PDA

View Full Version : A third Party?


Sukoto
12-16-2011, 02:48 PM
I just read this:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/group-clears-path-for-a-third-party-ticket/?hp
And I really hope it develops into a 3rd major Party. I am an independent voter, and it would be nice to have more options.

Davian93
12-16-2011, 03:32 PM
I just read this:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/group-clears-path-for-a-third-party-ticket/?hp
And I really hope it develops into a 3rd major Party. I am an independent voter, and it would be nice to have more options.

It wont.

Zombie Sammael
12-16-2011, 04:32 PM
It wont.

...and that's why not!

Davian93
12-16-2011, 05:15 PM
...and that's why not!

Reality?

Sukoto
12-16-2011, 06:25 PM
Reality?
You do realize he was jabbing you, right? Cuz, obviously the reason why it's not going to happen is cuz you said so... blah blah blah...

Anyway, the U.S. has gone through party changes in the past. I don't see why it shouldn't happen again. I do see one reason why it might not happen, and that's if the current two parties mosey on back toward the center in time to quash the formation of a 3rd party.

Davian93
12-16-2011, 06:36 PM
You do realize he was jabbing you, right? Cuz, obviously the reason why it's not going to happen is cuz you said so... blah blah blah...

Anyway, the U.S. has gone through party changes in the past. I don't see why it shouldn't happen again. I do see one reason why it might not happen, and that's if the current two parties mosey on back toward the center in time to quash the formation of a 3rd party.

The last time it happened was due to a split that caused a civil war...and the barriers put in place by the current parties are monumental along with a system that is inherently designed to punish a 3rd party movement.

I'd love for there to be a legitimate "other" option in our political system but its very very unlikely to occur.

Sukoto
12-17-2011, 12:58 AM
The last time it happened was due to a split that caused a civil war...and the barriers put in place by the current parties are monumental along with a system that is inherently designed to punish a 3rd party movement.

I'd love for there to be a legitimate "other" option in our political system but its very very unlikely to occur.
Unlikely, perhaps. But this is the first time I can recall hearing about a concerted effort to create a 3rd major Party in my lifetime. If the status quo continues, I think it might finally happen.

GonzoTheGreat
12-17-2011, 06:29 AM
Oh, they may gain a few seats in the House of Representatives. Then they'll discover that they do not really like each other; some will side with the Democrats and others with the Republicans, a few will switch parties, and that'll be that.

By the way, is there a specific reason why the first name of more or less effective mavericks in American politics start with an "R"?
Ronald Reagan, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul all fit that pattern. So far, I can't figure out what benefit this would be to the Illuminati.

Frenzy
12-17-2011, 01:40 PM
The biggest obstacles to a viable third party are money and the fact that they're key identifying feature is "we're not them." That isn't exactly a viable platform.

but the money thing is probably a bigger obstacle. Anyone with enough money to actually fund a viable third party run is viewed as a filthy rotten multi-billionaire who made their money cheating the 99%. (Bloomberg, Whitman, that oil guy from Texas, etc.)

Firseal
12-17-2011, 03:54 PM
The last time it happened was due to a split that caused a civil war...and the barriers put in place by the current parties are monumental along with a system that is inherently designed to punish a 3rd party movement.

I'd love for there to be a legitimate "other" option in our political system but its very very unlikely to occur.

Actually, the last time it happened was because of an internal scism inside one of the parties that lead to that party becoming two parties, one of which swiftly went the way of the dodo. Granted, this could be read just as easily as a party going to opposite poles, and then one of those poles being ruthlessly purged, but the fact remains that the Progressive Party of 1912 was a legitimate full third party. It just failed badly. Fragments of it tried reforming a couple times (1924, 1948) but even less came of those attempts. Still, the last major third party didn't come of the Civil War, it is just the last effective changeover in the two main Parties hasn't occured since.

Frankly, though, we are far more likely to get a third party if the Republicans shake loose the parasites of the Tea Party and force them to actually live or die as a separate political entity than we are to get a centrist, sane, progressive party out of this.

Davian93
12-17-2011, 06:25 PM
The Progressive Party wasn't a legit party because it never won a major election (Presidential). The last time we had a new party was the Republican party that arose out of Sectional issues prior to the Civil War and helped kill off the Whig Party and completely fracture the Democratic Party (to the point where it didnt win an election for nearly 30 years.


The Progressive Party is up there with the Reform Party, the Anti-Masonic Party, the No Nothing Party, etc etc. Having one nice run is not a qualifier.


Personally, IMHO, the Tea Party is more representative of the current GOP than its former centrist wing...the wing that is basically non-existent.

GonzoTheGreat
12-18-2011, 04:15 AM
but the money thing is probably a bigger obstacle. Anyone with enough money to actually fund a viable third party run is viewed as a filthy rotten multi-billionaire who made their money cheating the 99%. (Bloomberg, Whitman, that oil guy from Texas, etc.)
Steve Jobs could've done it with the iParty.

I'm not sure Bill "press control-alt-delete" Gates would be a good idea as president, though.

Tomp
12-18-2011, 05:19 AM
Three questions

How does it work in a presidential election in case there are 3 parties?
Is it still a race between two people or does the 3 parties each haver a candidate?
If that's the case what happens if no one gets a majority of the electorate votes?

Zombie Sammael
12-18-2011, 06:01 AM
Three questions

How does it work in a presidential election in case there are 3 parties?
Is it still a race between two people or does the 3 parties each haver a candidate?
If that's the case what happens if no one gets a majority of the electorate votes?

I believe the USA uses first past the post like Britain does (we squandered our chance to change it in May, grrr). That means that in the circumstance you outline, whoever has the most votes gets the job, regardless of whether they have a majority. Yes, you end up with a president that most people didn't vote for. That's why first past the post sucks. It's also why parties in power like it.

GonzoTheGreat
12-18-2011, 06:17 AM
There is also some kind of extra rule that if the electoral college can't get an agreement, then Congress has to deal with it. I don't know what would happen if Congress then selected someone who refused the honor. Maybe we should organise such a case. How do we go about that?

Davian93
12-18-2011, 11:57 AM
Three questions

How does it work in a presidential election in case there are 3 parties?
Is it still a race between two people or does the 3 parties each haver a candidate?
If that's the case what happens if no one gets a majority of the electorate votes?

Whoever gets the most votes (not a majority but the most) gets the Electoral Votes for each state in a First to the Post system. If there is not a majority of Electoral Votes (which has happened several times in the 19th century), it then gets referred to Congress to make a decision which is almost always voted completely on Party lines unless a crooked deal is made (like Clay backing John Quincy Adams in 1824 or the crooked deal that ended Reconstruction by denying Samuel Tilden the election in 1876.

The last real 3rd Candidate was Ross Perot in 1992...he won around 25% of the popular vote and got 0 Electoral Votes because he didnt get a majority in any single state while Bush and Clinton won all the votes. Clinton, despite not getting 50% of the popular votes, walked away handily in a landslide.

Zombie Sammael
12-18-2011, 12:05 PM
Whoever gets the most votes (not a majority but the most) gets the Electoral Votes for each state in a First to the Post system. If there is not a majority of Electoral Votes (which has happened several times in the 19th century), it then gets referred to Congress to make a decision which is almost always voted completely on Party lines unless a crooked deal is made (like Clay backing John Quincy Adams in 1824 or the crooked deal that ended Reconstruction by denying Samuel Tilden the election in 1876.

The last real 3rd Candidate was Ross Perot in 1992...he won around 25% of the popular vote and got 0 Electoral Votes because he didnt get a majority in any single state while Bush and Clinton won all the votes. Clinton, despite not getting 50% of the popular votes, walked away handily in a landslide.

It's entertaining to notice how little "democracy" in terms of popular representation is actually involved in at least two major world "democracies". I'm of the opinion that first past the post (or to the post, it doesn't matter, there's not an actual post - other than the post of PRESIDENT) is an appalling rip off which just barely manages to be defined as democracy, and I campaigned against it in favour of the AV system back in April/May. AV isn't perfect, but by allowing voters to rank their preferred candidates it would at least allow for a more representative system of government than allowing someone who, in a four candidate race, got 26% of the vote versus two 25% and a 24%, for example, to claim to represent the entire population of that area.

But unfortunately, the popular vote was well against changing the system. I think this has more to do with people "sticking it to Clegg" than any real sense of satisfaction with the voting system as it stands, coupled with a failure of the Yes campaign to be active enough in engaging people and explaining the system. The alternative is the depressing prospect that people literally just don't know what's good for them.

</rant>

Davian93
12-18-2011, 12:10 PM
You have to understand that the United States was never intended to be a Democracy. It was set up as a Republic with a fear of mob rule quite in mind during the writing of the Constitution. Basically, the Founding Fathers did not feel that the average citizen was capable of ruling himself so they put a bunch of barriers to prevent Demagoguery. Thus, they never wanted direct elections at the Federal level for anything but the "lower" house of Congress.

Sinistrum
12-18-2011, 04:01 PM
We have stories like this every election cycle within recent memory. First it was Perot, then Nader, then Ron Paul, and now Bloomberg. Same story, different election and it will be just as ineffective as the last go round.

Davian93
12-18-2011, 04:03 PM
We have stories like this every election cycle within recent memory. First it was Perot, then Nader, then Ron Paul, and now Bloomberg. Same story, different election and it will be just as ineffective as the last go round.

Ironically, a lot of polls had Perot winning had he not done the I'm out, I'm back in, I'm out, I'm back in crap.

Frenzy
12-18-2011, 04:04 PM
At least Nader didn't chicken out at the last minute like Perot did

yks 6nnetu hing
12-19-2011, 01:38 AM
If Oprah were to found a political party, I'll guarantee you, it won't fail... not in her lifetime, anyways.

Support of the general public? check
Huge amounts of money to float the party until it gets entrenched in the woodwork? check
Well-spoken head of the party? check


thing is though, she is (seems to be) quite Democratic in her affiliations so politically speaking I don't know how much of an actual change that would be.

Sarevok
12-19-2011, 04:42 AM
It's entertaining to notice how little "democracy" in terms of popular representation is actually involved in at least two major world "democracies".

I'd say "get a parliantiary system", with prime minister and stuff. But I remember making a post about that a few months ago, and by the end of it, I had to conclude that such a system would either have to have a HUGE parliament to properly represent a country as big as the US, or otherwise it would be just as un-representative as the current system... :(

Zombie Sammael
12-19-2011, 04:55 AM
I'd say "get a parliantiary system", with prime minister and stuff. But I remember making a post about that a few months ago, and by the end of it, I had to conclude that such a system would either have to have a HUGE parliament to properly represent a country as big as the US, or otherwise it would be just as un-representative as the current system... :(

Britain has a parliamentary system, but it also has FTP. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons, and the executive and legislature are fused.

Sarevok
12-19-2011, 05:01 AM
Britain has a parliamentary system, but it also has FTP. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons, and the executive and legislature are fused.

I should have phrased that better. I meant "get a parliamentary system like the Netherlands, including ...(can't find the right word)...". I mean: where 10% of the vote would mean 10% of the seats in parliament. For the US, this would probably mean that 99% of said parliament would represent the cities on the East and West coasts, with the agricultural areas completely unrepresented.

Zombie Sammael
12-19-2011, 05:04 AM
I should have phrased that better. I meant "get a parliamentary system like the Netherlands, including ...(can't find the right word)...". I mean: where 10% of the vote would mean 10% of the seats in parliament. For the US, this would probably mean that 99% of said parliament would represent the cities on the East and West coasts, with the agricultural areas completely unrepresented.

Proportional representation is what you were looking for. The only disadvantage to that which I can see is it breaks the link between representative and constituency, but as it also seems to be the truest form of democracy, I see it as the best system. I campaigned for AV purely as a first step on the road to PR. Unfortunately, the landslide No vote has pretty much put any kind of voting reform off the agenda for the next few decades. :(

Tomp
12-19-2011, 05:18 AM
If Oprah were to found a political party, I'll guarantee you, it won't fail... not in her lifetime, anyways.

Support of the general public? check
Huge amounts of money to float the party until it gets entrenched in the woodwork? check
Well-spoken head of the party? check


thing is though, she is (seems to be) quite Democratic in her affiliations so politically speaking I don't know how much of an actual change that would be.

And at every speech there will be a present under the chairs.

maacaroni
12-19-2011, 06:17 AM
The problems with proportional representation were not just the loss of a constituency MP, it would have meant perpetual coalition government and niche parties having too much of a say in running a country.

As for the US system, it is rigged in favour of a two-party system. That, in itself, is undemocratic and unrepresentative but it is better than nothing.

yks 6nnetu hing
12-19-2011, 06:40 AM
And at every speech there will be a present under the chairs.

yet, somehow, she'll make profit out of it.