why no american 3rd party?

[jeceris]

just read velikovsky's words on the two party system in the states.

and i wondered, and maybe our american members can help me understand this.

why has there never been a strong third party, or third choice in the u.s. ?

is there a conspiracy by the government to not let this happen?

do both the dems and reps work together to suppress any third party movement?

just wondering what your thoughts might be, babs, homer, reese, bathory....etc

[Celumnaz]

Heck, I'd like to know too, and I'm an American!

We do have other parties, green party, libertarian party come to mind. One problem is, there's some kind of laws that keep them from getting on the ballots in some states. I don't understand it. More choices seem good. Well... I think.

I do think the Dem/Rep have alot to do with keeping the competition out. It's all about power I think.

The people who run or organize the party want to get as many votes as possible for the mandate. If people believe a certain way, but one guy is closer than another to a persons belief, even though the two are almost identical in what they'd do, they split the votes between them. If there's one person that says he'd do things a certain way different from the other two, even if there are more people that combined are opposed to the 3rd person, the 3rd person would win because the votes are diluted between 2 people on the other side. Which I think would be a false mandate maybe.

The other thing I see, here at the office, my dad, others I've met is they don't want to lose. They don't want to vote for a loser. I say I don't agree with Bush, or Kerry, I vote for the best person. They say, vote for the winner and try to steer the whole party in line with your beliefs, vote within the party for the guy you agree with. They say I vote for losers. And really, they are right. My guys never win. Only a few times in local elections have I voted for someone that actually won. And usually those times it's because my only choices were Dem or Rep.

I don't believe or agree with the 2 party system. I think anyone that wants to run should be able to. And they should then make their entire lives an open book, public and private if they want to represent me. Make it available, not so we have to search and dig and get opinions from news and find things out. Publish it so the citizenry can read it and decide if that's the kind of person they want representing them.

No matter what, we're electing people, so the decisions will probably still be the lesser of evils, but the way it is now there's not too much difference in the 2 parties functionally. The retoric is different, but the functions are pretty much carbon copies.

It's still better than direct democracy imo. Then you get the "burn the witch!" "Yeah! Burn her!" "Yeah!" thing going. Mob mentality.

Better than socialism too, where the workers work their butts off for the lazy, people begin to perceive need where there is none and make unreasonable requests of the govt., the heads of govt and their pets still act like royalty, constant fear, etc...

The only real govt. that is near perfect is the benevolent dictatorship, and then only if the dictator really is a smart benevolent 'just' guy and lives forever.

All that's my opinion, as I see it at this hour today.

[jeceris]

thanks celumnaz, i agree with your, "don't vote for the loser" point.

i think that exists with every voter, and i have yet to vote for the winner in my riding.

i didn't know some states don't allow it. jesse ventura got in in minnesota and did allright didn't he?

in canada we have a few parties, and it allows for a modecom of change, i believe anyway.

[Celumnaz]

Yeah it depends on the state. I don't know all the specifics, but some states you have to put out a petition and get so many signatures before a candidate is allowed on the ballot. You could probably do a write in, but having a majority write in the same person to victory would be a really long shot.

For Dems and Rep it's easy to get the signatures, the more signatures required, the more likely there will be less competition for the big guys.

Edit: since Jesse is famous already, easier for him to get the signatures.

Edited September 15, 2004 by Celumnaz

[BurnSide]

So.. who's Nader, for the past what, 4 elections?

Not.. the third party candidate by any chance?

He's just like the Green Party here in Canada. No hope of ever getting in, but gives more of a choice.

[Homer]

In my humble opinion

The two major parties are too strong in terms of financial support from supporters and businesses. I don’t know of any viable third party capable of a $100 million national presidential election.

When it comes to voting and the third party, there is a catch-22. Most support from businesses go to candidates that have existing power bases, so the candidates, if elected, can re-pay the business with perks(legal of course ). But to achieve a power base to gain the support of businesses, you need to get people in political offices, which can’t happen without financial support…and the cycle goes on and on.

It’s not that we American’s don’t like third parties(there’s a couple dozen different ones), it’s just that we know they won’t win, so we don’t vote for them. Instead, we vote for someone we may not particularly like, because he is the lesser of two evils.

The only way I see to put an end to this, is if people started to vote for candidates they like, even knowing they won’t win---for now. As fewer votes go to the major parties, fewer businesses will back them financially, and third parties will have a fighting chance. This process would take many elections though, and people generally don’t have the patience for long term goals, and would prefer to vote for someone who has a chance to win now.

[jeceris]

The only way I see to put an end to this, is if people started to vote for candidates they like, even knowing they won’t win---for now. As fewer votes go to the major parties, fewer businesses will back them financially, and third parties will have a fighting chance. This process would take many elections though, and people generally don’t have the patience for long term goals, and would prefer to vote for someone who has a chance to win now.

267626[/snapback]

that makes a lot of sense homer, thanks.

the thing i'm sensing here, is , it's all based on financial backing and not voting for someone you're convinced is going to lose.

not hearing any conspiracy theories, oh well.

[Homer]

It’s all about financial backing.

Name recognition and getting your voice heard can’t be achieved, especially on a national level, without financial support.

To be even more effective, candidates from 3rd parties should campaign even when it’s not election year. This way, by the time the election year comes, people will know their name and what they stand for. This process will eventually lead to public/private support, but to acquire this support requires an enormous amount of money.

[retired UM]

i remember reading a story about in like, 1899, (i forget wht there called) had a very democratic idea and ideas, thn the democrats stole all of their ideas, and im not sure, but the republicans helped stomp them out too

Edited September 15, 2004 by CertifiedPublicAssasin

[Velikovsky]

Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt (1858-1919)--A Republican champion of "trust-busting" and conservation, Roosevelt served as vice president under President William McKinley and became president when McKinley was assassinated in 1901. Roosevelt was reelected in 1904, but did not seek a third term in 1908. In his place, the Republican convention nominated as its presidential candidate William Howard Taft, who promised to carry on Roosevelt's policies. In 1912, feeling that  Taft, had undermined his progressive legacy, Roosevelt sought, but did not get, the Republican nomination. As a result, he ran for president as the candidate of the Progressive Party. With the Republican vote split between Taft and Roosevelt, Democrat Woodrow Wilson won the 1912 presidential election.

Progressives, themselves, were never a unified group with a single objective or set of objectives. Instead, they had many different, and sometimes contradictory goals, including:

End to "white slavery" (prostitution and the sweat shops)

Prohibition

"Americanization" of immigrants

Immigration restriction legislation

Anti-trust legislation

Rate regulation of private utilities

Full government ownership of private utilities

Women's suffrage

End to child labor

Destruction of urban political machines

"Taylorism"

Political reform

Even though they were not a unified group, Progressives shared five basic characteristics or beliefs:

They were moralists

Government, once purified, must act

Believed in protecting the weakest members of society

Never challenged capitalism's basic tenets

Paternalistic, moderate, soft-minded

Bull Moose Party--Nickname for the Progressive Party of 1912. The bull moose was the emblem for the party, based on Roosevelt's boasting that he was "as strong as a bull moose."

This is what I would call the last major third party in America.

Since then the Dems and Reps have been so strong and so well supported until Ross Perot nobody came along that could possibly challenge them.

After all if Ross Perot hadn't dropped out he very easily could have been President. He was consistently leading in the polls with a nice comfort margin.

When or if there'll be a strong third party to come along later remains to be seen.

The key to having a succesful third party seems to be more related to name power. If a third political party could get someone like Colin Powell to run under their party they would have a significant amount of power. But without someone like that they tend to stay in the background.

[retired UM]

Edit: Removed unnessacrily large quote Blood Angel

yep, progressives, there the ones

Edited September 17, 2004 by Blood Angel

[jeceris]

thanks that was interesting.

i never knew about the progressives, and teddy roosevelt.

and i never did consider ross perot or ralph nader a real thirdparty alternative.

it's interesting though, when a 3rd party enters and splits the vote between either the right wing or left wing.

that had been the case in canada here, the right were split between the reform party and the conservatives, it left the liberals winning federal election after federal election, because the right vote was always split.

[Velikovsky]

Until Ross Perot dropped out, then entered the race a second time and started talking about conspiracies to force him out he was the projected winner.

It's just he ended up sounding like a nut so he became a laughing stock. He did have enough people behind him though that he and his vice presidential nominee made it into the debates.

Many people believe that if hadn't dropped out and then reentered the race he would have won.

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I always wanted Perot to win just because he looked funny.

[Kismit]

What would happen if everybody(and by everybody , I mean the majority of everybody ) wrote say .... 'Colin Powell' on the ballot paper instead of picking an exsisting candidate ?

No I haven't been drinking , it's a serious question . " Colin Powell is one of the few people actually competent enough to clean up the mess , Bush is not capable of,in my opinion .

How often is Bush going to upset international matters when the man still has not learned to not smirk when on international television and talking about sensetive issues which include war and death . The lesser of two evils is not good enough for me , darn it I'm an idealist .

[Celumnaz]

What would happen if everybody(and by everybody , I mean the majority of everybody ) wrote say .... 'Colin Powell' on the ballot paper instead of picking an exsisting candidate ?

That'd be awesome! Well, maybe Jessie Ventura instead of Colin Powell but yeah! I'd love to see a write in get the presidency!! That'd sure be an eye-opener for those DemPubs.

[Velikovsky]

Sounds good to me Kismit, let's start the campaign now.

See even alchoholics have good ideas.

[Kismit]

in my opinoin Velikovsky , alcholics have the best ideas . They don't allways remember them but there great .

[Michelle]

Kismit, that's why I always try and write mine down. I come up with my next great idea so fast I've forgotten the last one.

[Kismit]

Lol , I recently invested in an ideas book .

It's still empty ...

[Velikovsky]

maybe you need to drink more

but use a tape recorder so you can remember the ideas in the morning and you don't have illegible scribbling in your book.

[Independent1]

What would happen if everybody(and by everybody , I mean the majority of everybody ) wrote say .... 'Colin Powell' on the ballot paper instead of picking an exsisting candidate ?

No I haven't been drinking , it's a serious question . " Colin Powell is one of the few people actually competent enough to clean up the mess , Bush is not capable of,in my opinion .

How often is Bush going to upset international matters when the man still has not learned to not smirk when on international television and talking about sensetive issues which include war and death .  The lesser of two evils is not good enough for me , darn it I'm an idealist .

272784[/snapback]

Colin Powell would become President.

The problem is getting everyone to write his name in.

[Independent1]

The problem with third parties is that oru system does not allow them to build up a strong local base.

Take for example California. They have 52 seats in the House of Representatives. For each one, there will be a seperate, popular election, with 52 seperate winner. If you are in the green party, you have to get the most votes in your district to get the payoff, a victory and a seat in the House. If the Green party gets 15 percent of the vote, they get nothing.

Most European systems relie on a system that is more condusive to third parties. In a europeans sytem, the California seats would be decided in a statewide election, in which each party would get a number of seats equal to the percentage of votes it got. So under these systems, if the Green party gets 15 percent of the vote, they get 7 or 8 seats on the House floor.

[Celumnaz]

That's not too bad, except how do they address the representative not having a clue or caring at all about those people in the district he represents. In that case, the representative is answerable directly to his party instead of the people of his district. That makes people vote more for a party than a person, more than they do already, no?

[Independent1]

That's not too bad, except how do they address the representative not having a clue or caring at all about those people in the district he represents.  In that case, the representative is answerable directly to his party instead of the people of his district.  That makes people vote more for a party than a person, more than they do already, no?

275950[/snapback]

They would not have "districts" per say. Instead, they represent the individuals who voted for them by being true to their party ideology.

It is certainly not a perfect system.

It is, however, a system that is more condusive to third parties.