Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - The case for third party alternatives in the US

AVoiceOfReason · 12-22-2006, 02:31 PM

Some random thoughts on third parties:

1. When I was in law school in 1980, some guy was wearing an Anderson button. I overheard someone remark to him that "why are you voting for him, he can't win?" to which he replied "I didn't know I was supposed to vote for who I thought had a chance to win--I thought I was supposed to vote for the candidate that best represented what I supported." That has stuck with me for all this time. An election isn't like a horse race, where you study the racing forms and odds and put your money down accordingly.

2. I have voted for a third party candidate for president twice: Perot in 1992 and Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party) in 2004. I did so knowing neither would win, but I couldn't support either Bush or Clinton in 1992, nor Bush or Kerry in 2004. I didn't consider either a wasted vote, since the electoral votes of my state was going to go to Clinton in 1992 and Bush in 2004 regardless--voting against either of those candidates was going to be whistling in the wind in Arkansas those years, and I thought I might as well whistle a different tune.

3. Perot was in a unique situation--a recession, an unpopular sitting president, an untrustworthy Democrat, and a country that had just witnessed the House bank scandal. I have to wonder what would have happened if Perot hadn't wigged out in the late summer about operatives that were going to interrupt his daughter's wedding, and saying that he thought the two major parties had righted themselves. In short, I wonder what could have happened if someone not a few bricks short of a load and with the same money behind him could have done.

4. The 19% Perot pulled did get the attention of both parties, but moreso the Republicans. The Contract For America in 1994 was intended, at least in part, to appeal to those voters that the Republicans felt "got away" in 1992 (actually, I saw a study a few years ago that indicated that Perot got about half his votes from folks that were going to vote against Bush regardless, and half from those that would have chosen Bush over Clinton). In that sense, a vote for Perot in 1992 was the loudest message sent to Washington.

5. While I'm quite aware that third parties are usually tilting at windmills, there is always the Jesse Ventura example in Minnesota of a third party candidate winning.

6. In this discussion, there has been references to the chaos that multiple parties in a legislature (Israel and Italy for two) can cause, and I can see the mischief that can be caused if there was not a majority party. We have plenty of examples of mischief WITH a party in firm control--congressmen demanding a project for their district or a seat on a committee in return for their support of a particular bill or issue. Imagine what would have to be promised to get several factions to unite on a bill. Me, I'd like to think that we'd have more gridlock and less legislation, but I fear the result would be even more backroom deals, not fewer.

7. Historically in the US, the third party with the most support supplants the weaker of the main two. Federalists and Democratic-Republican and Whigs all gave way to something else (I don't have time to look up just what as I sit here); it may say something about US post-Civil War politics that since 1864, it's been primarily a two party system.

OK, this went on longer than I intended, so I'll stop here.

12-22-2006, 02:31 PM	#19 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	Some random thoughts on third parties: 1. When I was in law school in 1980, some guy was wearing an Anderson button. I overheard someone remark to him that "why are you voting for him, he can't win?" to which he replied "I didn't know I was supposed to vote for who I thought had a chance to win--I thought I was supposed to vote for the candidate that best represented what I supported." That has stuck with me for all this time. An election isn't like a horse race, where you study the racing forms and odds and put your money down accordingly. 2. I have voted for a third party candidate for president twice: Perot in 1992 and Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party) in 2004. I did so knowing neither would win, but I couldn't support either Bush or Clinton in 1992, nor Bush or Kerry in 2004. I didn't consider either a wasted vote, since the electoral votes of my state was going to go to Clinton in 1992 and Bush in 2004 regardless--voting against either of those candidates was going to be whistling in the wind in Arkansas those years, and I thought I might as well whistle a different tune. 3. Perot was in a unique situation--a recession, an unpopular sitting president, an untrustworthy Democrat, and a country that had just witnessed the House bank scandal. I have to wonder what would have happened if Perot hadn't wigged out in the late summer about operatives that were going to interrupt his daughter's wedding, and saying that he thought the two major parties had righted themselves. In short, I wonder what could have happened if someone not a few bricks short of a load and with the same money behind him could have done. 4. The 19% Perot pulled did get the attention of both parties, but moreso the Republicans. The Contract For America in 1994 was intended, at least in part, to appeal to those voters that the Republicans felt "got away" in 1992 (actually, I saw a study a few years ago that indicated that Perot got about half his votes from folks that were going to vote against Bush regardless, and half from those that would have chosen Bush over Clinton). In that sense, a vote for Perot in 1992 was the loudest message sent to Washington. 5. While I'm quite aware that third parties are usually tilting at windmills, there is always the Jesse Ventura example in Minnesota of a third party candidate winning. 6. In this discussion, there has been references to the chaos that multiple parties in a legislature (Israel and Italy for two) can cause, and I can see the mischief that can be caused if there was not a majority party. We have plenty of examples of mischief WITH a party in firm control--congressmen demanding a project for their district or a seat on a committee in return for their support of a particular bill or issue. Imagine what would have to be promised to get several factions to unite on a bill. Me, I'd like to think that we'd have more gridlock and less legislation, but I fear the result would be even more backroom deals, not fewer. 7. Historically in the US, the third party with the most support supplants the weaker of the main two. Federalists and Democratic-Republican and Whigs all gave way to something else (I don't have time to look up just what as I sit here); it may say something about US post-Civil War politics that since 1864, it's been primarily a two party system. OK, this went on longer than I intended, so I'll stop here. __________________ AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.