Is a Viable Third Party Possible or is America @!$%#ed?

A third party isn't viable... and it matters not of the GOP takes back Congress in 2010 if they are a bunch of big-government liberals similar to John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the two Maine Senators... The best solution would appear for conservatives to put their energy into taking control of the GOP, and giving the American people a legitimate choice when it comes to elected officials...

I watched Lindsey Graham recently, talking about how wonderful the Green movement is, and didn't know whether to laugh or cry....

What some are forgetting is that for there to be a viable third party they must have a number of state legislatures (NO, not legislators but a majority in some legislatures) AND some House and senate seats.

So far third parties have tried to be president only, campaigns of personality over substance so even if they won, they could not govern

I voted no to this specific question - "Is a third party viable in the U.S"

Reason: Campaign finance reform is needed before this becomes a reality. Until it happens, the existing 2 party system will prevail. Simple as that.

And Eric Albert - sheesh - have you been living in a cabin somewhere in the mountains? Gawd - come back to earth!

Why do American's always end up focusing on a political party, instead of the people that seek to hold office? From where I see things, that's the problem. Maybe if people elected representatives, they would understand how being independent, also means going it alone, without a party.

Imagine an entire congress of independents. Sure fewer laws would get written, but is that a bad thing? They would be forced to actually write intelligent legislation, that could pass the muster of roughly 500 other perspectives.

Pacific Northwest Blogger

Ask yourself this, if most of the American Public consider themselves "Independents", than why are their so very few in office, but instead a whole slew of Dem's and Rep's?

That alone is a reason for a third party.

Why do American's always end up focusing on a political party, instead of the people that seek to hold office? From where I see things, that's the problem. Maybe if people elected representatives, they would understand how being independent, also means going it alone, without a party.

the size of the country, and the sheer number of local districts, make it very difficult to establish any self-sustaining consensus, especially once the ball gets rolling — the gravity of the two-party system, which works by appeasing and then absorbing dissent, only gets worse every day.

and of course the longer we wait to simply stop it, the more force it will require.

thats where i start becoming very sad.

Ask yourself this, if most of the American Public consider themselves "Independents", than why are their so very few in office, but instead a whole slew of Dem's and Rep's?

I have asked that question many times. I keep coming to the same answer. That independents are outside the election process in many ways. Real election reform that includes public campaign financing is one way to get all those that seek to hold office on the same page. As is, corporations/lobbies donate the bulk of campaign financing, they estimate how much power they can weld through their donations, with a political party, they know the rules because a party has a mission statement or pledge, et., with independents they haven't a clue. They would be just like any of us, they would have to research the person.

The answer:
Public Campaign Financing, no corporate or individual contributions. Local television and radio that use public airwaves provide equal time at their cost for each candidate to pitch themselves. I'm not asking for something new, I am asking public media to do what they had been doing for many decades.

This would open the door to more independents, while at the same time, making members of the two major parties - independent- from campaign donations. Either way, we as voters win.

Public Campaign Financing, no corporate or individual contributions. Local television and radio that use public airwaves provide equal time at their cost for each candidate to pitch themselves. I'm not asking for something new, I am asking public media to do what they had been doing for many decades.

you're right, i think.

the reason such a simple campaign finance reform law isnt out there is because thats really all it would take to turn it around. it's not such a inconceivable thing, to have it so close — and it's clearly the only just way to do it.

then if we just shorten the campaign season, we might actually get some meaningful legislation passed, and american politics can take a step back from its obsession with vainglory.

then if we just shorten the campaign season, we might actually get some meaningful legislation passed, and american politics can take a step back from its obsession with vainglory.

I wish, I sincerely do. Six weeks tops. It shouldn't take that long to understand a candidates position if they have the air time and questions asked. I feel the only reason we have such long election cycles is for the opposition to have time to lobby or create some yellow journalism to tear down the opponent - just ask John McCain when George W used some yellow journalism to falsely claim McCain had a black love child.

also i think it's just become a cottage industry. to shorten it would have economic impacts on large corporations (and also of course local economics, but i hasten to add that it's not grandma's diner on rt 66 that can fight a law like that), like media conglomerates, air travel, hotels, etc.

I wished yes and voted no for all the reasons you brought up in your article.

Yes, a centrist party, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, could make it.

After Palin and her idiot adherents finish off the GOP in 2010 there might be a chance to build just such a party from the disenfranchised (sane) republicans and the right wing of the democratic party. I, for one, would consider joining.

All we get with 3rd party candidates is rejects from the first 2 parties.

If the first two parties have rejected them, I might consider them. ;)

The operative word is VIABLE, my dog could be a 3rd party candidate but he won't be a viable one.

Try to keep up.

I dunno. How smart is ur dog?

i think the first step would be to A). allow a third party(s) in the debates.

and, B). voters could actually vote for them, and get over the idea that they have to choose one of the two corporate douchebags that has been letting them down over and over again...

and then a 3rd party would be viable.

pretty much every other so called "democracy" has that figured out by now. Americans just seem to be a bit slower and more easily controlled by the very two pig parties that keep ramming them in the tailpipe and smiling, while being hand fed by the pigmasters of the universe.

so i optimistically and enthusiastically answered *yes*, but sadly A). and B). have not yet been realized by enough people.

remember that whole campaign finance reform idea? was anyone against that other than huge corporations? does anyone else think that those huge campaign donations and the two-party system might be connected, or is that just a conspiracy theory of mine?

Smart enough to stay out of politics...

LaeF1

No, we have a funding structure that makes it impossible for a 3rd party to raise enough money to compete.

The fact is, if a person can't win a major party nomination there is no way they will win the election. Corporate backers will not fund them and individual contributions will never be enough.

Robert - a true libertarian party would be against abortion restrictions and for same sex equal rights so you immediately lose the (sac-)religious right.

They are against community responsibility (things like public roads,l parks) and for inherited wealth over free markets so you lose the left

What's left seems to be a few political theorists and those who don't examine the rhetoric for the contradictions

NO, they are not a viable national party (then again neither are the greens, etc.)

Rob- Eriq thinks you wrong. I think HE'S the wrong one. I just think we need to work harder to educate the American people just what it is we stand FOR and AGAINST. It converted me, 20+ years ago, and it will continue to work.

OK Neale,

Thanks for the heads up... :^)

I do believe you are right Sir, and anyone who disagrees, is wrong... :^)

Educate, Educate, Educate... The philosophy is sound, the party (and unfortunately party politics) did some strange things in 2007-2008 though. The drive is still there, out in the heart of most Americans, it justs needs a "logical" kick-start in the mind.

Aloha

Actually, Rob, the kick needs to be 2 feet lower, and 180 degrees from the front!! But still the best party going, andusually consistant.

Are you sure it doesn't just insure that no one is strong enough to ever challenge the elitism of absolute inherited corporate power?

Has that ever worked in the past?

EVER?

But if we take money out of it; require all media to give equal time (before the primaries) to all candidates and not have party ID on the primary ballot ..........

The problem with equal media coverage is that it does not stop it from being any less fair than it already is. Just look at a Faux News interview of Richard Dawkins to give a blatantly obvious example.

As for taking party ID off ballots, the problem with that is the fact that most voters, myself included, would be lucky to remember anyone running for any other office than president. If they were to do this, I would expect non-presidential election voter turnout to drop even more than it already is. Even if I were to research the candidates, I would consider myself lucky to remember more than about 5 names.

Hey Dr.,

It started way back in 1913... but that is all I'll say on that subject, do not want to derail the thread. :^)

Have a good'un,

Aloha

Great post!

Things have to get worse before they get better. Although I deplore the present state of politics, we are not suffering enough yet. When the crisis deepens a third party will evolve.

I reached that point long ago... I guess I have higher standards for my politicians than most. why doesn't everyone?
your post rings true, and it stings.

And therein is why a third party will not work. The core issue with the current parties is that they don't stand for anything, Neither party has any kind of core value structure that they will stand behind. When someone does stand for something they are demonized because of mistakes they have made over the years. And further demonized for actually standing up for what is right.

The Financial Antiterrorism Act was a nightmare, anyone that voted for shows a clear disrespect for the american public. I am glad that there was one who would vote against it, that there was only one telles me that our system of government is too far corrupted to be fixed.

The Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (H.R. 3004) was a bill calling for the Federal Government to have the increased ability to control and monitor financial criminals and the ability to sentence them.

The Financial Anti-Terrorism Act allows:

* Criminals to be punished, those who were engaged in illegal money practices
* Gives procedural guidelines for Federal subpoenas for records of funds in correspondent bank accounts
* Federal jurisdiction over foreign money launderers and over money laundered through a foreign bank
* All financial institutions to be forced to form an anti-money laundering program

seems like we need it more than ever. The only ones who wouldn't like it are the criminals.

And the folks that think the federal government should have to secure a warrant before sifting through someone's financial records. Or folks that are big on the constitution.

I see no valid reason why the government should have unfettered access to every american's financials.

hemphill

I see no valid reason why the government should have unfettered access to every american's financials.

Except as the ultimate control mechanism, which is why they do it, and why we don't want it.

so I guess following terrorist funding upsets you ?

Ripley8

so I guess following terrorist funding upsets you ?

Not until they morph that "right wing terror threat" into looking at me, and then yes, it does. Any system can be abused.

Following terrorist funding doesn't bother me at all. The fact that they feel the need to write such laws so that they encompass every american with no burden of proof bothers me a great deal.

Hemphill:

And therein is why a third party will not work. The core issue with the current parties is that they don't stand for anything, Neither party has any kind of core value structure that they will stand behind. When someone does stand for something they are demonized because of mistakes they have made over the years. And further demonized for actually standing up for what is right.

That's what the Libertarians would like you to think, but the parties in power NOW do stand for very definite principles.

The Republicans stand for small government, outsourcing of manufacturing to other countries, outsourcing of essential government services, small or no social safety net, no consumer protection, tax and other laws strongly favoring business, and as little regulation as possible. The Democrats favor government provision of essential services (because it's more efficient), tax laws that encourage business to keep jobs in the US, government regulation of financial institutions, consumer protections, progressive taxation, and a strong social safety net.

The choices are clear.

The Republicans stand for small government, outsourcing of manufacturing to other countries, outsourcing of essential government services, small or no social safety net, no consumer protection, tax and other laws strongly favoring business, and as little regulation as possible. The Democrats favor government provision of essential services (because it's more efficient), tax laws that encourage business to keep jobs in the US, government regulation of financial institutions, consumer protections, progressive taxation, and a strong social safety net.

I find that description hard to reconcile with reality. I also find those principles to be pathetic in this day and age. How many people are involved in the government, or how many social programs we have is seriously less relevant than having the government respect the constitution.

I'm with you, XN. What's needed, and possible, is a reform of electoral laws and regulations to ensure that the government reflects the wishes of the majority. That's what America's about -- government of, by and for...

There would have to be a very strong progressive majority for this to happen, because Republicans would throw the full weight of their machine against it. The last thing The Right wants is majority rule. The mere mention of "the people" in a public context is enough to bring out the howls and cries of "Socialism..."

I think a third party is coming,

Dragon1986

A. Threatening the two-party corporatist systems dominance would result in a terrorist attack with the intention of bringing total martial law.

There would be a reaction, but I doubt it would be a terrorist attack, maybe a false flag action to blame the third party group, disguised as a terror attack.

B. A viable third party that enters into power in America would soon be compromised by fascist and corporatist interests acting to maintain power and dominance over America.

True, but before that happened, we might be able to get something real going.

C. Average Americans are really just too programmed, propagandized, uneducated, interested, or involved enough to make a wise enough decision that hasn't been shaped by corporate media.

Also true, but...

A viable third party would not work because:

So, we shouldn't even try, we should just give-up before we begin?

I won't contest the challenges, but we see exactly where the two-party system is getting us, so why not attempt to change the game a little?

Hey Mike,

So, we shouldn't even try, we should just give-up before we begin?

The intention wouldn't be at creating a new party but divorcing the system completely. I don't feel a third (inevitable) corporate party would be the best conduit for beneficial change. Undertaking major grass roots efforts are the best chances Americans have at effecting real change. It is not enough just attempting to tweak the system when the problem is the system which is based on infinite growth on a finite planet.

so why not attempt to change the game a little?

The 'game' doesn't change only the players. People are either competing against or cooperating with each other. Collectively, human nature and western culture have leaned towards competition which leads to conflict and hardship.

how many parties did this country start out with ?

how many now ?

* American Party (1968)
* America First Party (2008)
* America's Independent Party (2008)
* Boston Tea Party (2006)
* Independence Party of America (2007)
* Moderate Party (2006)
* Modern Whig Party (2008)
* Marijuana Party (2002)
* Objectivist Party (2008)
* Party for Socialism and Liberation (2004)
* Peace and Freedom Party (1967) - active primarily in California
* Prohibition Party (1867)
* Reform Party of the United States of America (1995) - not to be confused with an offshoot of the party, the American Reform Party (below)
* Socialist Equality Party (2008)
* Socialist Party USA (1973) - originally founded in 1901 as the Socialist Party of America
* Socialist Workers Party (1938)
* Unity Party of America (2004)
* Workers World Party (1959)
* Working Families Party (1998)

^a The 2008 presidential ticket of the Socialist Party USA was qualified in enough states to win the electoral college through a combination of state ballot qualifications and official write-in status.[2]

It seems the only thing that really stops a third party ? money. so crack them wallets open.

Those parties you listed.. they do not get the exposure like the corporate parties do. In turn, they have a minimal impact during election season because they will never be advertised like the opposition.

I will disagree with you about it only being money, the heart of it is power - which average citizens don't seem to have too much of these days either

Example: Lets say we wanted to vote Obama out. Obama runs as a Democrat and gets 35% of the vote and the Republicans get 33% and the Independent gets 32%; Obama wins although 65% of the country didn't vote for him.

the question wasnt: would having a third party improve our chances of kicking obama out of office?

No kidding!

But my point was why I voted NO!

so...no because they dont work?

well, sure. we know they dont work. if they did, we wouldnt ask if they could. what about — could they work — ever?

the only hurdle ? money. that's it. so don't be cheap and crack them wallets open.

Kareem in my Coffee (I mean this as no insult to you, but...)

As a pro choice voter, I'd never join a party that's anti choice.

And that is exactly the thinking that got us to where we are.

Single issue voters, zealots who have a passion, but not a philosophy. That is exactly what polarized the two parties to the point they are now.

They became black and white issue parties.

They are against it, so we are for it. I can't stand it, and it's why I hate the GOP.

(I already hated the Dem's based on my political philosophy)

Kareem- the LP is pro-choice. I am pro-life. I am a Libertarian. WHy? Because that is the only difference I have with them. And as a member, I can at least try to change that position. But If I were a Democrat, they are not only pro-choice, they are pro tax, anti gun, pro welfare. And Republicans are pro religious laws, anti gay, anti drug legalization, and pro big government (even though they claim otherwise). So the LP is the way for me. Add up th pro's and con's of all three, and you will rpobably see that it is for you, too. Either way, have a great day!

Neale Osborn

But If I were a Democrat, they are not only pro-choice, they are pro tax, anti gun, pro welfare. And Republicans are pro religious laws, anti gay, anti drug legalization, and pro big government (even though they claim otherwise).

Exactly! It's like Hell with only two rooms!

K in my C,
how bout just a party that is against trillion dollar wars, and against trillion dollar wall street bailouts, and against constant military spending increases, and against unwarranted spying on its citizens?
then with a fraction of the money saved they could give people health care, like all the rest of the modern world nations do...
I know, I know, that's asking way too much.

Laef this is exactly what I mean!!! This is fantasy however.

I will never vote for a person who is working against choice. That is my issue. Not everyone is like me. They are pro choice and will vote for those who aren't. In this country, we can each CHOOSE who to vote for and we have the right to our opinions. If you think that single issue voters are the cause of this massive problem, I must respectfully disagree. Since I became voting age, I have never missed a vote even when I lived overseas,

I love my country. I am looking into the Libertarian Party. The 2 party system is obviously broken and doesn't really represent the majority of people at this time.

sailingaway-1549933

That's a great point!

If nothing else came from it at all, the "Tea Party" movement would be beneficial if they just got the laws changed to give a third, or fourth, or fifth party an opening.

I'd call that a success!