What do you think about the idea of a party that represents all third parties in the US?

Instead of trying to get ONE third party into office, why not make an alliance of all the third parties of the US and use them to try and get into politics?

Kinda like an Ambassador that works and get elected to represent for the UN that represents officially all the nations involved, even through that Ambassador may be from only one of those nations and hence one of those beliefs.

Update:

They wouldn't agree with each other, so when forming such a thing, the organization has to be set up in away that settle differences and comes with a platform that represents them as a whole.

As for the sensible persons banding together and doing something, I am working on getting that done now. If interested in joining, please email me through my profile.

8 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    When I was in the Libertarian Party years ago, they always talked about this idea, and how outrageously unrealistic it is. There were always people telling them all third parties should merge together........yeah, right.

    Never will happen in 100 years.

    Better yet, try to educate people of why our current course of ever expanding government will eventually lead to tyranny. Then if enough sensible people can get together and form a third party that can REALLY challenge the other two parties over this issue, get on board and give 'em hell.

    Right now the Libertarian Party is full of liberty extremists who consider anyone who wants to incrementally regain our freedom as sell-outs, so the LP may never be seriously viewed as a legitimate political party.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I sort of thought that was the way things work at this point in time. All third parties must agree that anybody outside the two parties is better so why wouldn't they support each other? Maybe all states need to have a third party.

  • 1 decade ago

    The very notion of joining a party (or 'faction' as Jefferson and Adams referred to them) involves sublimating one's own desires and beliefs to those of the committee of the whole (group). At best it is an exercise in limiting one's own freedoms of choice.

    While both Jefferson and Adams, in their letters, both looked down up on the notions, both eventually became involved in factions while in office. Bitterly so. It caused them to cease corresponding with each other for a number of years.

    I see little prospect of smaller parties combining to take on the two major parties. More likely one or both of the major parties will commit political suicide through balkanization.

    wsulliva

  • 3 years ago

    considering that Asians look to have got here upon a thank you to succeed, I doubt that they had have an interest. I doubt a exceptional sort of interior of sight human beings could have an interest the two. Edit: You finished submit is racist. you don't choose a occasion made out of blacks, hispanics, asians and natives. you're able to connect a occasion that caters to losers. The Democrats tremendously plenty fill that invoice. i've got have been given an asian spouse. the only overt racism she's ever witnessed became the los angeles riots and wager who became looting the Korean shops?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It would be nice to have just A party that would represent the majority that votes for them. All we have now is pandering politicians that once they're in office they follow the money trail laid down for them by the lobbyists.

  • ken s
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    You have way to many different views to get them to agree with each other it would be like the U N in that it would get nothing done.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Not all third parties agree with each other..

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    You already have one. The libertarian party. They'll take anybody.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.