Third Party

[justfollowingtheelections]

My question is, what would it take for a viable third party to exist?

I'll try to make a list of requirements that I consider necessary:

- Position on major issues that the median voter agrees with, but the two major parties don't.
- Have leaders that are not nuts of any kind.
- Have support from the media.
- Have a congressional presence.


I was thinking that since a huge percentage of the population opposed the bailouts but the two major parties didn't, a party that opposed them and favored fiscal responsibility instead.  Do you think such a party would be viable and what kind of positions should it have on other issues?
Also who would have to be the leaders of the party in order for it to have the respect of the media?

[The Ex-Factor]

There are many people who favor fiscal responsibility, but it's not divisive enough of an issue to cause any significant movement from the 2 parties. It would take an issue as monumental as slavery for people to desert to an actual 3rd party en masse in our political system.

Either that or moving from a winner-take-all to a proportional representation voting system, which is one of the few things both parties can unanimously agree against. I suppose a legitimate 3rd party, with some hard work, could compete locally in certain areas and work from there, but really I doubt the Green party getting 47% of the vote in San Francisco is a harbinger of things to come nationally.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Yeah I know... Oh well... Proportional representation would be great but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

[Nixon in '80]

If the experience of Ross Perot in 1992 has taught us anything, it's that a viable third party in today's politics is not completely impossible.

On the other hand, I don't think the bailout is a good example of the kind of "Washington doesn't listen to us" issue you're talking about.

While a large portion of the population opposed the bailout because of their belief in the free market and/or a belief in fiscal responsibility, an even larger portion opposed it simply because they did not understand what was going on. They did not understand that the failure of the US banking and auto industries would effect them directly, not just overpaid executives with private jets. The electorate is much more likely to identify with Joe the Plumber than Milton Friedman.

[justfollowingtheelections]

What issue could then lead to the birth of a third party?

[BM]

I'd like to see other parties focus more of their efforts locally to build themselves up. Too many seem to just "go all in" every 4 years with joke campaigns for president.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I do agree with that, but the truth is that it hasn't been very easy to do so.
A member of the Green Party was elected in the Arkansas House and the Democrats said that getting that seat back is a priority, even though he decided to caucus with the Democrats!
California currently has 4 or 5 Green mayors, the mayor of Richmond (a city of more than 100,000 people) among them and many other elected officials but it really isn't easy to win more important elections.  When Matt Gonzalez ran for Mayor of San Francisco he lost because Newsom brought Clinton, Gore and others to campaign for him and was also able to spend 10 times the amount Gonzalez had.  Sometimes even when they do win elections, the winners eventually join one of the two major parties, like that California State Assembly member who after being elected became a Democrat.
Finally the media make it really difficult because they ignore third parties.  One of the Green candidates for the House in Arkansas (don't remember which CD) had more than 20% but according to CNN, the winner ran unopposed. 

[Padfoot]

Instant run-off voting would be a major requirement for any third party to be successful on a nationwide level IMO.  One of the biggest obstacles third parties face is "wasted vote syndrome" or the "lesser of two evils" choice.  Voters know that third party candidates are not going to win so they see no reason to vote for them.  IRV allows you to make the third party choice without the dilemma of wasting your vote.

[Smid]

Combine:

Instant run-off voting would be a major requirement for any third party to be successful on a nationwide level IMO.  One of the biggest obstacles third parties face is "wasted vote syndrome" or the "lesser of two evils" choice.  Voters know that third party candidates are not going to win so they see no reason to vote for them.  IRV allows you to make the third party choice without the dilemma of wasting your vote.

With:

I do agree with that, but the truth is that it hasn't been very easy to do so.
A member of the Green Party was elected in the Arkansas House and the Democrats said that getting that seat back is a priority, even though he decided to caucus with the Democrats!
California currently has 4 or 5 Green mayors, the mayor of Richmond (a city of more than 100,000 people) among them and many other elected officials but it really isn't easy to win more important elections.  When Matt Gonzalez ran for Mayor of San Francisco he lost because Newsom brought Clinton, Gore and others to campaign for him and was also able to spend 10 times the amount Gonzalez had.  Sometimes even when they do win elections, the winners eventually join one of the two major parties, like that California State Assembly member who after being elected became a Democrat.
Finally the media make it really difficult because they ignore third parties.  One of the Green candidates for the House in Arkansas (don't remember which CD) had more than 20% but according to CNN, the winner ran unopposed. 

If third parties concentrate on local elections which they can win - state houses, mayoralties, etc, and electoral reform introduces IRV (and does something about gerrymandering), it's very possible that minor parties may prosper. I could possibly see New England Republicans forming a new party up that way if the party moves to the right, and I could possibly see southern/Appalachian Democrats forming a more populist party if the Democrats move to the left. In both cases, they'd need a high profile defection - in the first case, perhaps a State Governor or member of the State House or State Senate, in the second one of them plus probably a union - especially if it targetted say, miners in WV. If enough of them jumped on board and their union backed a new party - that new party would gain a lot of momentum at a state level and that could cause a few incumbents to jump ship. Probably wouldn't happen, but that's probably the most likely way a new party could rise.

[The Mikado]

Our most successful third parties have historically been state-level: see the LaFollette Personality Cult Wisconsin Progressive Party that continued to elect officeholders post WWII.

[aaaa2222]

I'd really love to see some third party have some of the Democrats or Republicans in Congress who are closer to their views defect to them. It could happen, and they would continue to be re-elected, should the be popular in their state.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I'd really love to see some third party have some of the Democrats or Republicans in Congress who are closer to their views defect to them. It could happen, and they would continue to be re-elected, should the be popular in their state.

Who do you think are the most likely to do that?

[Nicodeme Depape]

Bernie Sanders could defect to the Socialist parties.

[bhouston79]

I agree that IRV is a key to third party success.  With IRV, people will be free to express their true preferences rather than simply voting for the lesser of two evils (note in the 2008 Presidential election I was happy to support Obama but in 2004 I most certainly voted for the lesser of two evils when I cast my vote for John Kerry) because voting your true preference would no longer have the adverse effect of helping out your least favorite candidate.  Old fashioned run off voting like they have in Louisiana would probably work too.

[The Mikado]

(note in the 2008 Presidential election I was happy to support Obama but in 2004 I most certainly voted for the lesser of two evils when I cast my vote for John Kerry)

How is John Kerry "evil?"  Even a lesser evil?  I grant that he's not the most exciting man in the world, but...

[Nixon in '80]

I'd really love to see some third party have some of the Democrats or Republicans in Congress who are closer to their views defect to them. It could happen, and they would continue to be re-elected, should the be popular in their state.

Who do you think are the most likely to do that?

Obviously a centrist/moderate party would be the most likely to peel people from both sides... but liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats rarely agree on the same issues... in fact, they're the most diametrically opposed members of Congress. Sure, there are some "Moderate Heroes" who could form a "Moderate Hero" party... but I don't see that happening.

[Nicodeme Depape]

I'd really love to see some third party have some of the Democrats or Republicans in Congress who are closer to their views defect to them. It could happen, and they would continue to be re-elected, should the be popular in their state.

Who do you think are the most likely to do that?

Obviously a centrist/moderate party would be the most likely to peel people from both sides... but liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats rarely agree on the same issues... in fact, they're the most diametrically opposed members of Congress. Sure, there are some "Moderate Heroes" who could form a "Moderate Hero" party... but I don't see that happening.

Conservative Democrats tend to be socially conservative but economically liberal while Liberal Republicans tend to be economically conservative but socially liberal, no?

[Nixon in '80]

I'd really love to see some third party have some of the Democrats or Republicans in Congress who are closer to their views defect to them. It could happen, and they would continue to be re-elected, should the be popular in their state.

Who do you think are the most likely to do that?

Obviously a centrist/moderate party would be the most likely to peel people from both sides... but liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats rarely agree on the same issues... in fact, they're the most diametrically opposed members of Congress. Sure, there are some "Moderate Heroes" who could form a "Moderate Hero" party... but I don't see that happening.

Conservative Democrats tend to be socially conservative but economically liberal while Liberal Republicans tend to be economically conservative but socially liberal, no?

Precisely.

[Brandon H]

(note in the 2008 Presidential election I was happy to support Obama but in 2004 I most certainly voted for the lesser of two evils when I cast my vote for John Kerry)

How is John Kerry "evil?"  Even a lesser evil?  I grant that he's not the most exciting man in the world, but...

The topic of this thread is third parties and John Kerry is a Republicrat. Also, was Kerry invovled in the Democrats effort to keep Nader off the ballot in 2004? That would make him evil.

(Usually the only not to vote for evil is to vote for a third party.)

[Matt Damon™]

You'd pretty much need to disposess the ruling class for a third party to work out. Basically Obama would have to be the chavez/morales/mugabe type that stormfront/free republic/fox news thinks he is.