What would it take to make a viable third party?

[Fletchette]

Presently, many argue that voting for a third party is a wasted vote. There is some merit to this arguement.

But what would it take to create a viable third party? $100 million? $200 million? Several prominante Republicans leaving the Republican Party simultaneously to form this new party? What would it take?

Given that the Republican Party has been ruined by RINOs and corrupt neocons, I would like this new party to actually have the power to expell the fakers. The party would have a platform to uphold and defend the Constitution. Vote against the platform? - Yer out!

That would provide a coherent ideology that prevents turncoats like W and Arnie (and McCain and Bloomberg and...and...)

 

[JLStorm]

I guess it depends on if you are talking just a presidental race, or also congressional, for presidential considering the publicity you would need I think $200M is a minimum, for congressional seats you are in the billions I would think with all the states and all the publicity. After all, generally speaking a third party would be run by others than the rich who could not afford their own compaigns, or at leasy not to the level required to compete with the big boys.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Vote against the platform? - Yer out!

Every major party in power has large numbers of people within its party who do not support the entire platform. This is because in our voting system, you will never achieve any power if you keep your base so small that it doesn't disagree on anything.

A couple of things a third party would need though is enough candidates at the local level to give it a base. For that, it would definitely need money and a lot of it...

The other major way for a third party to be successful is to wait for a schism in one of the major parties. That day is coming soon for one or both of the major parties. Right now they both have interests that are diametrically opposed to other parts of their base. My bet is that the Democrats and Republicans will eventually be forced to realign into a "Globalist" and "Anti-Globalist" party. During this process when they are shifting around their party base trying to find a cohesive group that will give them power is when a third party will have an excellent opportunity to fragment away from the main party (much like the Republicans formed during slavery debates).

 

[johnster999]

A breakaway segment of one of the 2 majors could do it. A similar name to their parent party would help too. Such as, The Conservative Republican party or the Democrat Reformist party or some such.

 

[Gifted]

Get the real conservatives from the RP, and combine with a reformed libertarian party. I'm thinking you'd start in some real conservative areas, where you can get people who don't just vote party. Again, like above, you'd focus locally, on state and local issues. Heck, you wouldn't even do a national party until you're ready to start messing with the presidency(probably just do a coalition even then). Until then, the various local parties would form coalitions to endorse candidates that cover larger areas.

This allows you to have seniority, which would take a while for a small party to aquire otherwise, and experience. They'd also bring contacts and financing to the new party, to some extent.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I don't think there is a viable future for the Libertarian Party, but if they are going to keep trying, they really need to drop the whole drug legalization thing.

Whether or not drugs should be legalized doesn't matter; the government has been telling everyone for so long that drugs should be illegal, that public opinion on the issue is set in stone. Anyone who professes legalizing drugs will be written off immediately as a wacko. Sorry, but that is the pure truth of it.

 

[Autolycus]

Lone Gunman the government has also been saying the same thing about guns. Many people who want drugs legalized just want to legalize Marijuana. Its not a bad idea. Just as is the idea to lessen the restrictions on supressor ownership.

I would like to see many more drugs legalized and many of the restrictions on NFA items lessened.

Weed is a major drug that should be legal. Just as supressors should be. Its just that people have the wrong idea do to a lack of information.

 

[DRMMR02]

It would take a corporation or industry worth billions to properly bribe..I mean "fund" a politician who could win.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Tecumseh, the government has been far less successful at convincing people guns are bad. First, they spend far less money trying to convince people about guns, and second, we have strong pro-gun groups to counter balance that. The bottom line is that about 1 out of 3 Americans owns a gun.

I won't argue whether drugs should be legal or not. It doesn't matter. It would take an inordinate amount of a party's resources to change people's minds on the subject.

 

[GRIZ22]

The problem with a third party is that if just about everyone votes party line, you can wind up with a President with only 34% of the vote. The problems in the Republican Party will not be solved by the conservatives breaking away. All the Republican Party need do is go back to Reagan Conservatism and stick by those principles. Look at all Reagan accomplished. He did it having to deal with all those Democrats. Reagan took 49 states in 1984 and his campaign slogan was "ask yourself a question, am I better off now than I was four years ago?". Reagan won because he won over many Democrats more in 1984 than in 1980. Reagan did a lot of things that even his advisors said he was crazy for doing but Reagan knew he was right and proved right as time went on.

We don't have to have a Republican in the White House. When the Republicans took over the House in 1994 Newt Gingrich provided the leadership. Remember the "Contract with America". All the promises were kept. Everything accomplishment Clinton took credit for was because of the Republican Congress that stayed true to Republican values.

 

[Fletchette]

Look at all Reagan accomplished had he did it having to deal with all those Democrats. Reagan took 49 states in 1984 and his campaign slogan was "ask yourself a question, am I better off now than I was four years ago?". Reagan won because he won over many Democrats more in 1984 than in 1980. Reagan did a lot of things that even his advisors said he was crazy for doing but Reagan knew he was right and proved right as time went on.

I do remember. I was pretty young at the time, in Middle School in the "Commonwealth" barf: ) and was brainwashed like everyone else that the election of Reagan in 1980 meant nuclear war was right around the corner, al la "The Day After".

However, I grew up.

I remember Reagan's highest approval rating, 93%, and it was at a time when he did exactly as you mentioned - he went against his advisors and everyone on television said he was crazy.

Reagan wasn't perfect, but he really did love America and did what he thought was best. I can respect that.

Today's politicians are corrupt self-serving bastards that would step over their own mother to sell out their country.

 

[LAK]

What would it take to make a viable third party?

Expose and eliminate the control the ruling oligarchy exercizes over the media. Anything else is a nonstarter - a dead horse.

-----------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Jeff White]

Nothing less then a complete reform of the election laws. The laws governing elections are written by....Democrats and republicans. They are purposely written in most states to give the appearance of allowing any party to get it's candidates on the ballot, but in reality there are enough roadblocks and hoops to jump through that it's very difficult for anyone but Democrats or republicans to get their candidates listed on the ballot.

A third party win of the presidency would be a disaster because he would have no party support in congress. A win by a third party candidate in the house or senate is just as impotent because that candidate would have to caucus with one party or the other.

The only way to change American politics is to take over an existing political party. The odds are stacked against third parties.

I'm not sure we really want to change the election laws to allow more parties on the ballot. Do we want to change to a European model where there would eb so many parties that governing would be nearly impossible?

Jeff

 

[Gifted]

Some points. That why I mentioned(and a few others in different ideas) that you'd need some people already established. If you say you're going to side with the conservative-looking party, and you have a conservative platform, it'll be much easier. Really, if a portion of the Repubs broke off to focus on true conservatism, the libertarian voters would go that way anyway. One reason I say not to bother with the presidency. Once your "New Conservative" or whatever party is a third minority, the rest will realize that they have a substantial block they can attract, and all they need to do is present bills that actually make sense.

At the very least, half a dozen or so senators would provide filibuster ability. There's possabilities there.

 

[Waitone]

Election laws are stacked against anyone but the usual suspects. Districts are carved for the benefit of the parties and not other parties. Media is not agreeable to having to work another viable party so it would pretty much be ignored.

That said, all that was said could be overruled by a charismatic candidate with a blowtorch of an issue. Illegal immigration could well be the issue; no charismatic candidates on the horizon.

 

[Maxwell]

Without some method to level the playing field or make voters feel their third party votes are not wasted, you're not going to get the votes.

The rule we have in the Virgin Islands for Governor is 50 +1.
So of the people running, the leader has to get 50% of the total votes +1 more to be elected. Otherwise it goes to a runoff with just the top two.
That keeps the minority from winning when the majority is divided by two viable candidates.
It would be expensive to do it for lesser seats, but still something to consider.

 

[RealGun]

The platform would need to be based upon some major issue that focused votes in a very big, power grabbing way and in relatively short order. Republicans emerging as anti-slavery was one example. One that failed was trying to break off to build a party around an individual. Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose party is an example.

The closest issue-based approach I can think of currently is if illegal immigration is not dealt with in a popular way. Trying to do it with an intricate ideology will not be moderate enough to win a majority.

If it means too little to blacks, women, seniors, and young voters, you won't win anything.

If an issue-based approach were successful, it would only be a Trojan Horse for the real platform that would follow, promoted by wealthy party leadership. I rather favor trying to reshape known quantities.

I see the two party system as quite natural, because the fundamental divide between the haves and have-nots is bipolar.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I think we would get better leaders if we used instant run-off voting, where you ranked the candidates in order of preference from favorite to least favorite.

That would let you vote your conscience. If your favorite candidate fails to get a majority of votes, then your vote gets added to your #2 choice.

For example, lets say you rank Libertarian #1, Republican #2, and Democrat #3. If the Libertarians fails to get at least 50% of the votes, then he is out of the race, and your vote for him gets transferred to the #2 choice, who is the Republican. This lets you vote for your favorite candidate, even if he is probably going to lose, without your vote being a de-facto vote for your least favorite candidate.

Of course, this would upset the apple cart in Washington, and put incumbents at risk, so it won't happen.

 

[Art Eatman]

Short-term, you could possibly create a third party due to some burning issue(s) which have broad-spread support in the populace, but about which neither party is acting. The Ross Perot deal comes to mind.

Long-term, you must compete in the marketplace of ideas. And, you must start at the grassroots level, first persuading friends and neighbors that your ideas are good for them. Dog-catcher, not governor or president.

My opinion of Libertarianism is that it demands far more personal responsibility than the average person is willing to give, and it requires giving up many of the benefits and perks now available from government.

Art

 

[mohican]

The Republican loss could be a long term victory if it made a point, and if the message has sunk in.

Maybe they'll realize that "reagan Democrats" shouldn't be the mainstream republicanism?

IMO - what the present majority soon to be minority did wrong

1. Helped pass McCain Feingold.
2. Helped pass the Patriot act. Let's see if a Democratic majority actually deep six it, or strengthen it.
3. Increased spending.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

To Create A Viable Third Party,...

...you must first make room for it. That means either the Republican Party or the Democrat Party needs to be reduced to a point where it could never hold a majority and the surviving party is big enough to suffer the loss of those who wish to split off and form the new party.

In all candor, that new party must be strictly oriented around and rooted in the Constitution. It can't have a platform based upon a religious theme, nor can it ignore or minimize the aspects of the First Amendment vis-a-vis religion. It can't have a platform allowing the free flow of drugs, immigration, or unregulated INTERNATIONAL trade. Nor can such a party ignore international goings-on, nor have an agenda toward a one world government or one of conquest.

It must be based upon keeping that Union level small and effective in its designated tasks, and relinquish all the rest of the currently usurped powers to the states and/or the people.

That's the only way I see it happening, short of civil war or outright revolution.

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

 

[mohican]

Woody - re 1st amendment

do you mean the 1st amendment as it is written as no establishment of state religion

or

the "liberal" addition of TJs separation of church and state - which is not in the 1st amendment.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Mohican,

As it is written.

Woody

 

[roo_ster]

Money, Charisma, Noteriety, Discipline, and a BURNING ISSUE

None of which are found in the Libertarian or Constitution Parties.

Examine how political parties came to being in the past:

Republican Party in USA
Commie Parties in several countries
National socialist Party in Germany
Facsist Party in Italy
Reform Party in USA (Peroistas)​

Those that had the mostest of the attributes I listed did the bestest.

 

[mohican]

It's all well and good for us to recommend a constitution based party

the reality is that obviously the 40% that vote Dem don't care about the constitution as a basis for government. Those voting Repub have been just paid lip service.

Voter ignorance or voter apathy is a big stumbling block.