Why don't third parties work?

[K.C.]

Does it really just come down to money?

Is it the fact that the two parties are SO big these days that there's just too big a chunk of the voting populace invested in the viability of the parties?

It's kind of curious...you'd think someone would breakthrough every so often. Once in a while, you'll see an Independent break through...but almost never do you see a Libertarian, or a Greenie, or a Constituionalist, or whatever break through...you'd think it would happen somewhere. The last legitimate third party candidate on any level I even remember being close to winning was the the Green Party candidate Matt Gonzales in the San Francisco mayoral election a few years back.

[pennington]

A real third party would have to start on the local level. Begin at the cities then go for the county, state assembly, state senate, U.S. Congress and Senate to build up recognition and the party apparatus. Get on ballots then go for the top job. The problem is they go right for the presidency.

Libertarians and the Green Party have gotten a person here and there elected but it seems like they lose interest and head back to the Republicans and Democrats. This is a long term, even lifetime, commitment. People want instant results.

[DolaMight]

I'd guess the two parties are too all encompassing. They range from hard to moderate left and right and cover all popular political stances.

Campaign financing is a big problem too. It takes too much money to win. Corps are tied into both parties too heavily.

3rd parties always try establish themselves in the prez elections. For a 3rd party to become viable they should start smaller and try to get some congressmen and senators elected to build a small presence in congress and establish a brand name. Then on the occasion when the two other parties are deadlocked in a tight vote they would have the power to swing the decision one way or another. During those times they'd be in the mainstream news and could use it as platform to establish themselves. Make enough good votes and use it as a launchpad to go for the white house.

[epo]

It really comes down to the strength of the national organizations. As much as people may disagree with the Dems & the Repubs...they provide their candidates with a solid brand, people power & a greater ability to raise money.

You simply can't deny that fact.

As Pennington stated, you see a lot of candidates and officials at local levels who aren't your normal two-party political animals...and that's a very good thing. But those third parties simply don't have (and don't seem be willing to invest the time) to create a new party from the ground up. It would probably take a good 20-30 year plan, but it seriously could be done.

America would be so interesting with a good viable 3-5 party system.

[DolaMight]

A real third party would have to start on the local level. Begin at the cities then go for the county, state assembly, state senate, U.S. Congress and Senate to build up recognition and the party apparatus. Get on ballots then go for the top job. The problem is they go right for the presidency.

Libertarians and the Green Party have gotten a person here and there elected but it seems like they lose interest and head back to the Republicans and Democrats. This is a long term, even lifetime, commitment. People want instant results.

I should have read the thread before responding. What he said.

Here in canada we have the liberals, conservatives, NDP and BQ in power right now. Other than the first two they're constantly changing. Every 10-20 years some new party builds up and eventually takes a legitimate shot at the top spot. gotta start smaller.

[earthbrown]

because 90% of the population is so fucking stupid that they only vote democrat or republican....

When I vote I vote on the issues each candidate posed in the campaign, if I dont know about the race, I vote for the non-incumbent, no matter what party it is.

I think there should be a 2 term limit on EVERY office.

and representatives should not be allowed to take the campaign fund when they leave.


K

[epo]

because 90% of the population is so fucking stupid that they only vote democrat or republican....

When I vote I vote on the issues each candidate posed in the campaign, if I dont know about the race, I vote for the non-incumbent, no matter what party it is.

I think there should be a 2 term limit on EVERY office.

and representatives should not be allowed to take the campaign fund when they leave.

K

Why would you accuse the general public of being stupid for voting only for a mainstream party candidate AND vote only for non-incumbents for races that you have no clue about? Your methodology of voting in that case is no less ignorant than voting by party.

http://ganjataz.com/general-bollocks/images/by-GT/forum-shitz/pot-kettle-black.jpg

[Recyclerz]

IMO, it's because of the structure of our federal government. Most other industrial democracies have pure parlimentary governments where the chief executive is the prime minister who is the head of the party that can put together a majority. In that kind of system, smaller third parties (often one issue parties) can have real leverage and deliver political goodies to their followers, in either policy or swag. Since we elect the executive separately from Congress, I think it is a lot more likely that we can elect an independent president than we can get a true third party in Congress or at the local level since the resources that would have to be invested would be huge before you started gaining any political payback from the new party so it is kind of a waste of time. At the presidential level, somebody with a ton of cash and/or name recognition and public good will (think Bloomberg or George Clooney) can make an end run around the party system and make their case to the voters. Still tough but conceivable.

[Fezticle98]

Has much to do with our system being winner-take-all, rather than proportional representation.

[K.C.]

I'd guess the two parties are too all encompassing. They range from hard to moderate left and right and cover all popular political stances.

Campaign financing is a big problem too. It takes too much money to win. Corps are tied into both parties too heavily.

3rd parties always try establish themselves in the prez elections. For a 3rd party to become viable they should start smaller and try to get some congressmen and senators elected to build a small presence in congress and establish a brand name. Then on the occasion when the two other parties are deadlocked in a tight vote they would have the power to swing the decision one way or another. During those times they'd be in the mainstream news and could use it as platform to establish themselves. Make enough good votes and use it as a launchpad to go for the white house.

I would think that there's areas that transcend the two parties that would be very appealing to segments of the population.

For instance, I would think there would be a HUGE market for a economically liberal/socially conservative party in the Midwest and South (i.e. pro-union, pro-life).



While I think it's wise that third parties build from the local level up...it's just as hard a lot of times to win local elections. There's so much of an 'old-boys' built in network for Democrats and Republicans in a lot of local offices that it's the same people voting every time the same way.

To win local elections as a third party, you almost have to tap into the community, register a large number of new voters and get them behind you.

[K.C.]

Has much to do with our system being winner-take-all, rather than proportional representation.

Excellent point...that's a big obstacle to shutting out third parties of any type of national platform.

[Yerdaddy]

Most of the resons on here are valid. But a bigger problem is this: most of the European, Australian and Canadian friends I've made in the last three years know more about OUR government and how it works than most Americans I've known. Personally I don't think Americans in general are politically sophisticated enough to handle more than two parties - and we don't manage our two-party system very well to begin with.

[high fly]

Does it really just come down to money?

Is it the fact that the two parties are SO big these days that there's just too big a chunk of the voting populace invested in the viability of the parties?

It's kind of curious...you'd think someone would breakthrough every so often. Once in a while, you'll see an Independent break through...but almost never do you see a Libertarian, or a Greenie, or a Constituionalist, or whatever break through...you'd think it would happen somewhere. The last legitimate third party candidate on any level I even remember being close to winning was the the Green Party candidate Matt Gonzales in the San Francisco mayoral election a few years back.

Didn't Lieberman run as an independent?
And isn't Representative Bernie Sanders a Socialist?
Third party candidates can win at the local level, and do sometimes.

While it's far from perfect, I am happy with the two-party system.
Imagine if a third party was able to consistently pull, say, 20% of the vote in national elections.
That party would be able to play "kingmaker" and would have more power and influence relative to the percentage of the population it represents....

[epo]

Didn't Lieberman run as an independent?
And isn't Representative Bernie Sanders a Socialist?
Third party candidates can win at the local level, and do sometimes.

While it's far from perfect, I am happy with the two-party system.
Imagine if a third party was able to consistently pull, say, 20% of the vote in national elections.
That party would be able to play "kingmaker" and would have more power and influence relative to the percentage of the population it represents....

Lieberman had a "brand" in Connecticut and it could be argued that he won via the power of that name recognition.

Sanders though, is a real interesting case. He runs as an independent, but is a self-described "democratic socialist". Because he caucuses with the Democratic Party, the democrats don't run a serious candidate against him.

Could Sanders' ability to have launched be due to the size of Vermont? Maybe there is something to smaller geographical states having the ability to elect a non-party candidate?

[A.J.]

While it's far from perfect, I am happy with the two-party system.
Imagine if a third party was able to consistently pull, say, 20% of the vote in national elections.
That party would be able to play "kingmaker" and would have more power and influence relative to the percentage of the population it represents....

Which is why Italy has had 60 governments since the end of World War II.

[DolaMight]

Didn't Lieberman run as an independent?
And isn't Representative Bernie Sanders a Socialist?
Third party candidates can win at the local level, and do sometimes.

While it's far from perfect, I am happy with the two-party system.
Imagine if a third party was able to consistently pull, say, 20% of the vote in national elections.
That party would be able to play "kingmaker" and would have more power and influence relative to the percentage of the population it represents....

That's a good point because that happens here constantly. The Tories (Center-right - 40% of the house) are in power with a minority government (they have the most votes but have less than 51% to control the house) the liberals(center-left - 30%) are the official opposition. To get a bill to pass the Tories have to make deals with other parties to make things happen. The NDP(FAR-left) always gets about 10% of the house.

What always happens is the right wing party has to group up with the FAR-left party to get a bill past the left-wing party. It almost always ends with the conservative bill passed with huge excessive spending in a riding where the NDP is trying to gain ground. It's fucking crazy.

The worst is when they have to make a deal with the Bloc Quebecois(15% control). They have to make concessions with a party whose sole goal is to ceseed and split up the country. They end up passing a bill intended to improve the well being of canadians which at the same time provides indirect funding to break the country apart.

[Zorro]

Most of the resons on here are valid. But a bigger problem is this: most of the European, Australian and Canadian friends I've made in the last three years know more about OUR government and how it works than most Americans I've known. Personally I don't think Americans in general are politically sophisticated enough to handle more than two parties - and we don't manage our two-party system very well to begin with.

Is this really a fair comparison? Chances are you a connecting with well educated Canadians, Europeans etc. I can remember poll after poll that shows canadians know more about the US than their own country.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

I don't mean to just speak out my ass, but I've not slept in 34 hours so forgive me as I do not do as I say and not give a shit about that are ya lost yet this run on sentence sucks ass.

Not even Teddy Roosevelt could get the fucking 3rd party going when people were hugely disaffected with the two parties. I'd say the problem is lack of funds or something, but that too is bullshit. People like to bet on the favorites, and you've got a better chance of feeling like you mean something if the chances of the guy you picking winning are 50%.

That and wasn't post WW-I Germany full of numerous political parties? Maybe 2 party systems ain't so bad... just sayin'...

[CofyCrakCocaine]

Is this really a fair comparison? Chances are you a connecting with well educated Canadians, Europeans etc. I can remember poll after poll that shows canadians know more about the US than their own country.

Any people who collectively disregards a perfectly beautiful thing like a locked door into their lives to me is a little out there. :huh:

[MobCounty]

I think it's pretty simple. With two parties you are guaranteed that it will take more than 50% of the voting population to control the results of the election.

If we had 4 parties, it would be easy to picture someone winning an election with only 30% of the vote. That would leave 70% of the population disgruntled and potentially problematic.

[ShowerBench]

Does it really just come down to money?

Is it the fact that the two parties are SO big these days that there's just too big a chunk of the voting populace invested in the viability of the parties?

It's kind of curious...you'd think someone would breakthrough every so often. Once in a while, you'll see an Independent break through...but almost never do you see a Libertarian, or a Greenie, or a Constituionalist, or whatever break through...you'd think it would happen somewhere. The last legitimate third party candidate on any level I even remember being close to winning was the the Green Party candidate Matt Gonzales in the San Francisco mayoral election a few years back.

I'd say money, organization, and the fact that there is no real clamoring for a third party, since in every election now we get formidible hybrid candidates like Giuliani.

[high fly]

Hey, thanks A.J. and DolaMite!

[Devo37]

usually, it's some sort of conflict between the third-party component and the operating system. :blink:

[Yerdaddy]

Is this really a fair comparison? Chances are you a connecting with well educated Canadians, Europeans etc. I can remember poll after poll that shows canadians know more about the US than their own country.

Not necessarily. Every developed country travels more than we do and the less educated people I've met still know more about both their own and our political system. We scored dead last in two geography tests given to developed nations by National Geographic. I'm told all the time that our political and news TV freaks other countries out by how juvenile, sensational and divisive our political culture is. I can't think of a single measure by which we can be shown to be above-average among our peers in political maturity. Can you?

[Reynolds]

I think it's pretty simple. With two parties you are guaranteed that it will take more than 50% of the voting population to control the results of the election.

If we had 4 parties, it would be easy to picture someone winning an election with only 30% of the vote. That would leave 70% of the population disgruntled and potentially problematic.

Think this pretty much sums it up. If there was a way to replace primaries with a way to pick two candidates for the final election, no matter what party they were in, it might work.

[A.J.]

I can't think of a single measure by which we can be shown to be above-average among our peers in political maturity. Can you?

Hottest chicks in politics?

http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Scary%20Hillary%20Clinton.jpg

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/images/Nancy%20Pelosi.jpg

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/members/photos/228/D000216.jpg

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/178052main_walk_sen_10.jpg

[Zorro]

Not necessarily. Every developed country travels more than we do and the less educated people I've met still know more about both their own and our political system. We scored dead last in two geography tests given to developed nations by National Geographic. I'm told all the time that our political and news TV freaks other countries out by how juvenile, sensational and divisive our political culture is. I can't think of a single measure by which we can be shown to be above-average among our peers in political maturity. Can you?

never said we were above average...just average...

[Yerdaddy]

never said we were above average...just average...

Sorry, but we're neither.

[Zorro]

Sorry, but we're neither.


Compared to what canadians who think Lincoln was a PM or the English who have no idea who Churchill was...we're no geniuses, but neither are average citizens anywhere else in the world.

[Yerdaddy]

Compared to what canadians who think Lincoln was a PM or the English who have no idea who Churchill was...we're no geniuses, but neither are average citizens anywhere else in the world.

National Geographic - Roper 2002 Global Geographic Literacy Survey [PDF] (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey/download/RoperSurvey.pdf)

The U.S. ranked second to last of the nine countries studied, with an average of 23 correct answers (or 41%) to 56 questions. This equates to a grade of D on the quiz. Mexico ranked lowest, with an average of 21 correct.

NUMBER OF CORRECT ANSWERS - OF POSSIBLE 56

Sweden 40
Germany 38
Italy 38
France 34
Japan 31
Great Britain 28
Canada 27
U.S. 23
Mexico 21

Mexico isn't even a developed country, so we're last place amongst our peers.

This is an extremely basic geography quiz related to countries in the news and the countries involved in the quiz. Regarding our knowledge of facts about our own country, we suck. For example:

Only 25% of Americans guessed our own population right, (the correct answer was "150 to 350 million"), compared to 95% of Swedes and 84% of Japanese who got their own populations right. 30% of Americans said we had between 1 and 2 billion people.

In fact every other country knew our population better than we did - with 9% more Mexicans getting the question right than we did (34%) and 30% more Swedes (55% got it right).

On the question naming Afghanistan as the base of the Taliban and al-Qaeda Americans scored dead last. This was taken in 2002. 58% of Americans got the question compared to second-to-last, Mexico, and first place Sweden and Great Britain with 84%. Did I mention this was taken in 2002? We were at war in Afghanistan but our citizens knew less about the fundamental fact of why we were there, (uhhh... because that's where al-Qaeda and the Taliban are), than every other developed country.

Name Cuba as the Western Hemisphere's only communist country: we scored third from last.

Name EU as organization endorsing the Euro: we scored dead last - 20 points behind next worst Mexico.

Name four countries with acknowledged nucelar weapons: third to last.

In the survey portion we were revealed to be most heavily dependent on TV for news - naming newspapers, internet, radio and magazines as news sources less than any other country, (except that Mexicans read newspapers slightly less).

In short, this study shows that American are dumber than our peers on the very basic questions of politics and geography. For fucks sake, only 58% of Americans knew the Taliban and al-Qaeda were in Afghanistan in 2002???!!! Think that had anything to do with so many willing to believe the bullshit that they were in Iraq? We're morons and we need to at least reach the point where we know we're morons so that maybe we'll start to try to change that fact - since we are in everybody else's shit more than any other country. Don't you think?

And, yes, I do think this is a reflection of how well we understand our own political system and politics in general.

[A.J.]

In short, this study shows that American are dumber than our peers on the very basic questions of politics and geography. For fucks sake, only 58% of Americans knew the Taliban and al-Qaeda were in Afghanistan in 2002???!!! Think that had anything to do with so many willing to believe the bullshit that they were in Iraq? We're morons and we need to at least reach the point where we know we're morons so that maybe we'll start to try to change that fact - since we are in everybody else's shit more than any other country. Don't you think?

This explains the popularity of the "Jaywalking" segment on The Tonight Show.

[Yerdaddy]

This explains the popularity of the "Jaywalking" segment on The Tonight Show.

Which was just labeled "educational broadcasting" by the FCC.

[K.C.]

National Geographic - Roper 2002 Global Geographic Literacy Survey [PDF] (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey/download/RoperSurvey.pdf)





Mexico isn't even a developed country, so we're last place amongst our peers.

This is an extremely basic geography quiz related to countries in the news and the countries involved in the quiz. Regarding our knowledge of facts about our own country, we suck. For example:

Only 25% of Americans guessed our own population right, (the correct answer was "150 to 350 million"), compared to 95% of Swedes and 84% of Japanese who got their own populations right. 30% of Americans said we had between 1 and 2 billion people.

In fact every other country knew our population better than we did - with 9% more Mexicans getting the question right than we did (34%) and 30% more Swedes (55% got it right).

On the question naming Afghanistan as the base of the Taliban and al-Qaeda Americans scored dead last. This was taken in 2002. 58% of Americans got the question compared to second-to-last, Mexico, and first place Sweden and Great Britain with 84%. Did I mention this was taken in 2002? We were at war in Afghanistan but our citizens knew less about the fundamental fact of why we were there, (uhhh... because that's where al-Qaeda and the Taliban are), than every other developed country.

Name Cuba as the Western Hemisphere's only communist country: we scored third from last.

Name EU as organization endorsing the Euro: we scored dead last - 20 points behind next worst Mexico.

Name four countries with acknowledged nucelar weapons: third to last.

In the survey portion we were revealed to be most heavily dependent on TV for news - naming newspapers, internet, radio and magazines as news sources less than any other country, (except that Mexicans read newspapers slightly less).

In short, this study shows that American are dumber than our peers on the very basic questions of politics and geography. For fucks sake, only 58% of Americans knew the Taliban and al-Qaeda were in Afghanistan in 2002???!!! Think that had anything to do with so many willing to believe the bullshit that they were in Iraq? We're morons and we need to at least reach the point where we know we're morons so that maybe we'll start to try to change that fact - since we are in everybody else's shit more than any other country. Don't you think?

And, yes, I do think this is a reflection of how well we understand our own political system and politics in general.

Yep...we're Sparta...Eurpore is Athens.

[K.C.]

This explains the popularity of the "Jaywalking" segment on The Tonight Show.

I was actually just about to bring this up...for people who say "Well, there was that article that 1 in 4 Brits don't believe Churchill existed."

Watch that...it reflects even worse on us. I can't tell you how many people think Dick Cheney is the Penguin.

I mean, granted...he ACTS like a Supervillian...and does look like him...but know your VP, people...damn...

[A.J.]

This explains the popularity of the "Jaywalking" segment on The Tonight Show.

Which was just labeled "educational broadcasting" by the FCC.

I was actually just about to bring this up...for people who say "Well, there was that article that 1 in 4 Brits don't believe Churchill existed."

Watch that...it reflects even worse on us. I can't tell you how many people think Dick Cheney is the Penguin.

I mean, granted...he ACTS like a Supervillian...and does look like him...but know your VP, people...damn...

It boggles my mind that your average dullard can't identify their elected officials yet they know which is the latest guy getting his cock sucked by Paris Hilton.

[Recyclerz]

It boggles my mind that your average dullard can't identify their elected officials yet they know which is the latest guy getting his cock sucked by Paris Hilton.

I suggest Monica Lewinski never got her full props for combining the two worlds. :wink:

[scottinnj]

Yeah she did. Ever take a look at her? She got all the attention she deserved. Hugh Heffner was wise to pass on a photoshoot with her.

[high fly]

In short, this study shows that American are dumber than our peers on the very basic questions of politics and geography. For fucks sake, only 58% of Americans knew the Taliban and al-Qaeda were in Afghanistan in 2002???!!! Think that had anything to do with so many willing to believe the bullshit that they were in Iraq? We're morons and we need to at least reach the point where we know we're morons so that maybe we'll start to try to change that fact - since we are in everybody else's shit more than any other country. Don't you think?

And, yes, I do think this is a reflection of how well we understand our own political system and politics in general.


Good last point.
I mean, to illustrate how we are eaten up with the dumbass, look at the dumbass we elect as president, a 24-karat dumbass who is told in one intelligence report after another, beginning a few days after 9/11, that there is no comnnection between Iraq and al Qaeda. Over and over again, dumbass Bush and his top dumbass advisors (I nearly called them his "brain trust there) are told the same thing yet those dumbasses believe the opposite today.
The American people have been told the same thing for years as well, but a large percentage are also insistently eaten up with the dumbass on this one....