In response to:

A Third Party

cblair Wrote: Nov 10, 2012 10:20 AM
The current system of awarding elections to those winning the plurality of votes rather than the majority stifles the posssibility of third party emergence for the reasons (and math) set forth. Because of this we are locked into the current model and locked out of fresh ideas. Two ideas to counter this: 1) change the election laws to require run-off elections if no candidate reaches a majority, as is followed in many countries, or 2) follow George Washington's warning and eliminate the party system. The first option is probably easier to effect than the latter, although over time the first makes the latter at least plausible.
Mark1369 Wrote: Nov 11, 2012 6:39 AM
I wish we could eliminate the parties so individuals had to research who is running to know who represents their ideals instead of giving their vote to a party that often goes against an individuals ideals.
scott s. Wrote: Nov 10, 2012 2:55 PM
Washington's warning was about "factions" which I don't believe is the same thing as "parties".

During the Q & A section of my speech to the Chamber group here last night, someone asked what I thought about the concept of a third party to counter the influence of the right wing of the Republican Party.

If there were a true independent third party in the U.S. House and Senate of, say, 10 percent of the membership that would mean 43 Members in the House and 10 Senators.

It is unlikely that either Republicans or Democrats would have enough votes to organize either Chamber without the buy-in of the independents.

Or, put another way,...