The World Wide Web Party?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

It would take somebody as interesting and compelling as a Ross Perot to pull it off, but I am seeing more and more media underground speculation that we may see another viable third party candidate in 2008. And the conventional wisdom is that it will be the internet that will make it possible. (I continue to think that if Perot hadn't wigged out at the eleventh hour, he had a good chance of winning in 1992.

What do you think? Is it time to break the power of the GOP and Democrat Party? Would a viable third party would be a good thing? Or not?

Ronald Brownstein:
Washington Outlook
Internet, Polarized Politics Create an Opening for a Third Party

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 661 • Replies: 10

No top replies

Not sure. Even with a basic 2 party system, it is difficult for a candidate to receive a majority of votes. With a strong 3rd party candidte, the winner may receive only 34% of the vote to win the election.

0 Replies

That is precisely what happened in 1992. Clinton won with 43% of the vote but nevertheless had a reasonably successful presidency.

I think a viable 3-party system might produce that kind of results consistently. But would that be such a bad thing? Instead of two-party catfights across the aisle in Congress, the parties would have to consider incoming from two fronts and maybe it would engender more cooperation and less polarizing stances. I don't know. I'm still thinking this through.

0 Replies

Thanks both to more than two parties, and the electoral college, there have been minority presidents in our history--Lincoln's election being the most notorious in terms of several candidate running.

That line about the two party system having served us well made me laugh. It reads as though having only two viable political parties were a part of the people's intent, rather than the shell game foisted off on us for more than a century now by the two parties in question.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Thanks both to more than two parties, and the electoral college, there have been minority presidents in our history--Lincoln's election being the most notorious in terms of several candidate running.

That line about the two party system having served us well made me laugh. It reads as though having only two viable political parties were a part of the people's intent, rather than the shell game foisted off on us for more than a century now by the two parties in question.

It it really the fault of the 2 parties that most of the people who run against them have ideas that seem to fall outside of the main stream?

0 Replies

Even when the Dems ran separate candidates in 1860 (Douglas for the North and Breckenridge for the South, I think), Lincoln won both the popular vote and the electoral college.

I'd be up for a replay of that in '08 Smile

0 Replies

It seems that in the last several elections, it is the most extreme of the left who wins the nomination and the least extreme of the right, or in other words, our standard bearers for the GOP are not very conservative among conservatives. George Bush and Ah..nold certainly aren't. John McCain isn't, though all do hold some conservative views and none could be said to be leftish.

What would a third party accomplish? I'm honestly not sure. I just rmember how unique and interesting Ross Perot was when he first started campaigning. We need somebody like that to keep the others honest I think. Hopefully the next viable third party candidate won't be a nut case.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Instead of two-party catfights across the aisle in Congress, the parties would have to consider incoming from two fronts and maybe it would engender more cooperation and less polarizing stances. I don't know. I'm still thinking this through.

I think that is a great point. Seems like it would have to eliminate at least some of the knee-jerk opposition that both parties engage in... we'd get to hear more than two sides to issues. maybe it would be easier for politicians to support ideas rather than just their party. i don't think we'll see this any time soon though...

<sigh>

0 Replies

It works in real life that way I think. Two points of view can produce a shouting match on a committee or in a board meeting. But add more alternatives, and the discussion is generally more constructive.

Even here on A2K, if you have one person or a small minority trying to make a point, the opposition tends to gang up on that person and it can get nasty very quickly as they reinforce each other and the most stupid of the stupid feel brave enough to chime in. But if you have more equal support for each side, the discussion is usually modified, though it can still get out of hand. But if you have three or four different ponts of view expressed, the discussion can sometimes actually become constructive.

It's pure theory of course, but I think the same phenomenon could occur in Congress.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

It it really the fault of the 2 parties that most of the people who run against them have ideas that seem to fall outside of the main stream?

Quite apart from being a completely subjective judgment on your part, this statement does not describe in the least what third and fourth party candidates have represented in American history. Keep in mind, Abraham Lincoln was a third party candidate, who only got elected because Stephen Douglas and John Breckenridge split the Democratic Party.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Even when the Dems ran separate candidates in 1860 (Douglas for the North and Breckenridge for the South, I think), Lincoln won both the popular vote and the electoral college.

I'd be up for a replay of that in '08

Lincoln won more of the popular vote than either Douglas or Breckenridge--however, he did not win a majority of the popular vote, he simply won a majority in the "winner take all" electoral college. The whole point of that passage in history is that the Republicans did not win so much as a fatal split in the Democrats lead them to lose. If you count all of the people in 1860 who voted for Douglas and Breckenridge, which is to say, traditional Democratic voters, it is pretty obvious that Lincoln would have been buried in a land slide if the Democrats had not split.

0 Replies

The World Wide Web Party?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know