Will you see a viable third party in your lifetime?

[K.C.]

Historically speaking, America has rarely ever had viable third parties. Early in the country's history, new parties would usually be born out of the ashes of old parties. For example:

You had the Federalists vs. Democrat-Republicans from about 1789-1820

The Federalists ultimately gave way, and the Democrat-Republicans split prompting a few election cycles where the Democrats took on the National Republicans. That was until 1836.

The National Republicans crumbled and gave way to the Whigs, who fought the Democrats from 1836-1856

Then the country fractured into regional parties allowing Lincoln to win in a revival of the Republican party in 1860.

From then on, you've pretty much had the Democratic and Republican parties dominate the national agenda with some slight variations, most notable, the flip of the Democrats from a fairly racist party in the late 1800s/early 1900s to the socially progressive party, and the flip of the Republicans to a more socially conservative party with Nixon.

As far as third parties go, there was the emergence of Progressive Populism that ultimately went nowhere in the early 1900s...Dixiecrats which emerged in various forms from the 40s to the 60s, and Ross Perot's Independent run in 1992 where he got 20% of the vote.

That's about it.

American politics almost seems like from its beginnings, as if it just isn't built to handle more than two parties.


What type of agenda could a third party run on that would even be appealing to voters these days? Populism, maybe? Everyone says Libertarian social values, but nobody ever votes for the Libertarian candidates.

I'd have to say no, at this point. It's Dems vs. Reps til we die.

[King Hippos Bandaid]

Im late to a meeting

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-3Q5x27TZ4g/SIojitWZcWI/AAAAAAAAARM/Sf42aS5FFTY/s400/Whig%2520Party.gif


after Bush and Obama. the Whig party will rise again

[Don Stugots]

never.

[lleeder]

The stats say no (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=61985&highlight=party) I demand a merge.

[TheMojoPin]

Likely not.

As I brought up in another thread, and as KC somewhat touches on, we've basically always had two parties duking it out...it's just that the cast of who makes up the big two has changed.

Almost all of the "third parties" have hinged on local or regional issues to build up their base. If any of their core issues went national, they just get co-opted by one of the big two and ultimately fall apart or fold into that large party.

[King Hippos Bandaid]

ask RC Cola

[K.C.]

The stats say no (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=61985&highlight=party) I demand a merge.

Yes, your two-year old thread should be merged under my hipper, fresher take of thread. :tongue:

[midwestjeff]

I am going to be dead in 24 hours so I voted no.

[K.C.]

Likely not.

As I brought up in another thread, and as KC somewhat touches on, we've basically always had two parties duking it out...it's just that the cast of who makes up the big two has changed.

Almost all of the "third parties" have hinged on local or regional issues to build up their base. If any of their core issues went national, they just get co-opted by one of the big two and ultimately fall apart or fold into that large party.

The other thing is, suppose you got someone to do a redeux of the Ross Perot thing...a billionaire who runs...but this time, it's not some crazy midget with a ridiculous speech pattern...

Even if you had the perfect guy for that role, it'd still be difficult. In most states, the local Democratic and Republican parties have such a stranglehold on the local political machine that I don't know how a third party candidate could co-exist.

To accomplish that, you'd almost have to destroy one of the existing parties, breaking their machine, and scoop up their supporters.

I don't know that it's possible to take enough votes equally from both sides and win, especially in an electoral system.

I could see a third party moderate getting 30-35% nationally and not winning a single state, because of how polarizing the electoral college is.

It really is a two party system.

[MacVittie]

ask RC Cola

still going strong since 1905

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/15/Rc-cola-bottle.JPG

[TheMojoPin]

The other thing is, suppose you got someone to do a redeux of the Ross Perot thing...a billionaire who runs...but this time, it's not some crazy midget with a ridiculous speech pattern...

Even if you had the perfect guy for that role, it'd still be difficult. In most states, the local Democratic and Republican parties have such a stranglehold on the local political machine that I don't know how a third party candidate could co-exist.

To accomplish that, you'd almost have to destroy one of the existing parties, breaking their machine, and scoop up their supporters.

I don't know that it's possible to take enough votes equally from both sides and win, especially in an electoral system.

I could see a third party moderate getting 30-35% nationally and not winning a single state, because of how polarizing the electoral college is.

It really is a two party system.

Perot and Nader (and guys like Walace or Debbs) represent individual wild cards more than examples of possible lasting and competitive third parties. The support for both was largely for them as individuals and not the parties that they fronted.

[K.C.]

Perot and Nader (and guys like Walace or Debbs) represent individual wild cards more than examples of possible lasting and competitive third parties. The support for both was largely for them as individuals and not the parties that they fronted.

Perot, yes....Nader....eh...you know, a lot of people were ready to jump behind the Green Party in 2000. Was it because of the individual, yes...but people did buy into the 'let's get the 5% for federal funding' and were interested in building that party at the grass roots level, once they got a legitimate figurehead on a national level (which Nader would have been with the 5%).

I'm still convinced Nader gets his 5% in 2000 if Nader's own people didn't jump ship with the Nader's Raiders for Gore thing right before the end of the campaign. That more than anything crushed his candidacy.

And then the Democrats just swept that party under the rug in the subsequent years, by managing to place the entire blame of 2000 on Nader and the Green Party, and finished off any relevance with Dean swiping a few of their ideas in 2004, which in turn, were taken by Kerry after he won the nomination.

[KnoxHarrington]

I'm going to steal a point from Epo here: no "third party" out there seems willing to do the hard work of building a party apparatus from the bottom up. Instead, they blow their money on hopeless Presidential campaigns -- the Green Party being a classic example.

I think the Libertarian Party could actually siphon a lot of the members of the Republican Party (and maybe some Democrats too) who hate the religious right bullshit. But, again, it's a hopelessly run party that isn't willing to give up trying to elect a President for a while to maybe get people on city councils, or in state legislatures first.

[keithy_19]

I think the Libertarian Party could actually siphon a lot of the members of the Republican Party (and maybe some Democrats too) who hate the religious right bullshit. But, again, it's a hopelessly run party that isn't willing to give up trying to elect a President for a while to maybe get people on city councils, or in state legislatures first.

Amen.

I'll gladly run for city council for the Libertarian party.

http://z.about.com/d/animatedtv/1/0/U/J/tgmstill32.jpg

But I REFUSE to pay the 75 dollar fee to join.

[epo]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jvM-WQP7SOw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jvM-WQP7SOw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[STC-Dub]

The two parties are too entrenched.

[TheMojoPin]

And then the Democrats just swept that party under the rug in the subsequent years, by managing to place the entire blame of 2000 on Nader and the Green Party, and finished off any relevance with Dean swiping a few of their ideas in 2004, which in turn, were taken by Kerry after he won the nomination.

Right, like I described in my first post. Hence why we're likely never going to have more than 2 major parties at any given time.

[Yerdaddy]

Perot, yes....Nader....eh...you know, a lot of people were ready to jump behind the Green Party in 2000. Was it because of the individual, yes...but people did buy into the 'let's get the 5% for federal funding' and were interested in building that party at the grass roots level, once they got a legitimate figurehead on a national level (which Nader would have been with the 5%).

I'm still convinced Nader gets his 5% in 2000 if Nader's own people didn't jump ship with the Nader's Raiders for Gore thing right before the end of the campaign. That more than anything crushed his candidacy.

And then the Democrats just swept that party under the rug in the subsequent years, by managing to place the entire blame of 2000 on Nader and the Green Party, and finished off any relevance with Dean swiping a few of their ideas in 2004, which in turn, were taken by Kerry after he won the nomination.

Much of the broader support for Nader in 2000 was less about getting him federal funding and more about getting him and "his" issues into the debates. Perot proved that if a third party can force his way into the debates then the media can't ignore him and he can get then force into the public debate issues that the two parties had consented to ignore. I gave nader money because I wanted him to talk about health care because the other two parties abandoned the issue after the clintons lost their policy battle for reform in the 90s. I wanted nader to talk about a post-cold war foreign policy that cashed in on the "peace dividend" that clinton couldn't give us because he'd be accused of being a pussy or hating the military and the republicans had no intention of ever making good on. I wanted him to talk about our shitty human rights policies that bred hatred for us and undermined everything we were trying to do internationally.

If you want "third rail" issues in the public debate then third parties can do that. But the parties and their corporate sponsors moved the goal posts on nader and the mainstream public never heard anything but that he was a nut and that he cost gore the election. It was a big opportunity wasted.

[K.C.]

I'm going to steal a point from Epo here: no "third party" out there seems willing to do the hard work of building a party apparatus from the bottom up. Instead, they blow their money on hopeless Presidential campaigns -- the Green Party being a classic example.

I think the Libertarian Party could actually siphon a lot of the members of the Republican Party (and maybe some Democrats too) who hate the religious right bullshit. But, again, it's a hopelessly run party that isn't willing to give up trying to elect a President for a while to maybe get people on city councils, or in state legislatures first.

The only aspect of Libertarianism that has mass appeal is social Libertarianism. Most of the people who support Libertarian economics and foreign policy are outside the mainstream political spectrum.

Now...it's possible that someone could make some in-roads with the current economic situation. There's a lot of people pissed about the bailout that Libertarians could use as a jumping off point to push fiscal policy, and get a little traction.

But since the Republicans have been relegated to an opposition party for the time being, they'll probably steal all the heat in terms of railing about government influence over the bailout.


I tend to think there's two potential models for a third party that could make inroad:

#1 - Social Libertarian / Fiscally Liberal - Could undercut some poorer people who, by their economic situations SHOULD vote Democratic, but vote Republican because of their distaste for Liberal social issues.

#2 - Culturally Conservative / Fiscally Liberal (The Catholic Model) - Potentially appealing to middle class surburbia.

[keithy_19]

The only aspect of Libertarianism that has mass appeal is social Libertarianism. Most of the people who support Libertarian economics and foreign policy are outside the mainstream political spectrum.

Now...it's possible that someone could make some in-roads with the current economic situation. There's a lot of people pissed about the bailout that Libertarians could use as a jumping off point to push fiscal policy, and get a little traction.

But since the Republicans have been relegated to an opposition party for the time being, they'll probably steal all the heat in terms of railing about government influence over the bailout.


I tend to think there's two potential models for a third party that could make inroad:

#1 - Social Libertarian / Fiscally Liberal - Could undercut some poorer people who, by their economic situations SHOULD vote Democratic, but vote Republican because of their distaste for Liberal social issues.

#2 - Culturally Conservative / Fiscally Liberal (The Catholic Model) - Potentially appealing to middle class surburbia.

So it's basically just about their social views?

[K.C.]

So it's basically just about their social views?

Social issues are the greatest wedge in politics. If you can reconcile that, you can do damage.

There's two large blocks of the lower and middle class that are generally fiscally liberal that have been split off because of social politics, and it's those two I mentioned.

I'm sure that there's other models that could be explored...but the two I mentioned, I think, have the biggest potential for growth.


And let me qualify it all by saying, that when I say 'fiscally liberal,' I'm generally talking about a more Populist form of economics. Not the Obama/Democratic style of today.

[MC Pee Pants]

I vote third party...thats code for get high.

[A.J.]

I think the Libertarian Party could actually siphon a lot of the members of the Republican Party (and maybe some Democrats too) who hate the religious right bullshit.

If only...

[ToiletCrusher]

Should be a public poll so we can see who is planning this coup.

[keithy_19]

Social issues are the greatest wedge in politics. If you can reconcile that, you can do damage.

There's two large blocks of the lower and middle class that are generally fiscally liberal that have been split off because of social politics, and it's those two I mentioned.

I'm sure that there's other models that could be explored...but the two I mentioned, I think, have the biggest potential for growth.


And let me qualify it all by saying, that when I say 'fiscally liberal,' I'm generally talking about a more Populist form of economics. Not the Obama/Democratic style of today.

I don't see how Libertarians could possiby go to the "republican" view of social beliefs. Preserving the individual rights of citizens is what the Libertarians are about. If they stray from that, than they stray from their appeal.