Thinking about third parties
 

This might belong in the conspiracy forum, but I was thinking about the election and how the Libertarian Party (or any third party really) just didn´t have a chance.

They didnt have a chance mostly becuase, from what I saw, people saw voting for a third party as a waste of a vote, throwing away a vote.

I thought about Ross Perot, getting a whole bunch of folks excited about a third party candidate, and then at the last second jumping ship, effectively tarnishing the idea of a third party candidate. Now when you mention a third party, everyone talks about Ross Perot.

So, is it possible, maybe, that Perot deliberately ran, got a good following, and then abandoned just to help prevent any third party candidates from possible future success? Could he have been an agent of the current regime? To me, Dems and Repubs are pretty much the same big corrupt rich white guy (yes, Obama is a rich white guy) good old boy system.

perot, as a third party candidate, attracted far more voters than either major party thought would happen. That was the reason why both parties conspired to make it way more difficult for a third party to ever seriously compete for votes anymore. With any semi-popular third party candidate now, it's an all out combined effort to make that third party candidate look as radical and extremist as possible, thereby minimizing any possible vote siphons they would garner. case in point, ron paul.

They both have the biggest negative in common: both are big government. Both are intrusive, both think they know what's best for the average American better than that person does, and both want government involved as much as possible in different areas of the American's life.

They're just two sides of the exact same coin.

Skizziks, I don't think he was an "agent" of anyone. If anything, I think he was more of a loose cannon amongst the obscenely rich.

I actually hoped that folks in the US would see the % of vote he got, and start diversifying their votes. I am well and truly against the two-party system. I think it breeds a black and white, I'm right you are wrong, us against them mentality, without room for degrees of difference in opinion.

I know that I'm on a different end of the political spectrum from you three. I think your voices are important to balance my end of the view of things. I'd love it if in a three or more party system the Gov't HAD to compromise a bit to get things done. It would not only water down extremism (both sides), but allow for introduction of new ideas (sort of).

The feeling that I seem to detect from you guys in the U.S. when your candidate loses is, more or less:
My guy didn't win, I'm fucked. Let's fight everything they do tooth and nail!!
That applies to both sides.

Both parties NEED this system, so they play the me-no-your-turn game. They are pretty well guaranteed power within each decade no matter what they offer up as candidates/policies.
To those who say it's a waste of a vote, I strongly disagree. I actually think it is honouring your founding Fathers by evolving as a democracy, expanding it.

Well, that is my two cents, as a Canadian, fiscal "conservative", social "liberal", and all around dude who just wants things that work, regardless of where it comes from.

One day, a really intelligent, charismatic, name-brand player will enter as a third party candidate - and potentially, change things.

But often when I look at US politics, people pull for one of the two parties the way they root for a particular sports team. Doesn't really matter who the better candidates and parties are, they never vary in their voting habits. That happens a lot less in other democracies. People seem to have a great deal vested in being a Democrat or Republican, they way they may be a Yankee or Red Sox fan.
-----Added 8/11/2008 at 06 : 17 : 33-----
Yeah, as an outsider to US politics, that is much the way I see it too. See the baseball team analogy for a similar take on it.

It boils down to money. The third parties just don't have the funding it takes to get the 15% of the electorial college. Its one of the requirements according to the Committee on Presidential Debates. I think Ross just had enough money to buy his way in. I also think he dropped because he knew he was not going to take the election. There should still be an alternate way. Its also seems like there are certain powers that just dont want to general public to hear the types of things third party candidates bring up.

I think the next major independent/third-party candidate is going to be Michael Bloomberg. Not because of any real political ideology (though I haven't really heard any issues with the way he's running New York) but because he's a politician and he is obscenely rich. Probably to the point of being able to outspend the Democrat and Republican candidates combined in a general election if he really wanted.

I concur. The likeliest scenario in my mind for the emergence of a viable 3rd party is not one of idealism, rather one with enough brute force to break/challenge the present deadlock.

Money - Yeah, that seems to be it. Who can pay for the most TV time. Perot had the cash, didn´t he? Barr, the Libertarian, did not. I also think that, even though we pride ourselves on being a Democracy, no one wants third party outsiders ruining the sweet racket they have. But historically new parties emerged, we dont have whigs anymore, etc. Isn´t it time we got a new one in the mix?

damn, i think i just hijacked my own thread...

that's not really the "history" of it.
the whigs were viable for a short period of time before our current democrat/republican duality. they imploded themselves, it wasn't due to some outside agitating party that successfully challenged the whigs. Republicans were later, it wasn't like the whigs challenged a party that had been holding power for 150 years. There just doesn't seem to be a history of multiple parties operating in and out of control in the US and I'm not quite sure why people think something new is happening that hasn't happened in 200 years to change that.

The Whigs weren't a third party, though. They grew out of the remnants of the Federalist Party, and when it failed its remnants grew into the base for the Republican Party.

There are really two examples of third parties that have any success.

The one-issue parties like the nativist parties in the 1840s and 50s that ended up killing the Whigs, or the Dixiecrat/racist parties that sprouted between the late-40s and early-70s.

The charismatic leader parties, like the Bull Moose Party in 1912 (Teddy Roosevelt) or Reform Party in 1992 (Ross Perot).

For a party to either break into the two-party system or take over one of the spots would take a combination of a major issue that enough people care about, a leader that can inspire trust that they can fix the issue (and bring in plenty of either personal or public cash), and a major crisis that affects the nation and destroys the trust in the two main parties.

For example, in my Bloomberg scenario, the Democrats in power now make the financial crisis worse to the point of true depression, while the Republicans squabble among themselves for four years. Bloomberg keeps doing a good job in New York while keeping the city's finances healthy, and he goes into the next election able to say that he knows how to fix the economy.

There will still likely be hardcore Democracts who would follow Obama and Pelosi to the very end, and a splitting Republican party would likely have several candidates with loyal followings, but especially with the money available to him Bloomberg would be able to overwhelm the people with his message, and might be able to draw off enough support from all sides to at least make it a real race to the very end.

Using the Bloomberg scenario, a viable third party will take more than just an "electable" candidate for president

Without that same party winning a growing number of seats in Congress and at the state level over the course of several election cycles, it will be a one trick pony.

Populist Party (United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Completely forgot about this one, but it does illustrate your point.

They had an issue (really, a set of issues around supporting agriculture over industry), a charismatic leader (William Jennings Bryan) and a crisis (the growing power of railroad and banking interests over American government). They managed to get some governors and senators elected, and had as much as 6% (22 of 357 seats) of the House.

It does show that a party not only has to grow over time from the state levels to succeed, but can't really make any mistakes.

I think a lot of it's that people don't want to see their 'team' lose to the other side.

They could be better in every way, but if you don't want someone to get elected, you will vote for the person who is most likely to do well against them.

Now, if the US got rank voting, that might change how I and many others would vote.

(Proper) Electoral reform would definitely open things up. Your electoral college confuses the hell out of me.
Still, that would go against the interests of those who would be introducing it, wouldn't it? Therefore highly unlikely.