This is really mind blowing!

[tpeichel]

But in the end, the people decide if a party is viable or not, so the people listening to the established parties too much is really at the root of the problem.

As the last Presidential election showed, there are plenty of conservatives turning away from the Republican party, but unless you have a third party that appeals to both liberals and conservatives, you will not be able to get any traction. You could have a party that focuses on economic issues, individual freedoms, etc, but no one would be able to agree on the social issues. And is it realistic to have a political party that completely ignores social issues?

[Wickabee]

As the last Presidential election showed, there are plenty of conservatives turning away from the Republican party, but unless you have a third party that appeals to both liberals and conservatives, you will not be able to get any traction. You could have a party that focuses on economic issues, individual freedoms, etc, but no one would be able to agree on the social issues. And is it realistic to have a political party that completely ignores social issues?

Which is why I think the moderates from both parties should leave the nutjobs at the extremes to fight amongst themselves. The only problem is it couldn't use the name "Democrat" or "Republican" and therefore, could never win a US election.

[tpeichel]

Which is why I think the moderates from both parties should leave the nutjobs at the extremes to fight amongst themselves. The only problem is it couldn't use the name "Democrat" or "Republican" and therefore, could never win a US election.

Take the moderates from both parties and you just have a party that ends up doing what we've been doing, right? The extreme left would have us in single payer while the extreme right would eliminate cost-shifting, dropping the requirement to have one person cover another person's healthcare costs, etc.

[Wickabee]

Take the moderates from both parties and you just have a party that ends up doing what we've been doing, right? The extreme left would have us in single payer while the extreme right would eliminate cost-shifting, dropping the requirement to have one person cover another person's healthcare costs, etc.

Probably, but that isn't the bigger issue. A lot of things would work a lot better if one side or the other wasn't so dead-set against letting it happen. It may not be what you or everyone wants, but at least things would get done through actual discussion instead of media posturing.

[GroundSupport]

It is impossible for a third party to get on the ballot in some areas.

I heard some districts require 100,000 signatures in 2 week period and $500,000 fee just to get their names on the ballot.

Those numbers are skewed, and are not accurate, but I do remember an instructor busting this out in class while in college.. It was some insane feat that no one would be able to pull off, and that was just one district.

[Wickabee]

Yup.

[GroundSupport]

Im trying to find something on google about it, no luck yet.

I just remember it being an insane feat in some cases.

[gsj68]

if you want wealth just do this

http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advis...131935627.html

[Wickabee]

Im trying to find something on google about it, no luck yet.

I just remember it being an insane feat in some cases.

I'm not disagreeing with you, unless you're calling it a reason to give up.

[duane1969]

But in the end, the people decide if a party is viable or not, so the people listening to the established parties too much is really at the root of the problem.

I won't deny that, but some people are so deadset on believing propaganda that it is nearly impossible to do anything about it.