Feasability of a third party becoming relevant in national politics

[Waitone]

I sympathize over the longing to have a viable third party. I really, really really do.

I also know the deck is stacked against a third party having a chance in . . .of getting in office apart from tarpots and feathers strategy. We have an option available which if exercised would screw the system up. Every year the entire house of reps and fully 1/3 of the senate faces the voters. Don't like your rep in congress? Just vote for someone else. Then next time around vote for someone else. Just don't vote for someone twice in a row. Spinelessrepublican or Democrat--makes no difference. They get one and only one shot. Destroy the good ol' boy machine. Tear up the rolledex cards. Screw up reporter and politician relationships. Make lobbiests churn for new marks. Make corporations continue to hunt for congressional sponsors. Flood the post congress job market with enough applicants to destroy the market value of a congressional entry in a resume. In other words, make a run at congress a personally hazardous thing to do.

With my strategy will you get purity of ideology? Not hardly but we ain't gettin' it now. We'd be injecting a little fear and chaos into a system which has gotten entirely too comfortable for the betterment of life, liberty and property.

 

[Live Free Or Die]

"Where you see wikipedia articles and hopelessness in third parties, I see the Libertarians getting better than twice the efficiency in $/votes. And this is despite the major media almost completely ignoring the third parties -- and the Libertarian party especially -- running up to the election."

Yeah, and if the LP spent nothing at all, their efficiency would be infinite, as they'd still be getting nearly as many votes. All that number establishes is that they're nearly broke.

Sorry, I couldn't find the tongue-in-cheek icon when I posted the part about efficiency.

I still don't think the third-party cause is hopeless though. As geekWithA.45 pointed out, third parties can indeed be relevant even without becoming a dominant party. The Democrats certainly took notice of Ralph Nader's vote total in 2000, and I'm sure they courted his voters leading up to the 2004 election. Theoretically when a larger party is forced to compete for voters from a similar party, it will end up adopting some of that party's views as a result.

 

[RealGun]

If you had judges making appropriate Constitutional interpretations, you wouldn't need any other changes. Everything and everyone would fall in line. Of course, that would mean the Constitution would be tweaked on a pretty regular basis, but getting the desired result by that method would not be easy.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Sorry, guys, we're screwed.

We have waded so deep into Socialism that to turn back is as arduous as to go on.

Just yesterday I got into a dialog with someone who thought the fed.gov was too slow in providing response to Katrina. I asked politely, "Where in the constitution is the authorization to provide storm relief"?

This guy usta be smart. This guy is a republican. This guy wants to fed.gov to take care of him.

We are screwed. It's downhill from here. We are on the slippery slope. No tree roots left to grab.

Thre is no cure. It's terminal. Like all empires. It's bread and circuses from now on.

 

[Werewolf]

Short of some internal or external event that brings a catastrophic amount of discredit down on the heads of one party or the other a third party will never ever arise to prominence in the USA again.

Furthermore, election laws are rigged in favor of incumbents. Used to be they were rigged in at least a subtle and stealthy manner. Now with the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance reform act and with the supplemental approval of the knuckleheads on the Supreme Court it's wholly obvious the laws are rigged.

The sun has a better chance of going NOVA than any third party has of rising to some level of prominence in the USA...

 

[Manedwolf]

I could see all the old-style fiscal conservatives (don't spend like a drunken sailor AND cut taxes, well's already dry and digging in sand at the bottom), and the old-style liberals (live and let live, government as infrastructure and new ideas for social reform) wanting a new party based on both those ideas.

The problem is that conservatives used to be...well..conservative, not neocon imperialists. Liberals used to be for liberty, not leftist mommy-to-everyone invasive control.

It used to be that liberals would promote progressive change, conservatives would ask whether it was really needed and/or affordeable. Balance.

What we have now is a bunch of people, party irrespective, bought and sold by corporations to suit their whims. "We the people" don't get a say...you only get to talk to a legislator if you hand over a $50K or higher check for their campaign funds.

And I think "we the people" are getting more and more disgusted with that.

 

[Manedwolf]

Short of some internal or external event that brings a catastrophic amount of discredit down on the heads of one party or the other a third party will never ever arise to prominence in the USA again.

Well, right now, we have a festering cesspool of blatant corruption and graft tarnishing the Republicans (DeLay, Ohio gov with the coins, nepotism all over, etc), and we have Democrats being doormats and not making a noise about it, and a population entirely not paying attention.

Shh, their reality-TV show is on, don't bother the sheep.

 

[Werewolf]

Well, right now, we have a festering cesspool of blatant corruption and graft tarnishing the Republicans (DeLay, Ohio gov with the coins, nepotism all over, etc), and we have Democrats being doormats and not making a noise about it, and a population entirely not paying attention.

Shh, their reality-TV show is on, don't bother the sheep.

Business as usual - not even close to catastrophic discredit.

When I say catastrophic I mean something along the lines of the DNC or RNC is proven to have orchestrated the assasination of a contemporary president or planted a nuke in someone's backyard. Stealing a little money or pinching the fanny of some intern isn't even close to qualifying.

The sheep don't care and - as you say - don't want to be bothered. It'll take something really big to get their attention.

 

[longeyes]

"We are screwed. It's downhill from here. We are on the slippery slope. No tree roots left to grab.

There is no cure. It's terminal. Like all empires. It's bread and circuses from now on."


Yeah, I'm sure there were plenty of people in coffee houses saying that in 1750.

Just be patient, there's a catastrophe coming along at least once every generation or so. Be ready to hop on.

 

[Master Blaster]

A third party will become viable when they control, McDonalds or Walmart, and require you to vote before you can buy junk food there. Or maybe it will be when they have a team playing in the Superbowl.


Currently you can get your bread and circuses without voting, so who cares.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Well, sort of... both parties are offering a platform that recognizes the fact that a hefty majority of Americans are hooked on socialist programs and want them to continue and/or expand.

This is the common "wisdom," but I think it is false. The people who actually vote tend to be people who are responsible citizens to start with. In that population, most are on the supply side of the welfare state, not the receiving end. The takers are takers because they cannot get themselves up in the morning to be at work on time. They also tend not to register to vote, no matter how much they insist that they are going to. They can't get it together enough to do something that requires concentration, reading and writing skills.

 

[RealGun]

This is the common "wisdom," but I think it is false. The people who actually vote tend to be people who are responsible citizens to start with. In that population, most are on the supply side of the welfare state, not the receiving end.

If that were the whole story, then blacks wouldn't be overwhelmingly Democrat.

 

[Werewolf]

This is the common "wisdom," but I think it is false. The people who actually vote tend to be people who are responsible citizens to start with. In that population, most are on the supply side of the welfare state, not the receiving end.

If the people who actually vote are the in fact on the supply side of the welfare state then why are they voting in politicians that pander to the demand side of the welfare state?

Are they STUPID, just really good and generous people or is their some other explanation?

 

[antsi]

. The people who actually vote tend to be people who are responsible citizens to start with. In that population, most are on the supply side of the welfare state, not the receiving end. The takers are takers because they cannot get themselves up in the morning to be on work on time. They also tend not to register to vote, no matter how much they insist that they are going to.

I used to live in Chicago, where the voting stations were in the projects and if you lived in a project two blocks away there was a shuttle bus to take you there. They were literally trucking in welfare state sheeple by the bus load to vote for more socialism.

What is different now is that socialist programs are being marketed to the middle class. Middle class guilt has always been one sales strategy for socialism, but now we have middle class boomers worrying about their aging parents' (and/or their own) prescription drugs costs.

It is no longer the case that productive members of society vote against socialism. Support for socialist programs is now cutting across ideological lines. That's why the Republicans have started supporting socialism - because the sheeple are baaa-ing for it. If the people didn't want it and large blocks of voters were voting against it, the parties would respond to that.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

If the people who actually vote are the in fact on the supply side of the welfare state then why are they voting in politicians that pander to the demand side of the welfare state?

Are they STUPID, just really good and generous people or is their some other explanation?

I think there's some other explanation. The powers that be have a vested interest in the welfare state. It tends to be a drain on the economy, and encourages corruption. Somehow they profit from this, and it also helps move us towards one world government. If we had a healthy economy with strong values we'd never agree to surrender national sovereignty to a world government.

 

[jeil]

The two major parties impose one flavor or another of big government. Most voters support these parties and even worse, many consider being either a Republican or Democrat as part of their personal identity. (Are you a Republican or a Democrat?)

The party that favors small government, the Libertarian Party, has little support, consistently gaining less than 5% of the vote, a statistically insignificant number.

Seems to me like the people who mostly vote do so because the believe in the validity of government as ruler of our lives as evidenced by the fact that they even vote and consistently vote for either Republican or Democrat rulers.

So, what would be the point of another third party? It would either be an imitation of the big government parties (like Ross Perot's run) so even it elected would change nothing, or it would be a substitute for the small government, Libertarian party supported by the same people who support the Libertarian party, a meaningless change of name.

Clearly people do not want freedom; they want control, government privelege for themselves, and to be taken care of.