Speculation: The Mythical Third Party

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I actually had a different discussion on Reddit's /neutralpolitics about how you fix the climate. I suspect with the political status quo things will continue to get worse. But I also suspect, the longer this goes on, the more apt we are to see a non-wing, centrist third party. BBC basically had the stat in 96, there were a handful of Republicans to the left of Democrats and vice-versa in Congress. By 2013, there were zero.

With no moderates left to grease the wheels, you get Government that jerks the wheel from side to side. And if you assume 60% of each party is base (if you look at the actual numbers, I'm overestimating that group to be conservative in my point about moderates), that actually means the electorate is 40% moderate with 30% offsetting wings. But it also means outside of a general, that 40% largely isn't heard from legislatively.

This is not to say a third party is created and supplants the existing, rather a third party is created and either becomes stable on its own OR forces both existing parties back towards what is American political center. Please note, I'm not really talking about Presidential candidates, but rather legislative only.

Realizing a large number here are full blow liberal or conservative, some questions:
1) Is there an event/scenario you can see occuring that would lead to the formation of a disruptive, viable third party? (Congressional Gridlock/Moderate Flight/ etc.?) Alternately, is there a scenario where either party has to grab the center? Is there something that breaks this can of worms open?
2) Would that be beneficial given both parties absolute partisanship/brinksmanship at this point? The cost benefit would probably be more things get done at the cost of ever seeing more wingish policies getting through at all.
3) How would such a party influence the US media landcape (Fox=Conservative/MSNBC=Liberal/etc.) Does a network without a base such as CNN maintain the status quo or become more of a Fox News centrist clone? Do you see a Gawker/Brietbart voice for the center? (Note, I'm not arguing the flat out partisan press is a good thing in the first place, rather would something seek to fill a centrist gap in the current climate IF there was a party target to support.)

Obviously this is just navel-gazey speculation brought about by reading http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35590361. I know I've often heard people talk about the US adopting a parliamentary approach to fix it, but the problem is the US as currently constructed couldn't muster the political will within the two parties to even do that.

[s_stabeler]

the issue with suggesting that a third party- a "moderates" party, in effect- is that the idea comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. The problem, essentially, is that the extremes of both parties- while generally in the minority- are both LOUD, and generally act in concert. Look, for example, at the behaviour of some of the more shameful Corbynites in the UK. There aren't actually as many of them as you'd think, but in some cases, they managed to seize control of the Labour Party apparatus at the local level, and used that to threaten deselection for MPs who were inclined to vote against them- and even went as far- shamefully- as harassing MPs.

The point is, the wings are so powerful because they tend to act as one- that is, each wing tends to, they don't tend to co-operate with the other wing- while moderates not only tend to have a disproportionate amount of people not bother to vote, but tend to be split anyway- so a third party would not be able to form in the gap since it would, by nature, routinely split on a topic. What MAY work, however, if a 4-party system- where there, essentially, arises a new moderate conservative party, and a moderate liberal party.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Yes and no. You have to remember that moderates as a block are less wedge issue prone. They're the people that would say, "well gay marriage would be nice, but I'm not sure we need to shut down the government and furlough public workers over it." So while a third party might provide you with a more inscrutable party in terms of determining how it's going to vote as someone might be fairly liberal but pro life or someone can be fairly fiscally conservative and then be for universal health care, I think the only way a third party could legitimately grab votes would be to position itself as ideologically similar to the dominant politics of its precinct, but basically position itself as the adult in the room with both wings being the whiny children that shut the government down every time they don't get their way.

While I think four parties might work fine in a parliamentary system, I think that's simply too many for US politics. Mainly because, if you look at voting records at least a Democratic moderate might be closer to a Republican moderate than someone like Sanders and vice versa on the other side. So a further split isn't really necessary unless you're trying to add back wedge issues like abortion. But if you do that, you defeat the entire point of a dealmaking third party since it is that wedge issue obstinance that has both parties sabotaging the process while they lack power.

The source of power for a third party actually stems from a new situation in American politics, and that is the ideological stratification of conservatives and liberals. Neither side can pretend they offer effective government and they don't try. A third party might be able to make the legitimate case that through dealmaking, they can make Congress function again. The selling point is essentially, "we'll vote the local politics of our voter base, but we'll keep things moving."

Basically, it's a way for the American people to deal with the constant, inappropriate use of filibusters and supermarjority requiring procedure that's basically ground the country to a halt.

In the past, that's exactly what blue dog Democrats and progressive Republicans did. But they don't exist anymore.

[Gravekeeper]

You really need a parliamentary system but you've signed a suicide pact with the two party system >.>

The single biggest problem driving forward the two party system is the same thing ruining everything else about US politics: money. It takes a LOT of money to run a political campaign due to the lack of sane campaign finance laws plus America's beyond insane election cycle lengths. You have to sign up with one side or another just to get access to the purse strings.

The established system doesn't want a third party and the US media most definitely does not want a third party. They make a killing with how long the election is dragged out and how long they can milk it pretending its a neck and neck horse race. Too many people have their dick in the pie.

The best chance of a third party occurring right now is if the GOP finally finishes eating itself alive and implodes down the middle. Between the old guard and the insane tea party section.

The awful irony of it is the best person to make that happen is Trump. He has enough personal wealth to not need any of the shadow money from big backers. Yet he's absurd enough that the media would follow him still for the ratings. Whereas the media would not normally pay much if any attention at all to a third party candidate. It would disrupt the sports team like us vs them narrative that drives the ratings.

[mjr]

Here's my take, if anyone is interested.

Many people think that third party candidates simply aren't "viable". And by definition, if a candidate isn't viable, they likely won't get a lot of votes, other than possible "protest" or "write-in" votes. Thus their non-viability is a vicious circle.

Ballotpedia has a list:

https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2016

But what's notable about that is the paragraph that states there were 1,500+ people who decided to run for President. That list is here:

https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential...red_candidates

Find the place where it says "Federal Election Commission filed candidates", and click "show".

Some are obviously ridiculous (i.e. "Dank Ass Weed").

The problem is, I think severalfold. There are probably more, but these are just off the top of my head...

1. Though I like the electoral college, that may become a problem with a prominent third party. Especially with the "majority" rule of the electoral college.
2. Even as someone who considers himself "somewhat conservative", I still believe there's too much money in the "major" parties. And I disagree with the Citizens United decision. Unfortunately, it appears to get the money out of politics would probably require some sort of Constitutional Amendment.
3. Because of #2, the two major parties would make it incredibly difficult for a legitimate third party to actually make inroads. With the Internet like it is, it would likely be fairly easy to organize a third party. Establishing the platform might be the issue.

But to answer the OP questions:

1) Is there an event/scenario you can see occuring that would lead to the formation of a disruptive, viable third party? (Congressional Gridlock/Moderate Flight/ etc.?)

There is. I'm not specifically sure what it is, but I think eventually the people will take some kind of political stand against the "status quo".

Alternately, is there a scenario where either party has to grab the center? Is there something that breaks this can of worms open?

I'm not entirely sure. Even with a third party, I can see conservative/liberal "leanings". Most candidates will take a position to the left or to the right, and then come back toward the "centrist" position when elected.

2) Would that be beneficial given both parties absolute partisanship/brinksmanship at this point?

It may. If the third party is viable enough, you might have individuals in all parties constantly looking over their shoulders. This is partially why I'm in favor of modified Congressional term limits, and I don't like that people run "unopposed" (though there's not much we can really do about that, aside from run for office ourselves).

The cost benefit would probably be more things get done at the cost of ever seeing more wingish policies getting through at all.

I can see that. Especially in a political climate where "compromise" translates to "give me what I want". And where "obstruction" is a word used to mean "the other side isn't giving us exactly what we want".

I also think it would allow for more persuasion as far as getting bills passed. Of course, if the party is weak to begin with (i.e. the minority in Congress), that won't matter too much.

3) How would such a party influence the US media landcape (Fox=Conservative/MSNBC=Liberal/etc.) Does a network without a base such as CNN maintain the status quo or become more of a Fox News centrist clone?

I think it depends on how much of a "threat" the media views the third party as.

Do you see a Gawker/Brietbart voice for the center? (Note, I'm not arguing the flat out partisan press is a good thing in the first place, rather would something seek to fill a centrist gap in the current climate IF there was a party target to support.)

Probably, yes. But I think it would be a "voice" for that party. Not necessarily a "centrist" party. There's no guarantee that this "third party" would be centrist.

[s_stabeler]

one point that should be made- a third party doesn't HAVE to be able to provide a viable third option for President- so the Electoral College is irrelevant- it just has to be able to get enough Senators and Representatives to allow for a Kingmaker Scenario- essentially, if the Republicans want to ban abortion, say, they have to persuade the third party that it is a good idea. Or, if we have another budget standoff, if the third party believes the side that is blocking the Budget is behaving like spoiled brats, they could join with the Government to ram the Budget through regardless of opposition.


That, and having a third party would also be useful to provide a fresh perspective on hot-button topics (abortion, gun control, gay marriage, you get the idea- basically, when the Democrats are hailing something as a miracle cure for all America's ills, and the Republicans are claiming it will doom America to b coming a third-world Islamic caliphate under a pie of debt massively larger than today. (and YES, I know the National Debt has grown larger under Obama. The fact of the matter is, that's two things. 1. what gets included in the figure has been expanded. 2. the DEFICIT- How quick the National Debt is increasing- is lower than at any time since the pre-Bush era. (I know Obama can't claim the credit for all of that, however, the converse is also true- you can't blame Obama for the growth in the National Debt, while saying the Republicans get all the credit for the rate at which it increases reducing.