a chance. It's gonna take some big splashes to give anyone else a chance. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see Ron Paul go Independent after the Republican primaries and create a wave of support for the Libertarian Party. It wouldn't dethrone the Big Two, but it'd be a lot more significant than any party upheaval since the Dixiecrats. (And yes, I know, he's said he wouldn't go Independent, but I don't believe it one bit.)

[shally]

The reason I agree there won't be any emergence of a third party comes down to money and money alone. It costs too much to compete with the two big boys and until some very wealthy people or groups chose to give their money to someone else, we are stuck with what we have. Unfortunately both of them live and die in the extreme as well.

which is why you see the recent third parties headed by someone like perot... and others have spoken about bloomberg forming a third party for a run.

only someone with megawealth could get it off the ground

[shally]

It's a growing frustration for me. I've gotten more and more into politics over the past couple of years, but at the same time, I've become more and more disgusted with the bloated, corrupt, and oftentimes completely un-American parties that run this country. They both do more than enough to convince me that they need to be taken to a corner and put in time out for a few years while the rest of us clean up the big mess they've created. And yet, most of the politically active people I know seem to be of the opinion that their party of choice is practically infallible and the Other Guys are some mutated combination of Communists, terrorists, and the Legion of Doom.

Am I the only one around here who sees this? Am I the only one who would absolutely love it if the Founding Fathers rose out of their graves tomorrow and added a clause in the Constitution that got rid of the Democrats and Republicans? Being stuck in a system where these two groups of people are in charge feels like being stuck in a bad episode of The Office where Steve Carrell gets cloned and both Steves spend the day arguing over who's more incompetent. Something needs to change.

you should read lou dobbs book.. i am just starting it and he speaks to exactly that subject (the public/middle class) being sold out by both major parties in favor of corporations

[remaxjon]

Jack Cafferty reports on the chances of a 3rd party and why it will never happen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gYF_K5p38E