New political party

[Raider5678]

So, just out of curiosity, how would one go about starting a new political party in the United States?

[MigL]

Just like anything else...

LOTS of money.

[Phi for All]

I would start by laying out your platform, then compare it to existing parties. There are a lot of them, and I would imagine there are some good ones that are waiting for recognition and leadership.

[Raider5678]

I would start by laying out your platform, then compare it to existing parties. There are a lot of them, and I would imagine there are some good ones that are waiting for recognition and leadership.

Alright. I'm looking at current political parties. If I see one that says "A party for the White-American" Can I automatically rule that out as one I would not like to help/work for? Or should I actually read their platform?

[Phi for All]

Alright. I'm looking at current political parties. If I see one that says "A party for the White-American" Can I automatically rule that out as one I would not like to help/work for? Or should I actually read their platform?

 

I too find little overlap between political persuasion and skin color.

[Raider5678]

 

I too find little overlap between political persuasion and skin color.

I'm ignoring ones that open with "Black power" or "White Supremacy!", as well as communist, socialist, Christian, and Muslim.

[iNow]

So, just out of curiosity, how would one go about starting a new political party in the United States?

Study former President Martin van Buren.

 

http://www.biography.com/people/martin-van-buren-9515025

[Raider5678]

Study former President Martin van Buren.

 

http://www.biography.com/people/martin-van-buren-9515025

Very interesting.

[Delta1212]

There are two ways for a person to start a political career and they apply just as well to starting a political party: start local or start with a lot of money behind you.

[Raider5678]

 

I too find little overlap between political persuasion and skin color.

I believe I came up with a good idea that for me would seem like a good political party.

While I don't plan to start it, to me it's interesting to think about.

 

I'm thinking of a political party that opposes getting involved in foreign affairs, unless it affects an ally, or concerns our nations safety. The taxes would be a 10% income tax flat rate across the country, and if you made $500,000 or more a year, 20%.

Investments into renewable energy would be made, as well as trying to get rid of the reliance on fossil fuels.

Massive amounts of money would be put into science, researching diseases, creating new technology, and attempting to make this nation the most technologically advanced nation on earth.

The U.S. military uses 660 billion dollars. I would drastically cut that amount as much as I could, and over the course of years, lower the size of the military.

A lot of money would be put into researching mechanical ways of defending a country, so ground troops would be limited.

To help fix poverty, jobs would be given to the poor working on large government contracts, such as building renewable energy sources, and other changes.

The focus on science and advancement would be huge. With the attempt to have a space program 100 times larger then every other country(Not unlike the cold war, except not focusing on nukes.)

People would not be excluded because of race or religion on entering the country, but the number of people allowed to enter would be severely lowered until these changes finished taking place.

There are two ways for a person to start a political career and they apply just as well to starting a political party: start local or start with a lot of money behind you.

What if it were to start online, and get support from a few well known people? Those parties tend to die out pretty quick, but you could attempt to make it actually seem appealing.

People seem to be dug in with either being Democrat or Republican, and then renounce most other parties.

You have to create one that is taking a whole new perspective, or everyone will just ignore you. Like most minor parties.

There are two ways for a person to start a political career and they apply just as well to starting a political party: start local or start with a lot of money behind you.

So what would be your first step?

Run for local office?

[Sensei]

I'm thinking of a political party that opposes getting involved in foreign affairs, unless it affects an ally, or concerns our nations safety. The taxes would be a 10% income tax flat rate across the country, and if you made $500,000 or more a year, 20%.

Investments into renewable energy would be made, as well as trying to get rid of the reliance on fossil fuels.

Massive amounts of money would be put into science, researching diseases, creating new technology, and attempting to make this nation the most technologically advanced nation on earth.

The U.S. military uses 660 billion dollars. I would drastically cut that amount as much as I could, and over the course of years, lower the size of the military.

A lot of money would be put into researching mechanical ways of defending a country, so ground troops would be limited.

To help fix poverty, jobs would be given to the poor working on large government contracts, such as building renewable energy sources, and other changes.

The focus on science and advancement would be huge. With the attempt to have a space program 100 times larger then every other country(Not unlike the cold war, except not focusing on nukes.)

People would not be excluded because of race or religion on entering the country, but the number of people allowed to enter would be severely lowered until these changes finished taking place.

 

Your party program sounds fine.

But you didn't include in this education.

Free of charge high quality education for everybody.

That's key for having modern, equal, intellectual and technological advanced society.

 

Your party program will upset a lot of lobby groups, starting from gas & oil industry, weapon producers, soldiers and ex-soldiers.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Sensei

[Delta1212]

I believe I came up with a good idea that for me would seem like a good political party.

While I don't plan to start it, to me it's interesting to think about.

 

I'm thinking of a political party that opposes getting involved in foreign affairs, unless it affects an ally, or concerns our nations safety. The taxes would be a 10% income tax flat rate across the country, and if you made $500,000 or more a year, 20%.

Investments into renewable energy would be made, as well as trying to get rid of the reliance on fossil fuels.

Massive amounts of money would be put into science, researching diseases, creating new technology, and attempting to make this nation the most technologically advanced nation on earth.

The U.S. military uses 660 billion dollars. I would drastically cut that amount as much as I could, and over the course of years, lower the size of the military.

A lot of money would be put into researching mechanical ways of defending a country, so ground troops would be limited.

To help fix poverty, jobs would be given to the poor working on large government contracts, such as building renewable energy sources, and other changes.

The focus on science and advancement would be huge. With the attempt to have a space program 100 times larger then every other country(Not unlike the cold war, except not focusing on nukes.)

People would not be excluded because of race or religion on entering the country, but the number of people allowed to enter would be severely lowered until these changes finished taking place.

 

What if it were to start online, and get support from a few well known people? Those parties tend to die out pretty quick, but you could attempt to make it actually seem appealing.

People seem to be dug in with either being Democrat or Republican, and then renounce most other parties.

You have to create one that is taking a whole new perspective, or everyone will just ignore you. Like most minor parties.

 

So what would be your first step?

Run for local office?

Yes, running for local office would be a good first step.

 

There is a tendency to want to think that if you could just figure out the right message that would speak to people, you could send it out and people would flock to it. People don't avoid the minor third parties in the US because they lack a distinctive identity or perspective. They avoid them because they never win.

 

There are plenty of celebrity endorsements of the Libertarians or the Greens. It doesn't make much of a difference. You don't win by having appealing ideas. You win by making people believe that you can win.

 

Imagine you're starting a business and you need to attract investors. You don't walk into a meeting and tell them that you have a great idea. You're going to start a multinational company with dozens of subsidiaries and brand holdings that are each worth billions of dollars. Getting in on the ground floor of something like that is an investor's dream. That's how fortunes are made. It's a very appealing idea.

 

But nobody is going to give you money because they aren't going to believe that you are capable of actually pulling it off. You can speak to everything a person wants and hopes for and still fail to gain their support because it's a better bet for them to back the person who promises half of what they want and is capable of delivering it than the person who promises everything they want and is incapable of delivering any of it.

 

If you want investors, you get a loan for a single restaurant location. Then you prove you can make money on it and then it's even easier to get money for a second location. Then a franchise. Then you expand to multiple regions and then countries and so on. At each level of expansion, you can attract support based on your successes in the level before.

 

If you want to build a political movement without massive funding right from the start, you need to start with similar "proof of concept" successes. Get some people elected to a state legislature, or even on a county or city/town level if that's what you can manage at first. Something to show voters that you have candidates who can win elections and that voting for you isn't throwing their vote away on a pipe dream.

 

Unfortunately, doing that sort of thing also requires real-world leg work. You can't spark a movement from the comfort of your bedroom behind a computer screen. You need to meet people face to face. Attend open legislative sessions. Find out what issues are relevant and being debated by actual people. Get in touch with the kind of people who actually show up to protests and meetings and who will be willing to volunteer and go door to door to canvas for a candidate.

 

This is not easy stuff to pull off and people make entire careers out of this sort of thing. One of the primary reasons that people stick with Ds and Rs is that it takes a lot of manpower and infrastructure to get people elected, and it's easier to work within an established organization that has all of that at its disposal than it is to start it all from scratch.

[Raider5678]

 

Your party program sounds fine.

But you didn't include in this education.

Free of charge high quality education for everybody.

That's key for having modern, equal, intellectual and technological advanced society.

 

Your party program will upset a lot of lobby groups, starting from gas & oil industry, weapon producers, soldiers and ex-soldiers.

Veteran's would get revamped and easier to get aid. The current one I've heard is a pain in the ass to get money from.

 

What about simply increasing high school by two years, and mostly allowing them to choose what ever they want to major in? Like a post high school, and making sure everyone has the same options (so small towns don't get like 3 options while the cities don't get 50)

Yes, running for local office would be a good first step.

 

There is a tendency to want to think that if you could just figure out the right message that would speak to people, you could send it out and people would flock to it. People don't avoid the minor third parties in the US because they lack a distinctive identity or perspective. They avoid them because they never win.

 

There are plenty of celebrity endorsements of the Libertarians or the Greens. It doesn't make much of a difference. You don't win by having appealing ideas. You win by making people believe that you can win.

 

Imagine you're starting a business and you need to attract investors. You don't walk into a meeting and tell them that you have a great idea. You're going to start a multinational company with dozens of subsidiaries and brand holdings that are each worth billions of dollars. Getting in on the ground floor of something like that is an investor's dream. That's how fortunes are made. It's a very appealing idea.

 

But nobody is going to give you money because they aren't going to believe that you are capable of actually pulling it off. You can speak to everything a person wants and hopes for and still fail to gain their support because it's a better bet for them to back the person who promises half of what they want and is capable of delivering it than the person who promises everything they want and is incapable of delivering any of it.

 

If you want investors, you get a loan for a single restaurant location. Then you prove you can make money on it and then it's even easier to get money for a second location. Then a franchise. Then you expand to multiple regions and then countries and so on. At each level of expansion, you can attract support based on your successes in the level before.

 

If you want to build a political movement without massive funding right from the start, you need to start with similar "proof of concept" successes. Get some people elected to a state legislature, or even on a county or city/town level if that's what you can manage at first. Something to show voters that you have candidates who can win elections and that voting for you isn't throwing their vote away on a pipe dream.

 

Unfortunately, doing that sort of thing also requires real-world leg work. You can't spark a movement from the comfort of your bedroom behind a computer screen. You need to meet people face to face. Attend open legislative sessions. Find out what issues are relevant and being debated by actual people. Get in touch with the kind of people who actually show up to protests and meetings and who will be willing to volunteer and go door to door to canvas for a candidate.

 

This is not easy stuff to pull off and people make entire careers out of this sort of thing. One of the primary reasons that people stick with Ds and Rs is that it takes a lot of manpower and infrastructure to get people elected, and it's easier to work within an established organization that has all of that at its disposal than it is to start it all from scratch.

Most minor parties don't have anyone elected.

Then, most don't know they exist.

 

 

I agree with your premise, most don't think minor parties can win.

Trying to convince them otherwise is like trying to convince them that a Mexican invasion of the United States would succeed.

Possible, but highly unlikely.

[Sensei]

Veteran's would get revamped and easier to get aid. The current one I've heard is a pain in the ass to get money from.

 

There is no money on the Earth to help somebody fix their mental problems after horrible trauma..

[Delta1212]

Veteran's would get revamped and easier to get aid. The current one I've heard is a pain in the ass to get money from.

 

What about simply increasing high school by two years, and mostly allowing them to choose what ever they want to major in? Like a post high school, and making sure everyone has the same options (so small towns don't get like 3 options while the cities don't get 50)

 

Most minor parties don't have anyone elected.

Then, most don't know they exist.

 

 

I agree with your premise, most don't think minor parties can win.

Trying to convince them otherwise is like trying to convince them that a Mexican invasion of the United States would succeed.

Possible, but highly unlikely.

It is much, much easier to get elected at the local level without the support of a major party than it is in the national level. That's more about local networking and campaigning on specific locally relevant issues rather than over-arching ideology. Local elections, especially ones in off years, have fairly small numbers of voters. It's possible for a smaller organization to coordinate the kind of face time with voters needed to get their candidate a decent chance of winning them over that anyone outside the major parties simply can't pull off in a nationwide scale.

 

The people who do vote in the local election also tend to be more engaged and are more likely to vote on specific issues that directly and immediately affect them like schools and property taxes. If you can find a local problem, it's much easier to get people behind you on solving that problem than it is on trying to develop a national brand that people trust that out of the gate.

 

If that's your benchmark for success, yeah. You're going to fall flat.

[Sensei]

What about simply increasing high school by two years,

Quality of study is more important than length of study. But if somebody is overloaded with work, increased time, might help him/her finish it.

If somebody remembers answers for exam, and the next day, week, or month, forget everything, it's pointless education.

Student has to remember knowledge. Only in the worst case, remember how to regain it, searching net, or books.

[iNow]

Better to end the summer break in schools

[Sensei]

Better to end the summer break in schools

Poor students use summer break to earn money for the rest of year..

(which disallows them to fully recover after year at school)

Edited March 21, 2017 by Sensei

[iNow]

Think about how much less poor they could be over the course of their lifetimes if they were afforded a better education. Try not to be penny-wise but pound-foolish on this. Regardless, we should stop being off topic.

[Ten oz]

So, just out of curiosity, how would one go about starting a new political party in the United States?

We have a 2 party system but both parties evolve. Obama's policies were more in line with Nixon and Eisenhower than are Trump's despite party affiliation. To create new parties what groups have done is sought to hijack/exploit one of the 2 major parties. The Tea Party (faux grassroots movement) successfully took over the Republican Party. There success has been root in singular isues that sharply divide people based on identity racial and religious. Reagan gave amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants, Bush 43 sought to pass a guess worker program, but now Trump wants to deport millions and build a wall. We also saw it on the left why a strong group supporting Sanders (himself a registered independent) sought to take the nomination and shape the direction of the party. How success their efforts were or will be has yet to be determined.

 

It has been bad for the Country and the 2 parties inmy opinion. Because rather than revitalizing political debate with fresh ideas the attempts to reshape the parties over time have made the parties less diverse. The republican party increasingly serves an ever shrinking group of people (white christian males with money) while the Democratic party is being pulled into the false choice of either being universally moderate or transformationally progressive.

 

So the answer to your question is that people have to first stop going for the homerun of taking over one of the 2 mojor parties. A "new" party should be new and not merely an attempt to reband something else. That way the party is free to bring in new ideas. It order to make that possible people need to feel they aren't throwing away voting for something other than the two major parties. We need rank choice voting. Rather than voting for a single candidate one ranks a couple. If a person's #1 pick doesn't win their vote goes to their #2 choice. If people could exercise choice without it merely being a protest vote I think new party would spring up.

[Raider5678]

We have a 2 party system but both parties evolve. Obama's policies were more in line with Nixon and Eisenhower than are Trump's despite party affiliation. To create new parties what groups have done is sought to hijack/exploit one of the 2 major parties. The Tea Party (faux grassroots movement) successfully took over the Republican Party. There success has been root in singular isues that sharply divide people based on identity racial and religious. Reagan gave amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants, Bush 43 sought to pass a guess worker program, but now Trump wants to deport millions and build a wall. We also saw it on the left why a strong group supporting Sanders (himself a registered independent) sought to take the nomination and shape the direction of the party. How success their efforts were or will be has yet to be determined.

 

It has been bad for the Country and the 2 parties inmy opinion. Because rather than revitalizing political debate with fresh ideas the attempts to reshape the parties over time have made the parties less diverse. The republican party increasingly serves an ever shrinking group of people (white christian males with money) while the Democratic party is being pulled into the false choice of either being universally moderate or transformationally progressive.

 

So the answer to your question is that people have to first stop going for the homerun of taking over one of the 2 mojor parties. A "new" party should be new and not merely an attempt to reband something else. That way the party is free to bring in new ideas. It order to make that possible people need to feel they aren't throwing away voting for something other than the two major parties. We need rank choice voting. Rather than voting for a single candidate one ranks a couple. If a person's #1 pick doesn't win their vote goes to their #2 choice. If people could exercise choice without it merely being a protest vote I think new party would spring up.

For once, I agree.

Still going to be difficult.

Would my idea of a party type of thing, which I posted above, count as a "new party" that isn't a re-branding? Or is it actually a re-branding that I don't see?

[Ten oz]

For once, I agree.

Still going to be difficult.

Would my idea of a party type of thing, which I posted above, count as a "new party" that isn't a re-branding? Or is it actually a re-branding that I don't see?

You haven't purposed a new party much as listed policy positions. Each of those positions can be debated (most are) within the structure we currently have. We already have politicians on both side who only want military use for protection and nothing else. Already want to cut DOD's budget, change tax rates, and etc. All of our systems (education, military, infastructure, etc) has been built by our 2 party system. I think a new political party needs to re-imagine those things to an extent and not merely snip around the edges as outlined by the major parties. Currently the Libertarian party does that. Not that I agree with their platform, I do not! But they do take a different appoarch.

[Delta1212]

For once, I agree.

Still going to be difficult.

Would my idea of a party type of thing, which I posted above, count as a "new party" that isn't a re-branding? Or is it actually a re-branding that I don't see?

Doesn't seem like a rebranding, although I do seem some issues.

 

Your tax plan is effectively a massive tax cut pretty much across the board. The only bracket that would see an increase would be those who don't pay any taxes now because they don't make enough to get above the standard deduction. Even with your proposed military cuts, you're not going to offset the inflated budget deficit you'd create unless you cut into Medicare and Social Security, and you certainly wouldn't have enough left over for the massive spending you're proposing be poured into your research/infrastructure/jobs program.

 

I'm also a little unclear on the reasoning behind restricting immigration specifically during the implementation phase of the programs you describe, as I'm not sure how the one impacts the other.

[Ten oz]

Doesn't seem like a rebranding, although I do seem some issues.

 

Your tax plan is effectively a massive tax cut pretty much across the board. The only bracket that would see an increase would be those who don't pay any taxes now because they don't make enough to get above the standard deduction. Even with your proposed military cuts, you're not going to offset the inflated budget deficit you'd create unless you cut into Medicare and Social Security, and you certainly wouldn't have enough left over for the massive spending you're proposing be poured into your research/infrastructure/jobs program.

 

I'm also a little unclear on the reasoning behind restricting immigration specifically during the implementation phase of the programs you describe, as I'm not sure how the one impacts the other.

One big problem I see with nearly all tax proposals is tha the numbers are arbitrary. Come up with because they seem fair. The country already has responsibilities. We already have bills. Taxes are where we get the money to pay those bills. We can't just arbitrarily round off tax numbers to make them seem more suitable. Any change in tax policy needs to still produce the minimum dollars to allow our govt to pay its bills. Those are tough numbers to crunch and people haven't been willing to crunch them which is one of the reasons why we perpetually run deficits which ultimately are more expensive.

[Delta1212]

One big problem I see with nearly all tax proposals is tha the numbers are arbitrary. Come up with because they seem fair. The country already has responsibilities. We already have bills. Taxes are where we get the money to pay those bills. We can't just arbitrarily round off tax numbers to make them seem more suitable. Any change in tax policy needs to still produce the minimum dollars to allow our govt to pay its bills. Those are tough numbers to crunch and people haven't been willing to crunch them which is one of the reasons why we perpetually run deficits which ultimately are more expensive.

Well, they aren't necessarily more expensive, but it depends on how you spend the money. A social program that generates $2 for every $1 spent is a good investment even if you have to borrow money with interest payments to fund it.

 

In general though, yes. Our current spending is based on what programs and services people want, and our taxes are based on what people want to pay. And there is very little effort to get the two to line up.

 

Cutting popular programs isn't popular and raising taxes to pay for them also isn't popular, so neither gets done and we continue running a deficit, which again, isn't popular.