If this crises was the Republicans fault How do Democrat's explain every thing going down hill?
Democrats and Republicans are the same. Behind close doors Dems and Reps are always in agreement. To the rest of the world, they act like they are against each other. This creates the illusion there are two sides of ever issue. In reality, they are the same thing. The Central Government, run by bureaucratic servants called Democrats and Republicans, know that there is a 11% approval rate of the government by the US citizens. This is unacceptable to the Dems and Reps. They need away to show there power. So creating a fear atmosphere, will get the citizens attention. This will also let them portray they are doing something for the citizens that cannot be done without the government. I't is a forced recognition of power in all its tyranny. One of the rules of war when facing a stronger enemy is to divide and conquer, rather then to attack your enemies force as a whole. Knowing that citizens and there constitutional freedoms/rights are a thee governments greatest enemy, creating a diversionary tactic such as Republican and Democrat would divide the governments enemies "citizens + constitutional freedoms/rights" Once divided, the enemy is far easier to conquer. In this case, when we are divided, the Central Government can take away freedoms/rights, and implement tyrannous laws a lot easier than if we were united. Vote for ANYONE else besides Democrats or Republicans. I't can be anyone ranging from a third party candidate to Mickey Mouse. Just don't vote for Democrats or Republicans. They were bought and paid for a long time ago by bureaucrats. When Dems or Reps are elected, they serve the interests of transnational corporations that paid for them to get elected, not the citizens. I't is the greatest acting out of a "good cop bad cop" scenario in history. Just remember. The Tea Party is the Republican Party. "I'f your a multi-billion dollar transnational corporation and you pay for, 1 President + 435 Congressmen + 100 Senators + 9 Supreme Court Justices, then you have total power over 350,000,000+ citizens and all there resources."
Due to the failures of the Republican and Democratic parties, will 3rd parties have a chance the next election?
There is relative harmony in the Democratic party, not so much in the Republican party though. The Republican party is split in half. On one side you have the White Evangelicals (Social Conservatives/NeoConservatives) and on the other side you have the PaleoCons/Fiscal Cons/Classical Libertarians. They don't really get along together. The religious side is relatively retarded and does nothing but pander to religious nuts, and from the last election, racists. Then you have the other side which is intelligent, calm and isn't rabid like its republican counterpart. The last 3 Republicans in office were all Evangelicals (Christian Fundamentalists) and they all screwed over the US.
THIRD PARTIES? Why only republicans and democrats?
Because the US electoral system is based on a two-party system - supported by the Electoral College. A fine example is the presidential run of Ross Perot, who received nearly 19% of the popular vote in 1992, yet received ZERO Electoral College votes. The Electoral College, in brief, consists of Electors who are members of either the Republican or Democrat parties, who "pledge allegiance" to a certain candidate in advance of the election. Electors have only changed their votes, ie. gone against their advance pledges, in a small handful of cases in the last 200-plus years. They serve their parties, and do not reflect the popular will when it comes to independents. Amendments to the Constitution doing away with the Electoral College have been proposed about 70 times in our country's history, the latest in a measure proposed by (D-CA) Barbara Boxer and co-signed by Russ Feingold. However, these proposals have never really gotten anywhere, because both the Republicans and Democrats are afraid of ceding power.
There would be no third party to defeat either of the two established parties. Any advocate of either party is merely a derivative of one of the two. The two parties are clearly enough without a third “party” listening to what they are arguing about in order to create a subsequent argument for debate. The entire subject of Republicans and Democrats has fallen off the deep end to why they even exist anymore. Once upon a time there was a reason for decision-making, today, and long since, there has been no reasons. Governments have been shutting down in search for a reason to stay employed. When you realize there is no real distinction between a democratic “system” and a republican “system”, the only commonality between the two is “system” and the argument of who gets to play with the joystick. Are we totally insane to accept bureaucratic rule?
What is the problem with Democrats and other Third Parties? (in Texas)?
There is no problem with Democrats and other Third Parties in Texas. The problem is Texans' arrogance!
Good question. I’m not really a Republican as much as I am a third-party outsider who tends to vote more Republican than Democrat.There were many Democrats years ago I would have voted for, but today, I’d be hard-pressed to find one.Truthfully, I might have considered voting for Bernie Sanders if his Republican opponent was a quintessential insider with big money, like Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney.Because I’m also an antiestablishmentarian at heart.I don’t agree with many of Bernie’s policies but I like him personally. I DID vote for Obama in 2008, but didn’t think he deserved my vote for reelection. (I voted third party because I couldn’t stand Mitt Romney.)I actually agree with Hillary Clinton’s politics more so than those of Bernie’s and of many Republicans, but I just can’t stand her for many reasons.I respect Diane Feinstein, but not Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer (any longer).Cory Booker has some promise, but if he gets sucked in to the Trump-bashing, he too will ruin his credibility and will appear to be an opportunistic gadfly.
Which party do Scientologists vote for? Republican, Democrat, or third party?
Mathematically, any vote forged for a dropping candidate is seen "wasted," through fact he could have lost just to boot without you. So, in case you're fantastically specific that your third social gathering candidate will lose, then your vote grew to become into wasted, in that admire. in spite of the undeniable fact that, it quite is nevertheless existence prefer to vote for a third social gathering candidate on the muse that (a million) against all odds, he could win. Surprises do take place -- e.g., seem at Ventura in Minnesota -- and (2) your vote will help to boost information relating to the third social gathering, and could lead directly to bigger achievements sooner or later.
Hmm…No, not really.The GOP is hamstrung by several things:Its platform - Nobody outside of the GOP sees their platform as being progressive or what the country needs to get it going in the right (no pun intended) direction. Unless the GOP was somehow able to tweak it to make it more appealing, they’ll spend the election run against it and their Democratic opponent.The Tea Party - While it remains shocking to the more conservative members of the GOP, the Tea Party is roundly unpopular with the American public. The GOP’s leadership has to genuflect towards it; the American voters do not. The Tea Party could cost the GOP the 2016 election.The bad publicity the party has generated over the last two terms - Frankly, without sugarcoating it too much, the GOP comes across as a bunch of racist dicks. For reasons known only to their leadership, the party is allowing this image to remain in the public mindset and it is hurting them in areas that they need to retake the White House.Still no women/Still no Latinos - The GOP recruitment drive has been a disaster. Women and Latinos are shown to be even LESS attracted to the party than they were in either 2008 and 2012. Unless the GOP can attract more of either group (which given their positions on women’s reproductive rights, equal pay and immigration reform seems unlikely) within the next two years, they seem likely to have to cede these two important blocs to the Dems.The potential Democratic candidate already has enough electoral votes to win - Unless he or she is genuinely unpopular, there’s no reason to suspect that the 2016 Democratic candidate can’t win the exact same states that President Obama won in 2008 or 2012. Even the swing states economies are slowly recovering and they almost all went for Obama. With no major blue states turning red and with potentially Texas being a battleground due to immigration, the GOP has a long uphill climb to get even the electoral votes that Romney received in 2012.While I admire Marc Bodnick’s enthusiasm and I respect his opinion, personally I see the GOP already conceding 2016 and trying for 2020. If they aren’t, then they aren’t running the type of party or potential campaigns that will win things for them in 2016
They would siphon votes from either the Democrat or Republican party and cause that party to lose. Then the following year that person would either run again and cause the same thing, or they would push their support, tacitly or explicitly, for one of the main parties.The main reason this happens is because we have a first-past-the-post voting system. What this means is you get one vote and the winner takes all the votes. So let’s say your favorite is the third party guy, but you’d normally vote Democrat. Well, that third party guy is essentially “subtracting” voters from the Democrat party and not at an equal rate as it subtracts from the Republican party (or vice versa; it can happen either way to either party).An alternative voting system would allow you to vote for two people, or allow you to rank all the candidates in order from favorite to least favorite.So imagine you could say, my main vote is the third party, but my second choice is Party A. In that system, if the third party doesn’t win, then Party A would get your vote instead. That way third party doesn’t siphon votes.As is, the two party system is an eventuality of the first-past-the-post voting system. If you want to change the two-party system, you’d have to change the voting system itself.This won’t happen though because the two parties aren’t going to vote for anything that would threaten their dominance. Lol, it’s kinda fucked up actually.
When did the Republican views and Democratic views swap?
Three events mostly. First, Reconstruction. The 1876 election was very close and disputed. In the compromise of 1877, the Republicans sold out the Blacks so they could become president, and the Democrats, the party of slavery, got the Union troops to head back North. The result was terrorist groups like the Ku Klux Klan, operating without any Democrat governor or politicans trying to stop them, while they looked the other way. Second, FDR during the New Deal, made extensive efforts to reach out to minorities, and much of his party continued to so, including subsequent Democratic Presidents, like Truman (desegregated the Military) JFK and LBJ (wrote and signed the Voting Rights Act, and Civil Rights Act, etc). There were attempts to sway the party back to the South and largely to racists, Strom Thurman being one of them with his run as a Dixiecrat against Truman, and lastly, leading us to the third and most definitive moment, George Wallace's attempt to run for President (as a third party candidate, splitting the Democrat vote in the South). After his losses, the Party moved away from the "racist" side of the issue over time, although some Southern Democrats are still carry overs from the "racist" times. But after Wallace, the Republicans moved in to take those voters over, beginning with Richard Nixon, but really most notably Ronald Reagan.