May 29, 2012 -- 12:58PM, Roodog wrote:

I for one would like to read an English translation of the leaked documents. Not only for the matter of Church History but I also like a good crime novel.

No doubt, researching historian-novelists have been gathering information for years, waiting for the right time.

May 29, 2012 -- 2:07PM, christine3 wrote:

There's the Green Party.

Is it time yet?

It is past time for a third party, any third party. But it isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Here is the problem: in the US, whenever there is third party, it comes out of the woodwork in the Presidential election.  You have guys like Nader and Ross Perot, who make a lot of noise, but never get anyplace (the last third party candidate to get any electoral votes was Wallace, 44 years ago).

What is needed is a third party which can build up enough support in Congress; you don't need a majority, you just need enough support to hold the balance of power.  Then see how far you can get with that as a basis for going further.  The problem here is, once again- people are idiots.  You can see that from any poll.  Americans overwhelmingly hate "Congress."  But they tend to love (and vote back in) their particular Congressperson.  Go figure.

The other problem is, our system of district representation works against any third party on either extreme. Because, say, the Greens would tend to take votes from Democrats and hence  tend to hand elections to Republicans- lots of liberals who might otherwise vote for them will not. This is why the Tea Party decided to run within the GOP rather than as a separate party. 

Right, Char-

I meant that if a third party managed to get 10 or 15 % of the seats in our congress, they would have some influence.

But as I said, in our system, it is nearly impossible for a third party candidate to get there in the first place. 

In fact, this tendency has proven disastrous recently, since the last third party candidate to make a serious dent in the presidential race (Wallace in 68) was not accompanied by a serious third party movement in Congress  (which it by all rights should have been: southern white Democrats in those days were a clearly a group with very specific interests); instead these voters were quite deliberately courted by Republicans, which is the direct cause of what has happened to that party today.

Nor would the Tea Party be as dangerous in a system of proportional representation.  In a multi-party congress, their mantra of "no compromise" (which has now become the mantra of the Republicans) would be the ludicrous kiss of death it deserves to be. 

May 29, 2012 -- 4:56PM, CharikIeia wrote:

May 29, 2012 -- 2:33PM, TemplarS wrote:

What is needed is a third party which can build up enough support in Congress; you don't need a majority, you just need enough support to hold the balance of power.

Actually, by the US majority-vote-in-disctricts election system, you DO need a majority to get into Congress. Geographically local, but majority nonetheless.

Only by a proportional representation system (like where I live), you can make sure that minorities actually are represented in parliament at all.

Char, we do not have a European style parlementary system here in the US. We have a winner take all system. If you want to win an office here you must win the election outright.

May 31, 2012 -- 5:37PM, farragut wrote:

Indeed, minorities are guaranteed representation in the House and Senate. But they are not the minorities designated by race, creed, or color; they are the geographic minorities. Thus tiny states like Rhode Island, and states of tiny populations such as the Dakotas each get two Senators. Seems fair to me.

Yes it is fair of sorts. But as geography is by and large unrelated to political minorities, it doesn't facilitate rejuvenation of the sclerotic political system.