I’m sorry, but your post really supports my position. Each time there was party realignment, it was lead by Congressional members of the Party (if not the President). If you don’t have a good number congressional party members switching to a third party, you will never get the traction required to have a realignment.
Most Countries with viable third parties don’t have Plurality voting (aka winner takes all) elections. In many counties, the winner must win an actual majority, not just a plurality. In other countries, if a candidate doesn’t receive an absolute majority, there is a run off. This process makes third parties more viable.
Also, in some multi party nations, you are literally voting for the party.
Anyway, for a Third Party to be truly viable in the United States for the long term, it will need to be a split from one (or both) of the currently political parties with party leaders leading the way.
The concern for some of us is that we find the existing third parties on the ballot to be no improvement over the major ones.
It’s quite a dilemma. If we refrain from voting we are told we lose the right to complain, because we did nothing to try to change anything. If we vote, we are forced to lend our support to positions we find abhorrent and are counted as supporting them.
Well, after you lose your individual rights, your religious liberty, have a Supreme Court overrun by Marxists rationalizing all sorts of evils, and your nation loses its sovereignty and you live in a borderless society with 90% of your income confiscated in order for the state to determine what you need while your children are indoctrinated is by the state run by transvestites, and transsexuals running the military with laws that deem the Bible and Catholic doctrine is hate speech, then you’ll wish you had voted for the lesser of two evils,
Yes, Mr, Trump is a sinner, but his policies are common sense and the mere fact that he’s stacking the Supreme Court with Conservatives is an answer to many prayers. And he’s a sinner exactly like you; but unlike ͏y͏o͏u, he doesn’t have all the sanctifying grace at his disposal through the Sacraments as you still enjoy in this country as a Catholic…
Whether you like the politics or not, it is your responsibility as a proper U.S. citizen to vote.
And if everybody who had good morals was too disgusted to vote, things would get a whole lot worse. We must vote to try to get good people back in.
If ONE person decides to not vote, perhaps that is no big deal.
But, IF that decision is indeed a right decision, then it should apply to all potential voters: NO ONE VOTES. Now that would be a very big deal.
Most executive and legislative offices have a defined expiration date. You’re out of office unless re-elected. NO President. NO House of representatives. Just 2/3 of the Senate would remain in office. But no laws could be passed because law must be passed by BOTH chambers and signed by the President who would not be there. Same at the State level. Who could pass a law for an emergency voting cycle?
No one votes and government would cease to operate.
I believe we do have a moral duty to God to vote. We must vote according to the 5 non-negotiables. After that, our decision is “prudential” the best we can decide.
However, here’s a concept I have been mentally kicking around. I bring this up, as the third party issues have arisen in this thread…
What if… what if a third party actually won. How could it? Imagine 2020. Imagine the reps decide and then successfully nominate a different candidate. Now imagine Trump decides to run 3rd party. He might have a hard core base of 36%. Now the Dems nominate someone as well. And they get 32% of the electoral college, the reps get 32% of the electoral college, and the Trump 3rd party gets 36%.
Hmmm. A third party just won. Whether you are fer or again’ The Donald, could happen. Whether you consider it a swamp draining or a disaster, don’t matter.
Of course, I do eat a lot of odd food combinations so…
True, more government provided welfare incentivizes people getting and staying on welfare, and working class men and women not marrying. Welfare is expected now, called an “entitlement” instead of the actual forced charity it is. A working class, low skill level couple is “better off” money-wise not getting married and collecting more benefits for the single mom from the nameless and faceless that are taxpayers. When you personalize it-make it real charity, that is where change in the person receiving it happens. They realize that people did this for them of their own free will and not through beurocratic force and are grateful.
The thing is, what you described is the start of a “party realignment.” It’s takes congressional members and sometimes a president to do that.
For a third party to be viable, it needs candidates which ENOUGH people know and trust.
The party also has to get on the ticket.
The American Solidarity Party which has been mentioned by @spyridon was only on the ticket in one state: Colorado
Then, it was a certified write-in option in only 18 states.
The 2016 Presidential Candidate for the ASP only received 6,662 votes.
So while the party sounds good, and I support its growth, it’s currently not a viable party.
One way for the ASP to become a viable party would be for every single pro-life Catholic in Congress and in state legislatures to leave their party and join the ASP. However, due to campaign fundraising, the chances of that happening is not very good.
In the real world, you often have to choose between two bad choices. That’s reality. The political world isn’t the religious world, and part of maturity is realizing that you often have to vote for the person who will hurt you the least because the alternative of not voting is so much worse.
This is very true. My sister (who unfortunately doesn’t go to Church) does this. She’s been living with her partner (male) for over 11 years. He’s a fisherman (does ok) but due the benefits she’s “entitled” to by being a single mother, it is keeping them from legally getting married.
So if they marry, they will take a huge financial hit, but being unmarried (even though they live together) allows better benefits to them and better medical coverage (esp for the kids).
It’s really a shame how we have set things up where it’s better to be a single mother than a married one.
In many ways a 3rd Party did win in 2016. President Trump had next to no support from organized Republicans, no ground game, no political machine, no legion of ward heelers to fill all of the jobs once he did get in.
some of the breach has been repaired, success in the election and in implementing some of his policies like Peace in Korea and a booming economy with low unemployment has a way of attracting politicians. But there are still any number of Republicans who wouldn’t give President Trump the time of day even today.
True, but it’s highly doubtful Trump would have won as a Third Party candidate. If there were three major names on the ballot back in 2016, Hillary most likely would have won. Trump and the Republican would have split the votes Trump actually received.
The reason we are stuck with Trump is because BOTH parties allow a candidate to win the nomination with a plurality instead of a true majority.
Personally, I think the parties should change the primary system so the party nominee must have >50% of the vote. If he doesn’t, then there should be a one day election in all 50 states for a run off between the top two primary vote getters.
We should not a situation where almost 60% of a political party didn’t vote for the nominee.
I can personally introduce you to 100 people who are non Catholic, some are not Christian, some are Muslims, some are Pagans, some are Atheists, who are also do not have the Sacraments yet they are moral, virtuous people.
It does not take a Sacrament to be a decent human being, it only takes a spine.