Just imagine for a moment if "We the people" had the power to put the entire Democratic Party as of the Republican Party on hold in running our country and instead gave the three biggest third party systems that don't get any attention a chance to run our country for 8 years.

What do you think would happen?

Do you think it will be catastrophic, or do you think it will bring a fresh look onto this country that will produce positive results for the people and the world?

If you are creative then take the time to write an outline on what could happen.

What if there were no parties at all.

I would rather they follow the constitution and not the lobbists

I like how Obama has won over the people of Iran and we may see some real change between relations of our countries

For years we watch the back and forth Democratic and Republican idealogies, yet we never experienced a third party in this country.

It would be interesting to see a government that does work for the people.

No party would mean no laws and no discussions, debates, opinions, or even solutions.

I think government is good if it truly serves its people.

So an independent with a Congress full of independents would be interesting or divided into the three biggest third parties would be an interesting approach to observe.

If it will ever happen in my lifetime or even our children's children lifetimes I cannot be certain, yet one can only wonder if it would actually make a difference.

Yes very true, yet half of the Iranian people are upset also. One can take it either way.

One thing that Iranian's are upset about is that constant interference of Americans involved in their political affairs especially with this close election deal that just happened.

I mean think about it, would you want Iranians interfering with American politics and influencing what is best? Some Americans wouldn't mind and others would.

Yes many believe lobbyists who talk in the interest of mega corporations ruin the ideals of the Constitution leading to a ruined economy.

It is extremely common in Europe to have 7-8 parties in the government with almost equal amount of seats or at least significant enough to influence governing and legislations. When the winning party takes place in the government, others can form a coalition with them or not cooperate. It's their choice, based on the ideology of the party of course.

According to the latest news, rightist and downright radical right wing parties managed to grab a seats in the EU parliament.
That's not what is interesting, but what is interesting that it seems like there is more fair political playing ground, or the people care more about politics? Either way, I don't see even a 3rd party to ever win significant seats in USA....it's the 2 party domination and unfortunately their ideology and policy isn't so different whatsoever.

As a German who has voted for the Green Party for almost 20 years I am accustomed to seeing more parties expressing their opinions and even seen major shifts throughout the years in my country. I think diverse idealogies opens up new ideas that could help the people and their interests. Fair local broadcasting and opportunity to see debates from all possible idealogies helps the people decide what they deem is important.

I personally would like to see this in America, yet for many years I will only see two brothers fighting for the throne seat every 4 years.

Perhaps change will happen if third parties are more aggressive in their approach of idealogies concerning the countries welfare.

You know how people complain that "I didn't like neither of them"...
so they don't even vote.
DUHHH!

Vote for another party's man!

But

As I pointed out in another thread...people are already deciding who they gonna vote for right now at the next election...and I can guarantee you, 95% of them are thinking red or blue , or donkey or elephant, whatever.

It's like watching a football game every day, and always the same 2 teams are matching up.

Not to mention the millions of dollars required to even break open to be at least known somewhat..let alone run 1 year of a campaign.

The amount of money spent on campaigning could feed nations!

This would have to change, yet I can understand that many Americans would oppose this thought and probably the reason why it will never be done.

Fair local broadcasting with equal amount of time for all the candidates during campaiging should be funded equally by the tax payers.

Whoa that is not right screams many Americans!

Why isn't it?

Don't you want to hear what a candidate has to say?

I mean how many Americans can even name a third party candidate let alone the name of their party?

Until then Independents only strategy to have their voice heard is to act in accordance of a Republican or Democrat like Ron Paul did and try to win a few votes.

He truly wants to be seen as an independent, yet he registered as a Republican in hopes of having a better chance of winning percentage points because of how strongly and sorry to say uneducated Americans feel about a party's name and not a persons actual idealogy and history of what they achieved as a politician.

I mean look at Congressman Kucinivich. Hate him or like him it makes no difference to me, yet he wanted to attend a campaign debate in Las Vegas with Obama, Clinton, and one other (forgot his darn name) and was denied by the news channel.

So he went to the Supreme Court to complain. In the end he lost and didn't get his interview.

The reason was that the channel decided to only take the three best candidates with the highest approval ratings. Kucinivich was fourth place by the way.

Now my opinion is that all of the Democratic candidates regardless if one only had 100 people voting for him at the moment should be on television next to the most popular ones with equal amount of minutes of debating time given.

Wouldn't that be fair that every presidential candidate should be heard equally on amount of time throughout the campaign process?

I think so, but for some reasons many Americans don't agree.