Third Party Let's finally talk about it.

[Shadowferal]

I think the imagination reflected Bernie Sanders, while the reality was Ross Perot.

If anyone were to name a viable candidate today we'd think we were in an owl convention for the chorus of "who?" being loudly heard.

[Felya]

I mean the reality is 3rd party candidates hardly ever make an impact, but you seem to think things are more or less fine so what ever your opinion. Like the obvious barrier is money, the amount of money you need to run at all and be heard at all is beyond any grass roots movement. And you know who has the power to change that?

That means the issue is money... both @Shadowferal and I covered that... this is not an issue of parties, but wealth. I will ask again... What mechanism of the two main parties, are keeping third parties down, outside the ones I listed?

The fact that you have no clue what you are talking about, is not a reflection of my opinion on the subject. I listed actual... real... issues... which included money, as an example of it not being the result of a two party system.

Alright? Have fun with imagining whatever you need to so you can justify your behaviour to yourself.

What exactly am I imagining? You have yet to list anything tangible to prove your point... I get that someone told you there is a problem, but you should have asked why... so, this predicament doesn’t happen.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the imagination reflected Bernie Sanders, while the reality was Ross Perot.

If anyone were to name a viable candidate today we'd think we were in an owl convention for the chorus of "who?" being loudly heard.

Trump would get 33% of the vote, if he ran as independent in 2016... and wouldn’t be president...

[Krakan]

Who would this party appeal to? While there is dissatisfaction among parties there isn't enough for either the Democrats or Republicans to split dooming themselves to obscurity.

You would need to see major facturing between both established parties for a third to take off.

[JohnBrown1917]

Who would this party appeal to? While there is dissatisfaction among parties there isn't enough for either the Democrats or Republicans to split dooming themselves to obscurity.

You would need to see major facturing between both established parties for a third to take off.

Only because the system is biased for only 2 parties to have any power.

[Krakan]

Only because the system is biased for only 2 parties to have any power.

It is to an extent but most multiparty systems do as well. The biggest problem is essentially convincing both parties they are better going a third or forth way otherwise a majority government will always be formed by the faction that stays united.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Only because the system is biased for only 2 parties to have any power.

This is not true at all what is your evidence in your argument for this being true? Because both parties are established yes, but that doesn't mean it's biased outside of any other bias that literally is the entire point of politics.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump would get 33% of the vote, if he ran as independent in 2016... and wouldn’t be president...

This soo much gets over looked in the same is True of Sanders the difference was Sanders was less successful in over all than Trump for the Republicans, because Trump had no conscience and would literally say and do almost anything to win.

[Egomaniac]

I constantly hear this argument. I don't think historically it is borne that out much, third parties have exerted considerable influence on major parties.

But even if that were not the case the argument tends to work on the assumption that it is 1980 forever. Times change. We have the internet now. You can get millions of views with the right pitch with no expenditure. You can raise millions if people support you. The same barriers to entry don't exist that prevented third parties. That's an enormous change from the days when parties had to start out with ten people in a bar or something and relied on pamphlets to spread their message.

We are actually only one clever marketing campaign away from a completely new party taking major office in an advanced industrialized state.

Are you talking about third parties in general or third parties in America? Because I'm talking exclusively about the American System.

I personally live in a country with multiple major political parties...and even though there are still only "the big two" parties that dominate the federal landscape...the smaller parties do often hold the balance of power. With the US it's different though. With the "winner take all" approach most states have regarding Electoral Votes....third parties really only function as a spoiler.

If a third party does ever manage to take the White House...that will be the end of either the Democratic or Republican Parties. Which will just create a new status quo of a two party system.

[Ivanstone]

I think the imagination reflected Bernie Sanders, while the reality was Ross Perot.

If anyone were to name a viable candidate today we'd think we were in an owl convention for the chorus of "who?" being loudly heard.

It doesn't work at the federal level mostly but at the state level there are three third party senators who are successful: Bernie, Angus King and Lisa Murkowski. I know the later is GOP currently but when she had to run in 2010 she ran as an independent and defeated the GOP and Dem candidates.

There's still some potential. Also a lot of states have jungle elections and other groups can get some success there.

[Doctor Amadeus]

It doesn't work at the federal level mostly but at the state level there are three third party senators who are successful: Bernie, Angus King and Lisa Murkowski. I know the later is GOP currently but when she had to run in 2010 she ran as an independent and defeated the GOP and Dem candidates.

There's still some potential. Also a lot of states have jungle elections and other groups can get some success there.

This is Not True case and point I live in Minnesota the state with the ONLY independent Governor Jessie the Body Ventura. He was Hugly successful ALONE, none of what he did translated to third party success meaning anyone else from a third party, not once not ever. As for Ventura himself, he only managed to create more gridlock not less, because he was ALMOST equally hated by both parties but slightly more by the right, just slightly. The people loved him for a while since he gave everyone a check from the state surplus, however because it just equated to more taxes the next year to cover the short fall he became easily hated shortly after.

It got so bad he didn't run for re-election and SOON moved so far away he now lives in Mexico and became a conspiracy nut. As for the others you mentioned, from what I know they basically never translated their success to any other third party either.


Bottom line is Third parties will never really go anywhere unless they Organize, run quality candidates, and compete on local then national levels.

[Ivanstone]

This is Not True case and point I live in Minnesota the state with the ONLY independent Governor Jessie the Body Ventura. He was Hugly successful ALONE, none of what he did translated to third party success meaning anyone else from a third party, not once not ever.

Hey remember that Angus King guy I mentioned? The Independent Senator from Maine. Before that he was the Independent Governor of Maine for two terms. And he was elected before Jesse was. He is still well liked enough that he won both of his senate campaigns easily.

Fun fact: In his first Gubernatorial election he crushed Susan Collins.

[Stormspellz]

going past the whole a viable 3rd party won't exist with the EC and the "3rd parties" are nothing but spoiler campaigns and not actual political parties

libertarian are nothing but republicans who don't like being called republicans
green party is all over the damn place and the fact they had jill stein as their candidate says enough of the "party"
reform party by description is democrats
constitutionalist are a political party of legal "originalists" in others an empty joke wrapped in a bow of a nice sounding word salad, but ultimately meaningless

[nonameelf]

The EC will effectively prevent any 3rd party candidate from winning the presidency.

However, that's not really an excuse for why 3rd parties aren't running for congress, state, or local elections. The presidency is nice and all, but winning enough seats in the House or Senate to stop any party from having a majority is would be a good thing. Being able to force a major party into forming a coalition with a minor party would be hugely beneficial for the country and would set the stage for eventually getting third parties to be more viable.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Oh, totally... look at out current president... but, EC is part of the mechanism that enables them... again... look at our current president.

I notice people keep talking about the electoral college as if it is the only problem with our current electoral system. But again, this is an issue of how much people seem to focus solely on the presidency.

I mention to every far left person on this forum, what would happen if Bernie won? You would not get free college or medicare for all or any other democratic socialist wet dreams? Not at all, because of the division of power, the president has relatively little power overall in our government, and people would need more candidates on the far left in office for anything like that to even remotely be a pipe dream. Legislators are what you need, and even that system of voting encourages only two parties existing.

[smityx]

Republican party will probably split eventually to the Trumpy lover types (poor, rural, uneducated, isolationist, white nationalist, mid american, working class, etc) and the more business/corp/globalist never Trump type Republicans. If this were to happen the Dems would hold a permanent majority for the next few decades/generations.

[Inuyaki]

Only because the system is biased for only 2 parties to have any power.

Agree.

I am pretty sure that if you switched to the German system, the Democrats would split into 2 parties, one center-right and one left.
They just can't do that under the current system, because the GOP would end up with 90+ senate seats and 400+ house seats...

[Doctor Amadeus]

I notice people keep talking about the electoral college as if it is the only problem with our current electoral system. But again, this is an issue of how much people seem to focus solely on the presidency.

I mention to every far left person on this forum, what would happen if Bernie won? You would not get free college or medicare for all or any other democratic socialist wet dreams? Not at all, because of the division of power, the president has relatively little power overall in our government, and people would need more candidates on the far left in office for anything like that to even remotely be a pipe dream. Legislators are what you need, and even that system of voting encourages only two parties existing.

Yeah even with the likes of AOC yeah people really don’t get this. Obamacare barely barely got passed. Conservatives across the board have polluted socialism or anything like it, it would take more than Bernie and a handful of Democrats or Republicans.

[sandstill]

Are you talking about third parties in general or third parties in America? Because I'm talking exclusively about the American System.

I personally live in a country with multiple major political parties...and even though there are still only "the big two" parties that dominate the federal landscape...the smaller parties do often hold the balance of power. With the US it's different though. With the "winner take all" approach most states have regarding Electoral Votes....third parties really only function as a spoiler.

If a third party does ever manage to take the White House...that will be the end of either the Democratic or Republican Parties. Which will just create a new status quo of a two party system.

The US has a long history of third parties transplanting their agenda onto the major parties. If all you care about is the policies, then it doesn't matter at all whether you sweep the existing parties aside or get them to follow your agenda. This is the point most people miss.

Trying to win power as a third party is difficult. Getting enough votes to cover the spread between the major parties, and buying massive leverage, is not.

But there are many additional issues here. For most of political history campaigns were only affordable to the very rich. Nowadays you can run effective digital campaigns for a low cost, and raise funds much more easily. That's a HUGE change. History is irrelevant. The ground rules have changed completely.to

Finally, new parties are disproportionately likely to rise during social upheaval. We are undergoing the biggest social upheaval since WWII-maybe even the industrial revolution. It is a lot easier to appeal to people who are about to become ethnically cleansed out of capitalism through automation than it is to appeal to people in an era of full employment and wage stability.

- - - Updated - - -

I mention to every far left person on this forum, what would happen if Bernie won? You would not get free college or medicare for all or any other democratic socialist wet dreams? Not at all, because of the division of power, the president has relatively little power overall in our government, and people would need more candidates on the far left in office for anything like that to even remotely be a pipe dream. Legislators are what you need, and even that system of voting encourages only two parties existing.

The point is to use the power of the executive to put populist pressure on the legislative. Obama won power promising this: he didn't do it.

[Muzjhath]

I notice people keep talking about the electoral college as if it is the only problem with our current electoral system. But again, this is an issue of how much people seem to focus solely on the presidency.

I mention to every far left person on this forum, what would happen if Bernie won? You would not get free college or medicare for all or any other democratic socialist wet dreams? Not at all, because of the division of power, the president has relatively little power overall in our government, and people would need more candidates on the far left in office for anything like that to even remotely be a pipe dream. Legislators are what you need, and even that system of voting encourages only two parties existing.

And that, right there, is why I tell everyone I know (and have several times on this forum) to get grassroot movements instead of looking at the office of POTUS.
Get local officials that support you, get state reps that support you. Get a state party going. Are you in Massachusetts wishing the people of Alabama had it better? Work the grassroots in Alabama. If you can, go there, if you can't craigslist to find people on the ground to work with.
Will this be cheap? No, it'll cost time and money. Money for small time adds in the local paper or just dropped in letter boxes. Time in talking with people about goals and stuff. Will you, the you reading and wanting, have to supply money? Not necessarily, not if you can't. But time? If you want change, yes.

Then, for federal elections. Always vote for the major party that'll repress you the least. This isn't purity, this is tactics. The Green Party I'd never vote for if I was in the US, since the leadership all seem to be selfserving grifters.
Why? They participate in the POTUS election. They shouldn't. It's a waste of their time and money. A green party POTUS with a regular congress would be a lame duck, rubberstamping laws with hardly any imput.

If you want change, work from the local level. Then work county and state levels. Set your house in order then go up. Elect a federal house rep, for now, not the POTUS.

[Machismo]

This is not true at all what is your evidence in your argument for this being true? Because both parties are established yes, but that doesn't mean it's biased outside of any other bias that literally is the entire point of politics.

- - - Updated - - -




This soo much gets over looked in the same is True of Sanders the difference was Sanders was less successful in over all than Trump for the Republicans, because Trump had no conscience and would literally say and do almost anything to win.

You don't seem to understand FPTP voting. Since no majority of individual votes is actually needed, and runoff elections aren't a thing, then the inherent push is two parties. It becomes a binary choice. All too often, it amounts to voting against the other party.

Think about it this way. You have 1000 people, and 1000 "parties" where a person would simply vote for himself. Getting only 2 votes would mean a person would win. Game theory dictates that you would immediately see smaller coalitions form, so that those people can be a part of the "winning" team with the most points. This trend would continue to as close to homeostasis as possible, which means two main parties.

If one party ever loses too much of a share to be competitive, then you are either left with a totalitarian result of democracy, or a splintering of the larger party; in an attempt to shift priorities.

As for the Electoral College, that simply exacerbates the problem, because in that same group of 1000 people, some would be given 1 vote, while others would be given more 3 votes. It further dislodges the ideals of a third party, and also promotes minority rule, without actually protecting any liberties.

[sandstill]

Then, for federal elections. Always vote for the major party that'll repress you the least. This isn't purity, this is tactics.

It seems like literally every election you get a lot of people saying this is as if it were some incredible revelation they just thought of.

People have been doing this for a century. It doesn't work. It led to Trump and now Biden's victory, two of the worst human beings I can think of let alone amongst poiticians. You essentially get a neo-liberal dictatorship where you get a meaningless choice between two parties with identical policies.