Would you support a viable third ticket option on the ballot in 2024?
Yes
71%
No
9%
It depends
20%
You must be signed in to vote in this poll. If you don't remember your username and password, click here. If you're not registered yet, please click here.
User
Recent blog posts
- Why We're Doing This -- Today's News (10/12)
- It's getting crazy out there!!!
- Why We're Doing This -- Today's News (10/11)
- Why We're Doing This -- Today's News (10/10)
- Your ideas make a difference
- Why We're Doing This -- Today's News (10/9)
- Help Unity08 get on the ballot in Maryland!
- Let’s Turn One Small Step for Oklahoma into a Giant Leap for Ballot Access Reform!
- Bobbie's Story: What we can all do for Unity08
- Want to help? Want a job? Here's How...
Back in the US, back in the US, back in the USS.A?
I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I want to vote for someone who will actually do some good.
I am a fiscal conservative, a social moderate.
It will depend on the stated objective of the canidate, not just the fact that he or she is a 3rd party canidate. I want less taxes, smaller government, less regulation, illegal immigration deal with, then I will decide who to support.
I am a Reagan Republican, not a Denny Haster, Bill Frist, or "W" Republican. I support the war in Iraq, we are there! I do not suppport the Republican parties spending, earmarks, or prescription drug legislation, etc.
MB Snow
We did vote for someone who would do some good - Al Gore. I'm praying we can elect him again, and strongly enough to bypass the supreeem court.
MB Snow says it for a lot of us. Fiscal Conservative social moderate. I am actually a social liberal but I suspect we agree on many things.
I left is too far-left and the right is too far-right. Give me a moderate, a true moderate.
Anything that gets us away from two parties playing the blame game 24 hours a day, ignoring finding solutions to the country's problems. The partisan divide is so bad that absolutely nothing ever gets done, fueled by far left and far right wings, that will only get worse and worse as 2024 approaches.
I am 77 years young and this country has gotten so F_____UP it makes me ashamed to be an American. I have voted both ways in my lifetime and will never vote again UNLESS we can put soemone other than a politician in the White House. Both parties care less about the American people everyday. They have two thoughts in mind, POWER & MONEY. Without a doubt all of them are crooked one way or the other. The American people deserve much better than what we are getting. I think the whold Damm bunch should be run out of Washington. What is not being sold of America is being given away by this crooks. I used to live in Lansing Michigan (OLDSMOBILE). I never thought the olds would disappear. Michigan is the rust belt of the country because of GREED of the CEO's and our politicians. It is virtually impossible to buy anything in America that is produced here, whether you eat it , drive it, or wear it. Thanks to big business and the POLITICIANS..We need a change NOW if not SOONER. How about Oprah Winfrey?
It sounds like Ross Perot all over again.
After centrist Ross Perot allowed Bill Clinton to become president with only 43% of the popular vote I vowed NEVER to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate again.
The reason Kerry lost to Bush in 2024 despite Bush's low popularity, was because Kerry is an extreme leftist, and the electorate wasn't fooled.
Most winning candidates try to portray themselves as centrists (after the primaries, anyway).
In our two-party system, a third candidate is a LOSER.
The reason why politics are divisive is that there are REAL ISSUES where the two major parties disagree. Simply avoiding YES and NO by voting for a MAYBE candidate will not make these issues go away.
The "great compromiser", Henry Clay delayed the American Civil War for many years, but the slavery issue was eventually resolved by the shedding of blood.
I reccommend that you read Mike Rosen's commentary on why you should be loyal to your party.
(In case you don't know, Mike is a Denver-area radio personality--see www.850koa.com.)
I am a fiscal conservative. I am so sick and tired of Republicans heaping up the spending while cutting taxes. And then Mike Rosen says Republicans are for limited government! Why have they increased spending by so much, then? I'm very very worried about the economic health of America. Let's get some politicians who can work together and who really care about balancing the budget! And face the reality that a certain amount of spending for social security and medicare is required. AND face the fact that people with higher incomes should pay more taxes so the country can afford our obligations. After all, rich people wouldn't be so rich if they didn't live in a country that provides military and police protection, adequate medical care (OK, we can argue about that), and a myriad of other benefits.
I am very pleased to hear about Unity08. Some of us have been talking about a "unified" third-party candidate for a couple of years. See http://www.myspace.com/onetruerick
and
http://www.myspace.com/ralphnaderin2008
and
http://www.revolution2008.org
Brilliant minds think alike!
I look forward to participating.
Rick Williams
Many of us want true change and having mulitple third parties with clear and credible platforms and thrid party candidates that are trustworthy and not babbling the tired rhetoric of the monopoly parties.
Our political system is antiquated, perverted and broken. It is long past time to make some changes that reflect the century we are living in. Instant runoff voting, ending the monopoly of the two corporate parties and eventually ending the electoral college system all need to happen.
I do not want a Republican running as a so called third party candidate. I am sick of the GOP and I am little more fond of the Dems. I want substance, I want backbone and I want real people talking about real issues and not just perpetual spin.
A populist candidate who tells the truth and breaks through the walls of establishment polticis and media is what we need.
I hope we have six or seven different parties competing for votes. That is how things get done. Monopolies in business lead to stagnation and they certainly have in politics too.
We need fresh ideas and new blood.
Unity08 needs an independent candidate to run.
If Unity 08 really wanted to create unity in America, they'd go after our media establishment that thrives on creating devisive messages and telling as little information as possible to the public. I've met presidential candidates, heard them speak in person, and followed their records closely. Most Americans don't have the time/ability to do this, so they end up getting absurd messages and half-truths about candidates from the mass media.
Instead of working towards truth in advertising--I mean media-- it seems that Unity 08 is just positioning themselves to take advantage of the media situation.
If you folks are really bent on change, help Americans get accurate information about candidates. If Americans had accurate information, they'd be surprised at who is really "radical" or "out there," and they'd be really surprised at who is truly moderate.
If this site runs ads about what is wrong with this country and why this site is needed, it should quote that Mike Rosen article.
Clearly the people WERE fooled if anyone thinks John Kerry was or is a member of the extreme left-wing. There really are no extreme left wingers in congress now, nor have there been for some time.
I believe the third party will work only if our voting process is made secure --and it is not now secure.
I agree with Colorado Russ. A third party has never succeeded in America; those which have been succesful are those which have supplanted an existing party,and those which have not have been either a wash-out,or actively injurious to democratic politics. There is a term for one who keeps doing the same thing while expecting different results; a third party is the same thing that has been done repeatedly, it has always had the same result, and I am curious where the 280 people who have thusfar voted "yes" get the idea that yet another third party will succeed where all previous contenders have failed.
Even if I were convinced that there is something fundamentally broken about the present system - and I am not - it seems a bizarre argument that democracy is best served by placing a plurality candidate in the White House, which is historically the less-ignominious of the range of achievements reserved to third parties which do not aim to supplant one of the major parties (the alternative is being a total washout). America's political and social structure simply cannot and will not support a third party; to succeed, you must aim to supplant one of the existing parties, but to declare which you would supplant is to cut off half of your potential supporters. As a moderate Republican, I would support a third party which aimed to split and supplant the Democrats, but I would not support one that aimed to split and supplant the GOP; by contrast one imagines that if I have a counterpart on the other side of the aisle, she would support a third party which aimed to split and supplant the GOP, but not one that aimed to split and supplant the Democrats. You are caught, so to speak between the devil and the deep blue sea.
It would be a far more productive exercise - and one far more likely to succeed - to spend the time, money and effort that will be wasted on a third party to support moderates in the existing two parties.
Ya know, I don't really understand why all you people keep posting on here telling us about how the third party will never work! The minimum goal of this movement is to affect CHANGE, and, even if it is a bit too ambitious to even hope to elect a President, third parties historically have been able to affect the outcomes of many elections. People keep bickering over just how moderate or radical this movement will be, but I don't think you understand that the issues will be decided by US when we vote online. The views of this party are not preplanned, they will be decided by the American voters who choose to participate. So instead of arguing over whether or not this will actually work, why don't we discuss some of the crucial issues mentioned in the information page and try to make something of the concepts of communication expressed by the Unity Party? The whole purpose of this website is to provide an open forum for the American people to agree and disagree on the issues that directly affect them, not to argue over whether or not this whole concept is even worthwhile. Obviously you have some interest in the ideas expressed here or you would not be on this site and reading this comment.
The word "viable" is the kicker here .
"Would you support a viable third ticket option on the ballot in 2024?"
What does it really mean?
Able to win?
Hell, you could run a almost senile movie star and "win" if you had a strong enough political/publicity apparatus to do so.
(Oh...sorry. That's been done already.)
Or does it mean able to win and still be able to make serious changes in how this country conducts its business both domestically and internationally?
And if it is the second...WHICH changes?
THOSE are the ideas that must be hashed out here before we go much further.
I believe the two party system in this country is irretreivably broken, and I await the arrival of the shoutbox with great expectations.
AG
"I don't really understand why all you people keep posting on here telling us about how the third party will never work!"
Because every cent and every second wasted on promoting a third party is a cent and a second wasted at a time when there is an urgent need to use both to steer the two major parties back from the abyss.
Nor am I particularly convinced by the argument that the notional party's views will coalesce after the ship slips anchor. This idea seems pattered after the thought process of some Democrats that the party does not need to develop a particular list of policy proposals until after it has won an election; in both cases, the cart is being placed before the horse. Political parties exist not to fill a vacuum, but as vehicles for certain worldviews to be implemented as concrete policy. Although it can later change direction, a party has to stand for something before it can take off. Merely agreeing that the status quo is undesirable isn't enough; Howard Dean and I might completely agree that there is something seriously wrong with America that needs fixed, but we will not agree on (a) what's needing fixed or (b) how to fix it. If you start from the premise of gathering together folks who think something is broken, I don't doubt that a lot of people will show interest, but then you get into the more contentious business of defining what's broke and how to fix it, whereupon that seemingly homogenous mass of disaffected voters will fracture every which way.
Thus, the Unity 08 poll suggests that "74% of Americans are 'dissatisfied' with the way things are gong in this country" - which sounds great until you discover that said 74% is split every which way about which way things SHOULD be going. 74% of the country might think we should be working to make America more secure and prosperous, but I promise you, you will not find broad agreement about whether we will do that by having a Congress that will approve or reject the Patriot Act and CAFTA. Sure, 82% agree that “America has become so polarized between Democrats and
Republicans that Washington can’t seem to make progress solving the
nation’s problems,” but what percentage of that 82% think that it's all one or the other party's fault? I assure you, well over 82% of Republicans think that we can't make progress solving the nation's problems because of Democratic intransigence, and probably 100% of democrats think that we're not solving the nation's problems because of a lethargic and corrupt GOP majority. 72% see education as crucial - what percentage believe the solution is vouchers, and what percentage think the solution is throwing more money at the problem? 62% see the national debt as crucial - what percentage are willing to abolish entitlement spending to fix that,and what percentage are willing to lose their job or at least some disposable income to raise taxes sufficient to meet entitlement requirements? 67% see energy independence as crucial - what percentage are willing to drill ANWR? What percentage are willing to pay $12 per gallon of fuel,all in punitive taxes (double that figure for anyone who lives in an urban area or on the east coast)? 30% see as abortion as a crucial issue - great, but of that 30%, 55% see banning it as crucial, while 65% see protecting it as crucial. 61% of Americans say the 2024 presidential election is “the most critical
election in years” - what is the major malfunction of the other 39% who think that it is not?
I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, and I will be watching this site closely, and spreading the word.
I would be willing to vote for a third party candidate if "instant runoff voting" existed. ( http://www.fairvotemn.org/resources/tools/irvprimer_11142002.html ). Unfortunately it doesn't except in some places like the campus elections at MIT. It's too bad that with the mandate for implementation of electronic voting booths, implementation of instant runoff voting has not even been discussed.
Since I'm in DC, I might conceivably be willing to vote for a third-party candidate under some set of circumstances, but only because under our electoral college system it will have no effect (DC's 3 votes will certainly go to the Democrat no matter how I vote).
I am, however, highly unlikely to do so. and creating a third party for the sake of creating a third party -- without even having an idea about what its positions should be -- is insane.
And yes, it's true that third parties have affected presidential elections. The effect they have is to cause whichever of the two major parties most agrees with the third party to lose the election, and to cause the major party they agree with least to win. That hardly seems like a good outcome, but that's built into the system and will not change until instant-runoff voting or some other reform takes place -- something that certainly won't happen by 2024.
So count me out of this pointless stunt.
Ah, third parties just throw the election to one of the big ones, usually the one that's least desired by the public.
Which probably means this could send the republicans back to the whitehouse...and we can't have that.
Even though I'm a Republican, and would personally hope for a candidate like McCain to emerge, I wouldnt be above voting for a third party candidate if extremist or "moderate candidates emerged as the nominee for the the Democratic or Republican Parties.
And for those who are voicing doubt about the viability of a third party bid, keep in mind Theodore Roosevelt came in a close second against Woodrow Wilson in 1912 running as the nominee for the Bull Moose Progressive Republicans. Even more importantly, remember that Ross Perot was LEADING Clinton AND Bush for much of the race before withdrawing from the race before jumping back in last minute.
Another huge reason why third parties dont do terribly well is because of the 15% requirement for a candidate to participate in debates. Perot was getting between 7% and 9% in the polls, but a majority of Americans polled said he won at least 2 of the presidential debates. He ended up garnering 20% of the popular vote in 1992, a lot for someone who stopped campaigning for 3 months
It depends really. I am a Giuliani Republican...meaning that I am socially center-left and fiscally right wing. As long as the ticket doesn't turn out to be some psuedo moderate endorsement ticket...like Nader under the Reform banner, I'll look into it.
I finally feal a spark of excitement about 2024. I can't wait to see where this movement goes!
This is the silliest most namby-pamby feel good limp wristed lame-o attempt at politics I have ever seen. Other than that its a real dumb idea. Positions matter. What now, abortion is OK on Monday and Thursday, guns can be owned on alternate months, taxes are higher on odd numbered years, etc!
Please.
This pathethic notion is aimless and pointless. I want to see my point of view in office and this waters down that notion to the most milktoast "make nice" policies. Politics matters. It can be mean, dirty, nasty, and unfair. So be it. Grow up, be educated on the issues, who your representatives are, and vote. Simple. Don't like it? Move.
But shut up about this clown notion of can't we all get along? No. Sometimes in politics we cannot and thank God for it.
I agree with many of the other concerns about a third party candidate acting more as a spoiler than as a real contender. Imagine a scenario where we create a platform that is fiscally conservative and socially moderate (like many western state republicans). Chances are we would end up spliting the Republican vote and electing a Democrat that does not have the majority point of view.
I really think the goals of Unity08 are upside down as they have them listed on the "What We Believe" page. The first goal should be to come up with a platform with real solutions to real problems and encourage the two parties we have to discuss and debate these options.
One final thought. Although we have only a two party system, can anyone really say that they aren't both formed from coalitions? It seems to me that we should be encouraging the less extreme elements in both of these coalitions.
I would only support a third party candidate if that candidate was absolutely committed to being pro-life and pro-marriage.
After working tirelessly for a mainstream party candidate in the last election cycle, I have learned that the party's political insiders pick their nominee long before the primaries, and all the money and hard work in the world can't disrupt that machine. This time around, I'm going to put my cynicism and energy to good use and see what Unity '08 has to offer.
I vote Libertarian. The LP is the largest and strongest alternate party in the country right now. Vote Libertarian.
I see that the comments here roughly reflect the same demographic represented by my (and, I am sure, your) local paper's letter page: the overwhelming majority, of whichever political leaning, sick of the corruption and hypocrisy of our present government -- both majority and minority clones thereof -- and a few "my-party-right-or-wrong" smarmy true believers who quote their favorite media ideologues as if they were Gospel, condescend to those unlike themselves who understand the nuance of political reality in a nation of 230 million by throwing around their rote-learned and archaic labels (there hasn't been a true "liberal" in this country since Hubert Humphrey) instead of real dialog, and believe the goal of government in America as "win at any cost" -- even at the cost of the freedoms won and defended over the last 200 years by those who voted with their lives instead of with their wallets, and continue to do so today.
The truest comments here? That we may already have been elbowed out of the process by vote fraud.
This thing had BETTER work. Otherwise, we are all trapped in a Kafkaesque nation of artificial choices -- and our children and grandchildren are stuck with the tab for these twice-failed and -discredited policies.
The only solution in that case would be another revolution -- and, unlike our putative government and other corrupt or repressive governments in the past, the oligarchy that truly rules us is beyond reach.
A shame the ideologues are too enamored of their own borrowed brilliance to notice that.
The Democrats and Republicans have proven that it is about power and not right or wrong. We need a new Party.
http://balancingtheissues.com/power_play.htm
The list of backers is impressive. The issue now becomes what are the issues and who best can articulate those issues for the Unity Party.
In protest as a Democrat, I voted for Independent Candidates in the last two presidential elections.
I will watch the development of this movement and hope it become a beacon of hope for the American People - at the end of the day only we the people can make the change - we have to want it.
Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com
Great. Another third party to split the moderate/left voters like Nader did in '00. What will we be left with? Another radical right wing president who will attack Iran, oppress gays and lesbians and take away a woman's right to choose. The Democratic Party is the best hope to dump the radical right. I wouldn't be surprized to see that this whole exercise is being funded by Richard Mellon-Scafe....
What this country needs is a leader not a party! The parties have been partying on our money much too long. I would vote for any party that had a leader (someone worthy to lead) like JFK.
What this country needs is a leader not a party! The parties have been partying on our money much too long. I would vote for any party that had a leader (someone worthy to lead) like JFK.
Welcome to McCain/ Lieberman HQ
Dorian:
"[R]emember that Ross Perot was LEADING Clinton AND Bush for much of the race before withdrawing from the race before jumping back in last minute."
Remember, too, that Howard Dean was leading the polls to get the demnomination, right up until the moment that a ballot paper first went before an electorate. People will tell opinion polls many things, but when it comes down to actually voting, I think that most people take a very sober look at the options and do what they think is best - which is not always the same thing that they are willing to admit outside of the privacy of their voting booth, even to an opinion pollster. See C.Shirkey, Exiting Deanspace, 2/3/04, at CORANTE (arguing that the Dean campaign failed because its lead never existed outside of opinion polls).
"This thing had BETTER work. Otherwise, we are all trapped in a Kafkaesque nation of artificial choices -- and our children and grandchildren are stuck with the tab for these twice-failed and -discredited policies."
I remain bemused by the idea that the two main parties do not represent a "real" choice; would President Gore have liberated Iraq? Would President Kerry have nominated Justice Alito? There is something exceedingly naive in the idea that the two parties are "two sides of the same coin," unless what you really yearn for is not a centrist government (which for the purposes of "Unity '08" seems to largely be the populism that dare not speak its name) but one considerably more radical - to the left or right - than either of the existing parties.
The Republicrats and Democrans in congress and the executive offices of Washington are dedicated mostly to self service and perpetuating their power and perks.
Our elected representatives have forgotten who has put them into office and who keeps them there. Once in office for a couple of terms, they so quickly lose touch with middle America. This is especially true in the Senate. House members with their two-year terms must remain a little closer to their constituents. The system, however, has been rigged by entrenched members of both major parties to perpetuate incumbents, and that has insulated incumbents from having to be responsive to the wishes of voters and the needs of America.
The two major parties need a serious wake up call, and a viable third party is the only option short of armed insurection to get their attention.
I will support a third party that demonstrates a philosophy of both taxing and spending restraint, supports strong individual and states rights, strongly calls for limited federal government, demands that the federal government carry out its constitiuional duty of controlling America's borders, and pushes term limits at the federal level.
Any party which does not stand squarely for the above list is mearly a rerun of the existing system.
I strongly believe that we need at least (!) 4 strong political parties in this country to represent the American people. Even if there are only 2 sides to each issue (though it's never so simple), how can people be expected to choose between only two combinations of these opinions - that of the Republicans and Democrats. The Libertarians provide one alternative option and I think there is certainly room for this new Unity party. Sometimes in our caution we are so short sighted. For example, the attempts of Democrats to nominate an "electable" candidate have only given us men like Kerry who fail to actually take a stand on much of anything. Why not shake things up a little? It's about time...
I have been crying out for this most of my adult life. At 39, I am an evangelic Christian with strong social liberal tendencies and I agree with most of what is being said here. Tired of "tax and spend" liberals and "tax-cut and spend" conservatives. Parties are in agreement on what needs to be done but seem unable to do it because it might mean they lose power.
Being flexible is the key. We have to face the music; it seems that politics are playing a new song!! I have been a republican my whole life but am keeping an open ear, hence my post. Ronald Regan was a DEM and as we know, a REP president, flexible. He was driven by doing "the right thing" his flexability was what the country needed and because of his leadership the WORLD changed! I never ever thought I would ever be anything but a conservative republican and as of right now I still am... BUT, I will be flexible and will look into this new party. I am SICK of politicans. I want a LEADER with a mind of his own who is able to stand on morals,the constitution (for the way it was written and not the way some bent left/right politican wants to twist it) a leader with LEADERSHIP abilities not just the most cash, a leader with values someone who cannot be bought. I would like to see a leader rise up and call these crooked politicians out and clean house. I am a medically retired Marine; I spent 15 years serving this country and when I watch the news it makes me boil. I love this country with all my heart, I really do but am embarrassed of the way Washington has portrayed this country to its citizens and the world. Not because of the war in Iraq because of the INDIVIDUALS in Washington DC who are supposed to represent the people; not push their party's agenda. They will obviously do whatever they feel necessary to hurt the other party, its embarrassing and must change.
Colorado Russ misses the point
Russ says that this "sounds like Ross Perot all over again." But Unity08 isn't pushing a candidate, like or unlike Ross Perot. Unity08 is asking the Americans who are turned off by the extremism we see in our current two party system to change the country – which by the way will change the parties.
Russ says that “most winning candidates try to portray themselves as centrists (after the primaries, anyway).” But America needs leaders who will do more than act and posture. The country needs leaders who will govern. Real issues often require more than a “yes” or “no.” Real issues, like fixing our education system so that high school graduates can compete with India and China, are complex. Creating a sustainable energy policy which protects the environment and the economy can’t be accomplished with “yes” or “no.”
Unity08 is a chance to marshal the energy of the 74% of Americans who are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country today. It is a chance to remind those who aspire to hold high office in this country that Americans outside of Washington want results – not positioning… and that we’re more interested in our national interest than their special interests.
Colorado Russ misses the point
Russ says that this "sounds like Ross Perot all over again." But Unity08 isn't pushing a candidate, like or unlike Ross Perot. Unity08 is asking the Americans who are turned off by the extremism we see in our current two party system to change the country – which by the way will change the parties.
Russ says that “most winning candidates try to portray themselves as centrists (after the primaries, anyway).” But America needs leaders who will do more than act and posture. The country needs leaders who will govern. Real issues often require more than a “yes” or “no.” Real issues, like fixing our education system so that high school graduates can compete with India and China, are complex. Creating a sustainable energy policy which protects the environment and the economy can’t be accomplished with “yes” or “no.”
Unity08 is a chance to marshal the energy of the 74% of Americans who are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country today. It is a chance to remind those who aspire to hold high office in this country that Americans outside of Washington want results – not positioning… and that we’re more interested in our national interest than their special interests.
Zach, the problem is that those 74% who are dissatisfied don't agree on what they're dissatisfied about. At some point Unity08 has to take a position on some issues, and at that point they can no longer be all things to all people.
i really have no party.i am a liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal matters.
i have voted democratic the last 3 elections because i hate the gop wedge issues but in reality i don`t agree with the far left.i`m
all for a new party, but it sounds like it may be coming from the right.
KCinDC, I agree that people will be drawn to Unity08 only to the extent that the organization can convince voters its candidates will make progress on the issues they care about. But I really think the idea of focusing on "vital" versus "important" issues is the right approach at this point. Later on, individual candidates for the Unity08 nomination can specify their specific policy positions.
Anyone who supports the ideas that seem to motivate this website (policies over politics, substance over style, etc.) should vote "it depends." If the Dems get it together, I'd be happy to vote for them.
Yes! Fiscal conservative (remember when the Rs stood for debt reduction!?) and moderate on social issues (remember the BIG TENT!). There HAS to be a place for us! Lets put Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) and Gov. Mark Warner (D) on a ticket!
Everyone must play. That's the problem, and what we need is the establishment of our right to say, "No, thank you." Both parties support "everyone must play" philosophies, and that's what's divisive. People who don't want to buy their medicines from Canada shouldn't have to, but the government should allow anyone to do so if he wishes. "Everyone must play," however, shuts off that option. People who don't want their children's education controlled by the public schools should not have to pay twice for alternatives, but "Everyone must play" says they have no choice. People who believe in progressive social programs should have the right to use their own money to fund them, without demanding participation of "fiscal conservatives," but "Everyone must play" forces all taxpayers to donate to the government's chosen charities. Until we are able to sort out the issues and separate those in which all must participate (What restrictions are there on gun ownership? Must everyone pay taxes?) versus those in which non-participation won't matter (Will my marriage be affected if two gays down the street have one?) we will continue to have bitterness.
A third party isn't the key to addressing the problems in DC. Put in term limits, allow people to serve two Senate or six House terms, ban them from running again for either house of Congress when they are finished.
An incumbency rate in the high-90 percents has done nothing to help the country as a whole. It has elevated pork spending to a new level, not to mention corruption by both parties.
Throw the bums out and enjoy the sweet song of screaming lobbyists on K Street.
Fiscal conservative and socially moderate? Sheesh, just vote Libertarian. Assuming the Libertarians can find a candidate who isn't a tax-dodging nutcase.