Posted on 11/01/2006 6:21:31 AM PST by ruffedgrouse
No young person who has ever followed politics with the ferocity of a sports fan, no citizen who has been an idealist for at least a few hours, hasn't daydreamed about a third party or independent candidate – a third party winner, actually. At some point everyone with a civic soul, no matter what their ideological flavor, has yearned for an independent spirit to break through the homogenized, cuisinarted horse manure that is modern American politics.
Yet we are stuck with the same two parties, ad nauseam. It's like a world where there are two baseball teams, the Yankees and the Dodgers. Every year since the 1800s they have played 162 games against each other, and then played each other in the playoffs, and then the World Series. The players change, but never the teams.
The Constitution says nothing about parties. The great and wise founding elders detested political parties, and promptly formed them and divided up. Thanks so much.
The Civil War gave birth to the current two-party setup of Democrats and Republicans. That should have been a warning.
In 1942, an early and eminent political scientist named E.E. Schattschneider declared flatly that the two parties had a "monopoly on power" in America. Nothing has changed since then. Absolutely nothing.
Third parties do not exist because the two big parties don't want them to. It's bad for business and it's that simple.
There are three kinds of barriers to third parties, two of them created by the monopoly parties. The Constitution, however, is a problem. The American system is winner take all: you win a plurality of votes; you win the whole state or congressional district. Most other democracies have various forms of proportional representation where parties are represented in proportion to the percentage of the vote. So in Italy, for a rough example with fake parties, if in a national election got the Conservatives got 60 percent, the Socialists 30 percent and the Liberals got 10 percent, the seats in the parliament would by divvied up almost in that exact proportion. In America, it's win or lose.
Still, that doesn't mean third parties candidates are prevented from winning elections at any level. So here's where the monopoly parties come in. First, they set up rules where Democrats and Republicans automatically get on ballots, but third parties have to jump through petitioning hoops. There are 51 different sets of laws to get on the ballot in this country, one for every state, plus Washington, D.C. Next they make it hard for third parties to raise money. Then they sleep well at night.
It's "Groundhog Day" meets Sartre. No wonder people tune out.
If the Dems get crushed enough then we may see a third party yet.
Dick Meyer is a little weak on history and why things are the way they are. He should study a little harder before opening a bottle of the usual whine. I'm sure if the Democrats were in power, Dick Meyer would not be complaining about the need for a third party.
Look at countries that don't have the two party system, like Mexico during most of the 20th Century, the USSR, China, and Iran.
--Look at countries that don't have the two party system, like Mexico during most of the 20th Century, the USSR, China, and Iran.--
Those are (or were in the USSR case) all ONE party states. Many of us believe that the US has become a de facto one party state; the one party having two wings called "republican" and "democrat."
New Slogan: For the truly, truly UNIQUE Individualists... The newer uber individualist... And those just flat out unhappy. Come to us, join us! Don't worry -- Get Happy! Become a jokester! Enjoy!
--New Slogan: For the truly, truly UNIQUE Individualists... The newer uber individualist... And those just flat out unhappy. Come to us, join us! Don't worry -- Get Happy! Become a jokester! Enjoy!--
What the heck??
Not two many countries have successful systems with more than two parties. Italy comes to mind as an example of a multiparty system (what is it, 50 governments in 50 years?).
I see no problem with a 3rd party so long as there is a run off between the 2 with the highest amounts of votes when it comes to the Presidential election. A 3 way Presidential contest will probably have a winner that most voted against. Like the classic 92' election where 60% plus of the voters voted against the winner.
--Not two many countries have successful systems with more than two parties. Italy comes to mind as an example of a multiparty system (what is it, 50 governments in 50 years?).--
Italy has endemic corruption which has nothing to do with the number of political parties. That is the principal reason for the large number of "governments" that have fallen due to no confidence votes. In a parliamentary system, a no confidence vote functions as a cleansing mechanism forcing resignation of a Prime Minister and his cabinet and new elections.
Take for example the "civil rights movement". That got morphed into coalescing with feminism, environmentalism, homosexualism, no borders, into the Democrat Party.
"I see no problem with a 3rd party so long as there is a run off between the 2 with the highest amounts of votes when it comes to the Presidential election. A 3 way Presidential contest will probably have a winner that most voted against. Like the classic 92' election where 60% plus of the voters voted against the winner."
Even better would be a proportional electoral college. If neither "demopublican" gets the magic 270 EVs, the third party or party candidates get to act as kingmakers, forcing the person they give their EVs to adopt their positions.
--There will always, ultimately, be "two parties".--
So long as the "two parties" party stacks the deck in state election laws, yes, sadly.
More C-BS and a moron named Dick Meyer.
A third party is more likely to act as a spoiler for one side or the other. I still believe that H. Ross Perot was a RAT plant in the '92 election.
I want a Nationalist Party. I want a party that will promote American interests abroad, over large numbers of dead bodies if need be, and will pursue a "borders, language, culture" agenda at home.
If you've got more than two parties, it's difficult for one of them to get a majority. A switch of just a few votes can bring down the government.
Our present difficulties stem from the fact that after 70 years of Dem rule, the GOP is now winning some of the races, and the electorate is split 50-50. I don't know how you solve that problem by introducing a third party.
Yeah, the parties tend to look similar because they are both fighting for that 51st percent of the vote. But as soon as the people make up their mind which direction they want to go--to the left or the right--all of this is going to change.
--I want a Nationalist Party. I want a party that will promote American interests abroad, over large numbers of dead bodies if need be, and will pursue a "borders, language, culture" agenda at home.--
I agree, except for the "promote American interests abroad" part. It's the urge to expand imperially which has got us into the pickle we are in now. The emphasis must be HOME, HOME, HOME. Protect our borders, language, culture, AND JOBS. Screw the barbarians in the Old World. Contact with them is like contact with a tar baby; it only makes you dirty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.