Rise of a Third Party

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Republicans and Democrats work in a bipartisan coalition to keep third parties from becoming viable. They can't get in the debates without polling at 15% nationally, and they can't poll at 15% nationally without getting into the debates. Then not to mention all the ridiculous lawsuits the Republicans and Democrats will use to try to keep a third party candidate off the ballot, even after they've gotten on the ballot in accordance with the law. This wastes the few resources third party candidates have in trying to fight the lawsuits. Then, of course, the laws that apply to third party candidates don't apply to Republicans and Democrats. Such as in 2008 when neither John McCain nor Barack Obama registered to be on the ballot in Texas on time, but were still allowed on regardless. A third party would have been out of luck.

 

[Foxfyre]

We should have the choice of "none of the above" on every ballot, federal, state and local.
A candidate should be required to get a majority of the votes to win.
If "none of the above" gets the majority, then we deserve a new election with new candidates.
Voting for the lessor of two evils has been going on too long, we deserve better.

Actually this is an interesting concept. It wouldn't even have to be a majority. A plurality would suffice nicely. Bill Clinton didn't get a majority in either election--in fact if I remember right, he got only 43% of the vote when he ran the first time.

However, I don't even think its who has the most money that determines the winner. It's who can control the message.

If you are effective at scaring the old folks that you will take their medicare away, you can win. If you are effective at promising all manner of goodies to the numbnuts who want to take more than they want to give, you can win. If you can convince enough people that you hold traditional values and are fiscally responsible, you can win. (George W. Bush did that and then didn't follow through on the fiscally responsible part.) If you can inspire the nation to believe that there is a better day ahead you can win. (Both Reagan and Obama did that. Reagan continued that message. Obama didn't.)

If you have an army of proganda robots like ACORN or a large number of strong arm tactic types like the NEA and SEIU, among others, you can control a great deal of the message. All you have to do is convince enough people that they'll reap massive benefits if they vote a certain way--especially if you pay them to vote, drive them to the polls, show them which name to mark, and encourage fraud--and you can tip a close election. You can even sweeten the pot by insisting those in prison be able to vote, discourage any form of verification of citizenship or voter eligibility, allow anybody to vote whether they have registered or not, and don't question professional voters who sell their votes on the internet, and/or who register from place to place to swing elections.

If you have most of the mainstream media pulling for you and oh so subtely gigging the other guy while making you look as good as possible, you have a large leg up.

In spite of all that, Ross Perot, as an example, was able to control the message. However nutty he turned out to be, he was able to control the message. He was quick on his feet, could give tit for tat in any debate, and was such a captivating personality he was constantly on TV without spending a dime. If a third party could come up with somebody like him PLUS having a message that resonates with the public, they could have a shot.

The danger of course, is in splitting the conservative and moderate vote and putting the extremist liberal Democrats in power for the rest of our lifetime.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

I find it interesting that everyone says that crap, but then they always must end up thinking that one of the top two is the best person around.

 

[rightwinger]

If they were any good....

They wouldn' have to run on a third party ticket

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If they were any good....

They wouldn' have to run on a third party ticket

Yes, because the only "good" people are Republicans or Democrats.

 

[slackjawed]

If they were any good....

They wouldn' have to run on a third party ticket

Yes, because the only "good" people are Republicans or Democrats.

That's the circular logic presented by the partisan faithful to continue the death grip of the two party system on US politics.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Third Parties never work. We have tried for 200 years without success. All a third party does is draw voters from either the Dems or the Repubs and gets the opponent elected. This is how Abe Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Richard Nixon got elected. It may have also cost Al Gore the 2000 election.

The way to build a third party is from the ground up not go right for the Presidency. You need to elect candidates in the statehouses, Congress and Senate before you dream of running someone for President. A third party president, if he were able to win, would have no power

The GOP in 1860 was a third party as well, a sectional one, as were the three factions of the Democratic Party. The Republicans unifed on Unionism and preservation, and incorporated some of the more liberal Whig principles, not the least support to business and support for internal improvements. The Dems lost the election because they dissolved on the issue of how to resolve slavery.

A third party in order to survive and prosper requires (1) a basic unifying principle allied to a consistent ideological philosophy to broaden the appeal of the base, and (2) the opposition party in absolute disarray over core principles. Neither of those conditions exist right now for a third party.

 

[rightwinger]

If they were any good....

They wouldn' have to run on a third party ticket

Yes, because the only "good" people are Republicans or Democrats.

That's the circular logic presented by the partisan faithful to continue the death grip of the two party system on US politics.

I wouldn't belong to any party that would have Tommy Tancredo as a member.....

 

[slackjawed]

Yes, because the only "good" people are Republicans or Democrats.

That's the circular logic presented by the partisan faithful to continue the death grip of the two party system on US politics.

I wouldn't belong to any party that would have Tommy Tancredo as a member.....

And there is the ridicule presented by the partisan faithful to continue the death grip of the two party system on US politics.

Care to try anymore of Alinski's tactics?

 

[Shorebreak]

I don't believe in applying any emphasis towards any party. Our co-opted two party system is the bane of this nation. History will show that it was the tool used to decosnstruct our economy and liberties and merge us into a homogenouse system with the rest of the nations who are being incorporated into a corporate constructed global system rather than a citizen controlled national system.

If people want legitimate change (towards a US Constitution-based, limited, "by the people" form of government) the only possible solution is to completely and fully cease from feeding the moster that is also know as the Republican and Democratic Party. They have a collective stranglehold over our government which they use to continuously expand their control and to constantly overstep the Constitutional framework that places the citizens in charge of government.

Both parties have indebted us beyond our ability to ever repay the global banks whom we owe practically every square inch of capital and property inside this nation.

Both have expanded us more than 100 fold from the Constitutional framework of government.

Both have sent our children and grandchildren to die and to kill in foreign nations for purposes that have nothing to do with the needs of the US citizens, with the exception of those who have controlling interests in business entities or NGO's whose agenda's or bottom lines are subject to foreign influence.

Both have taken dramatic and over-reaching steps to harmonize our domestic policies and regulations under the authority of international bodies without the benefit of oversight by the Congress, therefore, without the oversight or agreement of the American people.

And both have enacted policies, practices, expansions, and programs that are detrimental to our national economy, to our individual liberty, to our security (both domestic and international), and to nearly every aspect of our lives, ranging from the schooling of our children to the world perception of who we are as a nation and a society.

if you are so bold as to believe that by continuing to work with and elect these same two parties back into office, that we will see a new direction and a course correction from where they are currently taking us, then I will be so bold as to say that you are a complete and utter ignoramus. Your mind is drunk with hope and expectation based upon words rather than the sobriety of examining our current circumstances from an apolitical perspective and arriving at the obvious conclusion. That conclusion is that we've reached our current state BECAUSE of the two-party system, NOT in spite of it.

And that is why it's my conclusion that no party should ever be emphasized or promoted on any official level. If you need to unify and work together to promote a candidate, so be it. That's what it takes to run an election campaign. But.... the unification of the majority of elected officials under one or two umbrella's is a recipe for manipulation, for implementation of private agenda's, and all other sorts of nonsense that is outside the scope and interests of the voters.

I'd rather see a House and Senate full of individuals who are elected on the merits of their support for Constitutional leadership rather than a gaggle of representatives who are working together to grow government and implement agenda's that are pet policy to those who support them.

Eliminate the two party system and let candidates run elections by standing on their own two feet. There will be no correction from our current course until each individual arrives at this only remaining logical conclusion.

 

[PeterS]

The Republicans and Democrats work in a bipartisan coalition to keep third parties from becoming viable. They can't get in the debates without polling at 15% nationally, and they can't poll at 15% nationally without getting into the debates. Then not to mention all the ridiculous lawsuits the Republicans and Democrats will use to try to keep a third party candidate off the ballot, even after they've gotten on the ballot in accordance with the law. This wastes the few resources third party candidates have in trying to fight the lawsuits. Then, of course, the laws that apply to third party candidates don't apply to Republicans and Democrats. Such as in 2008 when neither John McCain nor Barack Obama registered to be on the ballot in Texas on time, but were still allowed on regardless. A third party would have been out of luck.

Bull. Show me a third party that isn't reactionary or radical. You will never have a viable third party so long as they appeal to the fringe. Todays third parties offer only extreme ideology and this is why they will never have any viable power. Stop blaming others failures caused by your own positon.

 

[rightwinger]

The Republicans and Democrats work in a bipartisan coalition to keep third parties from becoming viable. They can't get in the debates without polling at 15% nationally, and they can't poll at 15% nationally without getting into the debates. Then not to mention all the ridiculous lawsuits the Republicans and Democrats will use to try to keep a third party candidate off the ballot, even after they've gotten on the ballot in accordance with the law. This wastes the few resources third party candidates have in trying to fight the lawsuits. Then, of course, the laws that apply to third party candidates don't apply to Republicans and Democrats. Such as in 2008 when neither John McCain nor Barack Obama registered to be on the ballot in Texas on time, but were still allowed on regardless. A third party would have been out of luck.

Bull. Show me a third party that isn't reactionary or radical. You will never have a viable third party so long as they appeal to the fringe. Todays third parties offer only extreme ideology and this is why they will never have any viable power. Stop blaming others failures caused by your own positon.

Third parties live on the fringe.....that is why only people like Dude vote for them. You never have to claim you voted for someone who actually won

Lyndon LaRouche anyone?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Republicans and Democrats work in a bipartisan coalition to keep third parties from becoming viable. They can't get in the debates without polling at 15% nationally, and they can't poll at 15% nationally without getting into the debates. Then not to mention all the ridiculous lawsuits the Republicans and Democrats will use to try to keep a third party candidate off the ballot, even after they've gotten on the ballot in accordance with the law. This wastes the few resources third party candidates have in trying to fight the lawsuits. Then, of course, the laws that apply to third party candidates don't apply to Republicans and Democrats. Such as in 2008 when neither John McCain nor Barack Obama registered to be on the ballot in Texas on time, but were still allowed on regardless. A third party would have been out of luck.

Bull. Show me a third party that isn't reactionary or radical. You will never have a viable third party so long as they appeal to the fringe. Todays third parties offer only extreme ideology and this is why they will never have any viable power. Stop blaming others failures caused by your own positon.

If that's the case then why do the Democrats and Republicans work so hard to keep third parties out of the debates and off the ballots? If they only appeal to the fringe then they wouldn't pose a problem even if they were in the debates or on the ballot.

 

[PeterS]

The Republicans and Democrats work in a bipartisan coalition to keep third parties from becoming viable. They can't get in the debates without polling at 15% nationally, and they can't poll at 15% nationally without getting into the debates. Then not to mention all the ridiculous lawsuits the Republicans and Democrats will use to try to keep a third party candidate off the ballot, even after they've gotten on the ballot in accordance with the law. This wastes the few resources third party candidates have in trying to fight the lawsuits. Then, of course, the laws that apply to third party candidates don't apply to Republicans and Democrats. Such as in 2008 when neither John McCain nor Barack Obama registered to be on the ballot in Texas on time, but were still allowed on regardless. A third party would have been out of luck.

Bull. Show me a third party that isn't reactionary or radical. You will never have a viable third party so long as they appeal to the fringe. Todays third parties offer only extreme ideology and this is why they will never have any viable power. Stop blaming others failures caused by your own positon.

If that's the case then why do the Democrats and Republicans work so hard to keep third parties out of the debates and off the ballots? If they only appeal to the fringe then they wouldn't pose a problem even if they were in the debates or on the ballot.

Because third parties split the vote. In effect Perot elected Clinton and Nader elected Bush. But they represent no viability themselves only as dupes to elect those they would otherwise oppose.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Bull. Show me a third party that isn't reactionary or radical. You will never have a viable third party so long as they appeal to the fringe. Todays third parties offer only extreme ideology and this is why they will never have any viable power. Stop blaming others failures caused by your own positon.

If that's the case then why do the Democrats and Republicans work so hard to keep third parties out of the debates and off the ballots? If they only appeal to the fringe then they wouldn't pose a problem even if they were in the debates or on the ballot.

Because third parties split the vote. In effect Perot elected Clinton and Nader elected Bush. But they represent no viability themselves only as dupes to elect those they would otherwise oppose.

So the "fringe" shouldn't have the right to vote for who they want?

 

[Contumacious]

Third parties tend to be very narrow minded and centered around radical or reactionary ideology. The only viable third party would be an independent party that was open to any and all political beliefs but centered around a concrete purpose. PAGO and responsible government would split both parties and put independents in power.

I vote Libertarian , but if "narrow minded and centered around radical or reactionary ideology" is a concern, why don't you continue to vote demopublican?

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can all vote for whatever candidates run, gang. No one is stopping you. But in this era the third parties appeal to very small minority fringe issues. And, no, you really don't influence elections all that much. Perot drew more votes from Clinton than from Bush, and Nader did not affect the 2000 election at all.

 

[kyzr]

Calling Nader supporters......calling Perot supporters.....nevermind. I'll vote for an R or a D, at least I have a 50-50 chance of success.

I'd vote for an electable good guy over a great 3rd party guy w/zero chance of winning.

 

[Contumacious]

You can all vote for whatever candidates run, gang. No one is stopping you. But in this era the third parties appeal to very small minority fringe issues. And, no, you really don't influence elections all that much. Perot drew more votes from Clinton than from Bush, and Nader did not affect the 2000 election at all.

You are right.

Only a few are interested in Liberty and the US Constitution of 1787.

.

 

[LuckyDan]

The GOP in 1860 was a third party as well, a sectional one, as were the three factions of the Democratic Party. The Republicans unifed on Unionism and preservation, and incorporated some of the more liberal Whig principles, not the least support to business and support for internal improvements. The Dems lost the election because they dissolved on the issue of how to resolve slavery.

A third party in order to survive and prosper requires (1) a basic unifying principle allied to a consistent ideological philosophy to broaden the appeal of the base, and (2) the opposition party in absolute disarray over core principles. Neither of those conditions exist right now for a third party.

The Republican Party was never a third party. Their first presidential candidate in 1856 won 114 electoral votes. The third place candidate was the Know Nothing nominee, Millard Fillmore, who won 8 or something like that.

1860 was a GOP route, and in 1864, Reublicans elected something like 200 members of Congress.