"Third parties" in the US election system

[Rapscallion]

To continue the theme of me stirring the shit in the US electoral landscape on here, what are peoples' thoughts on the so-called third parties.

I find the term 'third party' to be interesting, as there is no legal requirement for only two parties in the US, as far as I can see.

So, are they viable? Does anyone think any of the third parties can rise to the size of the major parties in the US?

I've heard of votes for third parties being called 'wasted votes', as they aren't going to get into power. I have to suggest that a vote that goes to the candidate of the voter's choice is not wasted - it's a declaration of the will of part of the people.

So, your thoughts?

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

No third party can gain dominance until the other two main parties grow smaller. It will taking the breaking up of one or both parties for a viable third party to exist.

[Rapscallion]

So policies that may be better are irrelevant?

I get the feeling that the US system needs root and branch reform so that the electoral audience can't be bought and sold. Is that a reasonable assessment or too idealistic? If you think it would be good to do, what would you do?

Rapscallion

[Jaden]

There's absolutely no legal requirement for any amount of parties in the US - as many can exist as people want to make. I don't know my history quite well enough to be able to speak on it, maybe, but I suspect it's basically just a matter of the Republicans and the Democrats being around the longest (even if in others forms, as whigs, or as each other, etc.) so most people are rooted there. Also, I mean, you're always going to disagree with some people on some things, so I feel like ultimately, you'll end up picking the lesser of two evils anyways.

I mean, look at the policies of Libertarians, Socialists, Consititutionalists, etc. They certainly aren't any better than the policies extolled by the Republicans or Democrats. And moreover, most people who belong to a third party in spirit will end up with one of the two major parties simply because that's the only way they'll be elected into any office - Ron Paul is a good example.

[crashhelmet]

There already are multiple parties in our elections. They just don't carry enough support to be promising.

When Ross Perot formed the Reform Party in 1995, it had enough publicity and backing to get a few people elected across the country and Perot was included in the Presidential debates.

There are those that believe the Tea Party is either going to branch off completely and become its own official party or merge with the libertarians and make them stronger.

But the sad thing is that unless we get another Perot coming along to promote another party, none will ever gain the strength and backing it needs to catapult into the spotlight.

[Andara Bledin]

So policies that may be better are irrelevant?

I get the feeling that the US system needs root and branch reform so that the electoral audience can't be bought and sold. Is that a reasonable assessment or too idealistic? If you think it would be good to do, what would you do?

Considering that major third party candidates are refused entry to so-called open presidential debates, I wholeheartedly agree that our electoral process needs a massive overhaul.

However, change is scary, even if it's for the better (see New Coke, which consistently was chosen over old Coke in blind tests), and people would rather plod along with the system they grew up with rather than evolve to something more efficient and less prone to corruption.

I mean, look at the policies of Libertarians, Socialists, Consititutionalists, etc. They certainly aren't any better than the policies extolled by the Republicans or Democrats. And moreover, most people who belong to a third party in spirit will end up with one of the two major parties simply because that's the only way they'll be elected into any office - Ron Paul is a good example.

I'm registered as Libertarian, and my votes are all across the board because I vote for people, not parties. Hell, there are a number of Libertarian candidates that I thought were too crazy to be safe to elect (although none of them have come close to the insanity of the current GOP crop).

But, to be quite honest, due to the duopoly held in a deathgrip by the Republican and Democratic parties, most of the time my only options are from those parties.

There are those that believe the Tea Party is either going to branch off completely and become its own official party or merge with the libertarians and make them stronger.

The Libertarians and Tea Partiers are at opposide sides in the matter of personal liberty - there's no way the two groups could be part of the same party, even if their fiscal views were the same (which I don't believe they really are, either).

^-.-^

[Jaden]

The Libertarians and Tea Partiers are at opposide sides in the matter of personal liberty - there's no way the two groups could be part of the same party, even if their fiscal views were the same (which I don't believe they really are, either).

^-.-^

This.

I'm somewhere between a Republican and Libertarian. I've mostly stuck with Republican just because, as Andara said, you can pretty much only get real options from the two major parties. And also as Andara said, I vote for people regardless of their parties if I like their policies and stances. Hence why I'll probably be voting for Obama over Romney this November, even though I don't really like Obama either. But, you know, lesser of two evils and all that

[HYHYBT]

Part of the problem is that our government wasn't designed for parties at all. That's why, for example, the vice president was originally whoever was runner-up in the presidential election. If there were no political parties, and many people running with a variety of combinations of views, that's a great idea. *With* parties, though, it's disastrous, virtually guaranteeing that the second in command is not only a fierce rival of the president, but also disagrees with him on most issues. Had the idea not been abandoned so quickly, I can easily imagine assassinating the president to have become a commonplace method of reversing who's in power.

Think how Congress would work, under the current constitution, if everyone elected to it were simply an unaffiliated individual. Any law passed would involve getting together enough like-minded (on that issue) people, but they need not be the same people every time; no forced connections between essentially separate issues, and very little voting against something you might otherwise approve simply because it came from the other side, or, for example, trying to keep the economy from doing better because you want the balance of power to change. The trouble is, even when all involved mean well, convenience kicks in. You've already got a group together to pass X; instead of starting over, why not see if most of them will also vote for y? And if y is important to you, why not promise to vote for z (which you don't much care about) in exchange for z's supporters going for y? Because it wasn't designed for parties at all, it quickly devolves into "those in charge" and "those who want to be, but right now can't do anything except maybe block and make Those In Charge look bad," with the two swapping places now and then. Plus a few whose focus or combination of positions is too far removed from either main group to fit in... and, therefore, who lack the allies necessary to get anything done.

As for voting... There is essentially no chance of anyone other than a Republican or a Democrat winning most races. Now, this is true largely because the vast majority believe it to be true, and therefore will not even consider voting for anyone else. But so long as it *is* true, regardless of the reason, voting for a third-party candidate is logically equivalent to not voting at all. (Unless, of course, you can get enough people to do so that, next time around, your party will be considered significant. Which won't happen because so many see that as throwing away votes. The old catch 22.)

[bara]

And our founding fathers were staunchly against a party system.

The Us v. Them mentality breaks more things than it fixes. Idiots seem to forget they are supposed to be on the same team.

[Greenday]

And our founding fathers were staunchly against a party system.

A two party system perhaps.

[BlaqueKatt]

If you think it would be good to do, what would you do?

Honestly, I prefer the concept of a parliamentary system, with all parties represented.

As for me, I am a registered member of the National Atheist Party*. Yes they exist and in just under a year have chapters in all 50 states.

*The National Atheist Party does not seek to inhibit the religious practices or beliefs of any group, but is committed to the idea that religious preference is a private matter and has no place in the government or workplace.

[Nekojin]

A significant part of the reason that we have a two-party system is the way our election system is set up - it's a "First Past The Post" system, where the first person to get a majority of the votes is elected. As such, if you have three equally-powerful parties, one of the three will get tossed by the wayside in order to perform a "run-off" - and people will vote with the idea of avoiding the run-off in the first place. If they think that Party X is the weakest of the three, they'll vote for Y or Z, even if they think that X would represent them best.

In order to fix our governmental system, dismantling the "First Past the Post" (and going to a more directly proportional representation system) is a necessary step, but it will never happen because it would weaken the power of the Big Two.

- - - - -

As Andara, I'm registered as as Libertarian, but the Libertarian Party doesn't actually represent me very well. I'm firmly in favor of personal liberties as long as those liberties don't come at the expense of others' freedoms. Religions should not be able to dictate law based on their religious beliefs; not everyone follows those beliefs. Where things are universally held as bad (murder, for example), you can make the argument in favor of laws against it WITHOUT resorting to a religious foundation for the argument.

On the flip side of the coin, I do think that corporations need to be regulated, because otherwise they will do what's in the best interest of the corporation, even if it's detrimental to their neighbors, or even to their employees. There have been plenty of examples of this even in recent history - companies dumping toxic waste into public waterways, disposing of hazardous waste in normal trash dumps, cutting employee benefits while demanding longer working hours... the list goes on and on.

[BlaqueKatt]

As Andara, I'm registered as as Libertarian, but the Libertarian Party doesn't actually represent me very well.

come check out the NAP platform, join us, we don't bite....often

[MadMike]

So, are they viable?

Not really, and it's a catch-22 when you think of it. People percieve them as not being able to win. So they don't vote for them. And they don't win. Because people aren't voting for them.

[Andara Bledin]

I actually vote for quite a number of alternate party candidates. At the level below federal, quite a few of them actually get elected, too.

Unfortunately, the actual support is far greater than the election numbers show because a lot of people would rather vote for the winner than the person who they really think deserves the job.

^-.-^