Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe
I disagree. What we have now is basically two parties that pander to two social classes. well...truthfully, we have one party pandering to one social class because as we know, the Republicans pander to the rich.....and we have another party, the Democrats which panders to the rich(have you seen Obama and Hillary fundraisers???) and....I wouldn't say panders to the poor so much as holds them hostage, they do pander to the Unions which claim to represent the middle class too...
There needs to be a third party that represents those who are in the middle and does not focus on handouts to buy votes and does not use religion or holy wars to achieve a foothold. That's where the tea party lost me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement I read the whole thing and must have missed the holy wars part 
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
we've always had third parties, take your pick from those that claim to "represents those who are in the middle",
Centrist-This section includes any party that is independent, populist, or any other that either rejects right-left politics or doesn't have a party platform.
American Populist Party
Citizens Party
Modern Whig Party
Reform Party of the United States of America
Unity Party of America
you live in RI...have you joined the "Moderate Party" yet ?
a concurrent national third party is unlikely to be widely successful in our system of elections see..Duverger's Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law..
perhaps you want to replace one of the current parties? in which case we'll still have essentially a two-party system and lot's of folks still complaining that we need a third party that represents ..."them"...see Duverger's Law again
....the Tea Party is not a "Third Party"