This would consist of a Democrat and a Republican on the same ticket, one running for President and one for Vice President. They would run against the traditional Democratic and Republican candidates. Do you think this would work?
213715
Most likely not. Most people hate one party or the other and that match would be hated by all. It's unfortunate, but hey, people have their biases. It also seems like a mildly superficial goal. My question is, what exactly would it accomplish except itself?
526384
it comes in at the basic grassroots level of organization...the Democrats are very diverse...environmentalists, bluecollar workers, socialists, libertarian and even moderate conservatives and Constitutionalists.   They contradict each other and cooperate to form a unified (eventually) platform.  I participated in the Iowa caucus several times and understand it to be a free networking of ideas until the conventions where leaders are selected on their platforms thru election.   It is very democratic and free...I see the Republican party built similarly except the platforms are much more confined, the items bigger and fewer because their ideology is based on the ideology that giving to the rich ensures stability of society....the Democrats are basically opposite and believe the workers give the corporations their riches.  In the Democratic party it is much less about a central set of bosses (big moneyed corporations) setting the standards.    I think the original founders of this country wanted a slow, unwieldy government that was forced to act slowly to decide the issues (other than imminent invasion).\n\nThe Democrats and Republicans (in theory) are the perfect set of Yin and Yang this country needs to be balanced.  But, I believe the Democrats would have to be corrupt at the level of the recent Republican scandals to lose in '08...after that the natural tweaking of the direction by the voters consciences will decide to move Right or Left.
141164
The Democrats will do what they always do- attack the other candidate rather than address the issues. They will bury their heads even further into the ground, all the better for when they end up taking it up the *** again. Then they will blame all of the Evil Right Wing Christian Conspirators who are trying to "take over" the country that they are incapable of running themselves.
553012
It's conceivably possible.  Suppose there's a close race and the winning ticket gets, say, 270 electoral votes and the loser get 268.  In such a case, it would only take 2 faithless electors to vote for the losing party's VP nominee over their own in order to get a VP from the other party.  While some states have laws requiring electors to vote for who they're pledged to, not all do so it could happen.\n\nLikewise, in the above example, if those 2 electors were to vote for someone else, so that neither of the 2 VP candidates received a majority of the votes, then the Senate would get to decide which of them (or that random guy that the faithless electors voted for) would get to be Vice-President.  This scenario is probably more likely: imagine that the winning party's VP nominee had some scandal come out about him: some electors might still be required to vote for him, because of the faithless elector laws I noted above, while others would choose not to, and thus failing to give any candidate the majority.
294460
Sounds good but I will tell you the reason it happens, Because it works.\n\nThe people elect the guy who throws mud on the other guy, it's not right but it happens so the other guy throws mud back.\n\nThis is why fewer people vote now because you end up voting against some on and not for anyone.\n\nAnother problem with just getting to gather to fix our problems is that My Idea of how to fix our problems and your Idea (I am just guessing by your question) are complete opposites!  I would probably be against most of what you propose and before you know it we would have a mud slinging campaign ad.\n\nBut it would be nice if they ran on their issues alone and worked together, and brought some honor to politics again.
157238
I would LOVE to see a real opposition party. I don't think it's gonig to happen though. We'll be stuck with the same 2 choices we always have, corruption or corruption.\n\nI hope, but doubt, that the Democrats rediscover enough of their collective spine to actually put forth some workable ideas. If they do it'll be a change for a party that stands for so little these days. \n\nPeople say there are two Americas. I think there are at least three. \n\nOne is Bush's America: an combination of the extreme Christian "neo-conservatives," corporate interests, the growing national police state, and payola. \n\nAnother is the Democratic "left": lots of ideas, but not enough balls to make them happen. \n\nI suspect there's a third America: members of an increasingly radical middle that will become more obvious in the next few years, tolerant of those who are different and aware that the big problems of our times are being ignored -- or made worse -- by those in power today. \n\nThat third America needs a candidate. Or, maybe, a new party.
272603
The track record for third parties in this country has never been one of success. Even the Republican party only became viable after the whigs disbanded. I'm afraid the answer is yes, but not successfully. Americans only have the capacity to understand a binary political system. As long as the majority of the American sheeple continue to blindly toss thier votes away on these bufoons, we won't make any progress.
115402
Depends on their political party
310333
Sounds fantastic!  That is just about every issue out there and covered in a way that the PEOPLE win.  The only opposition is bound to come from those with money to control what happens, and hopefully this idea won't be killed by those jerks!  Long Live America!
666982
The two party system works great when a spirit of compromise exists.  That is what is lacking today.  There is no commom ground.  Our representatives seek our votes on election day and have us believe that we choose the candidate who best serves our interests but as soon as they are elected they serve only the party and the big money lobbyists.  It costs so much to get elected now that one pretty much must sell his soul to the devil just to get his or her message across , let alone to get elected.  We have created a government of extremes where the vast majority of people are centrist our political system represents only left and right it appears.  The question should be not why do they do it but how can we stop it?  Vote, vote against every incumbent and keep kicking the bums out until they get the message
428407
The current three branches of our government are much more like a three ring circus. One of the reasons it is so horribly screwed up is because one party controls all branches. We have a president exceeding his presidential authority and it's because his party who controls the other two branches are letting him. Anyone who thinks one party controlling the government is good for America is delusional, or, doesn't care about their fellow Americans. The past six years should be proof enough to prove the point. We need a turnover, and we need term limits. I was a lifelong Democrat, but dumped them several years ago because I felt they no longer represented me. I am now Independent and happier for it. Each and every election I am contacted by both parties courting my "swing" vote. Vote the person not the party.
494621
The current president (lame duck) would finish his term and the Vice president would assume the presidency. Since this has never happened before, I'm sure someone would try to get a new election in progress.
395033
well, George Washington was vehemently opposed to the idea of political parties, so I'm guessing he wouldn't run with any party.  But I would absolutely vote for him... virtually every aspect of being President comes from Washington's example... the two term limit, appointment of a cabinet.  The guy obviously has vision, but it would be interesting to see what his views on things like abortion and stem cell research would be.  Another reason I'd vote for him is because he's of the opinion that government should be small and unobtrusive.  It's too bad that he won't be running in '08.
382724
I believe the most probable way that a 'viable' third party could form in the United States is if the two main parties stayed polarized to the right (Republicans) and to the left (Democrats).  Therefore, there would be the moderate center where a third party would deem effective.  I'm not sure what this party would call itself, due to the fact that once a party is established, it could no longer call itself, "Independent".\n\nWith this, there would be three parties, Republicans, Democrats, and the center/moderate party.  In this form of government the two current major parties could preach to their masses and the new center/moderate party could appeal to the rest.  \n\nOf course, this would not keep out the other still minor parties (Green, Libertarian, etc.), but they would have a greater impact on elections due to the fact that if the Dems, Repubs, and center party would roughly gather between 20 and 40 % of the vote at any given time, the minor parties would either have to form coalitions with one of the three major parties to have an effect, or their continual 1-5% points in elections could cause one of the three major parties to lose.\n\nThree parties would be great for America and make elections much less about preaching to the to polar ends in non-election years (mid-term/presidential) and to the middle during election years.  The respective parties could preach to their masses the same way every year.
461992
Yes it is possible. If no one gets the required electorial votes to win president but does have "the most" they could still lose the election once it enters the House of Representatives. This is very unlikely in our two party system but if we had a strong third party it is very possible.
440059
Why not??  If they can SPLIT, then there's no reason you can't have two organize themselves into one.\nOur current major parties were once all part of the same party called the "Democratic-Republicans".
519617
hmmm.....don't they have a choice of more then two parties in the u.s,that's called real democracy u know,it does not matter which of the two evils wins both apply the same form of politics.i would agree with you though that the republicans do stand for the rich. (money talks  in a capitalist world)