Is a Third Party possible this time?

No.

Bloomberg has an outside shot at being a viable 3rd-party candidate, though I don't think he'd actually win.

He can just reach into his own pocket and grab the money that is necessary at any time -- which is huge -- and there is evidently an organization already set up to field a third-party candidate and which would take care of the paperwork-type technicalities (petitions, or something).

Third-party candidates have no chance as long as the electorate remains dominated by idiots. The unfortunate simple fact is that people find it easier to vote on party lines than to learn something about the candidate. I have been elected three times as an Independent, but I know that this can only happen in an area with a small population. The county I represent is 4500 square miles in size, but has less than 8000 people. Overall, the voters actually know the person who they vote for or against. The first time I ran, however, a quick glance of the results showed that I won all but the three most outlying precincts, where I was not well known. There, people simply voted for the Republican rather than find out what I was like. I'm sure the same phenomenon occurs nationwide.

Surpringly - or not surprisngly, regarding your [geographic] position - smaller parties elswhere (even in the UK with two dominant parties) get exactly more support due to the reasons Page noted ... and what CowDoc said.

A third party will never be possible under a US-style Democracy.

It is a mathematical fact (not a social or political one), the group that can get the broadest coalition of interests will win. Anyone who is angry at the winner will group together to defeat them. There is no reason for anyone to leave the winning group, and it is obviously beneficial for people who oppose the winning group to band together.

So there will always be exactly two "real" parties (real meaning parties with any non-fantasy chance of winning).

So, if you care about winning in politics, you will except the mathematically reality and work within one of the two parties.

It would sure help if there was some observable difference between the two parties. Right now both are business orientated and war parties. The democrats claim to be agenst the war but don't do anything about it but talk about their so called opposition. They had a chance to force bush to either accept the benchmarks or take the blame for not funding the war. As usual they showed a lack of ba-ls and caved in to Bush.

Meant to add that for these reasons I would favor a third party.

I understand your frustration rabel, but the "both parties are the same" line isn't true. The problem is that since there is only room for two parties (for the mathematical reason I describe above), these two parties have to be "moderate" enough to avoid alienating a majority of Americans.

The two parties will always disappoint us extremists...

But there are plenty of differences. If you don't believe this, look at the number of party line votes there are.

The facts that the Democrats did so well in latest election has had a clear effect. Sure, you want us to end the war... and the system isn't leading to that end, but don't say there isn't a difference since the Democrats took over Congress.

If you want to make a difference, a third party isn't the way to go. After all, a third party can only be successful if it replaces one of the other parties (and then the same problems happen all over again).

Right now, for all of the griping you hear from both sides, it is clear that the present system is stable.

My response, rather than to yell against the system, is to use the system to my favor.

Pick one of the two parties that is closer to your position on most issues important to you, then work within the party to advance your position.

The important political battles-- from environment, to religeous freedom, to abortion, to gay marriage; are happening within the parties, and there is a great rangle of political opinions and diversity of positions.

A third party sounds like a great idea-- but really it is the political equivalent of whining. You make everyone aware that you aren't happy without having any positive affect on forming the coalitions necessary to advance toward a solution.

I don't think a third party is possible in anything under 20 years. If a dedicated group of young men and women began to organize a political party from the ground up, precinct by precinct, until they can take control of a county, and country by county until they can take over a state, they have a shot at organizing state by state until they have a significant minority in either the House or the Senate which would force the two major parties to deal with them. From that point on, rather than looking a the White House, they would need to focus on legislation which would break the death grip on control of local and state politics which the two parties have created. They could do that state by state, but that would entail taking over a majority of the states or all the states, and i consider it in the realm of fantasy that any one party could organize itself so effectively that it could take over to organize a one-party state, which is what you would have.

Ross Perot's "political party," the Reform Party, was not a real party, because it was organized from the top down, and was largely funded by Perot from his own money and donations he could secure. When Perot and the party leadership quarreled, those people were able to win a few local elections, but they couldn't attract the money that was needed to run national candidates. People always confuse national candidates with political success, but that's not how party politics has worked in our history. Andy Jackson was defeated for President, but he worked hard to extend his new political machine (he created the first modern political party, the Democratic Party, from the wreck of Jefferson's Democratic Republicans) throughout the states, and came back to win four years later. By that time the party was well-established in all the states, and was able to deliver for the candidate. But that was in 1828--Jackson had come close in 1824, polling more votes than anyone else, but not enough for a majority in the electoral college. By 1828, a lot of the political wreckage of the Democratic-Republican wreck and the collapse of the Federalists has been cleaned up, and Jackson's superior party organization was able to take advantage of that. Organizing locally and nationally were, however, a good deal easier and cheaper in those days. When Jackson was elected in 1828, only somewhat more than one million voters cast ballots, and campaigning was conducted locally by party organizers--they candidates didn't try to visit all the states, nor to personally get the message out.

Still, a party could be organized locally and be up and running within a few years. The Republican party was organized largely from the ground up, although the goal was definitely to break into national politics as soon as possible. The party organized in 1854, and won some modest successes locally, but their effort to win the White House in 1856 not only failed, it failed when there were three major candidates running, so that they could not even profit from split ballots. The Democrats successfully portrayed the Republicans as dangerous anti-slavery radicals who would precipitate civil war if they won. In 1860, the ballot was again split several ways, this time with four major candidates. Lincoln was only elected because Douglas and Breckenridge split the Democratic Party ballots (for which Lincoln deserves credit because of the difficult position into which he put Stephen Douglas in the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858). The Republicans had done well in the 1858 congressional elections because there was widespread opposition to the spread of slavery, and the Republicans were the only party openly condemning slavery and the Kansas-Nebraska Act--in fact, the Republican Party was formed to oppose the effects of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

In the end, Lincoln won in the electoral college because the Republicans were represented in enough states for them to survive the power of the Democrats. Douglas or Breckenridge either one would have buried Lincoln and the Republicans in a land slide, had the vote of the entire Democratic Party gone to only one of them. But the Democratic Party vote was split not only on the issues, but on regional lines. Douglas actually got more votes than Breckenridge, but Breckenridge had a solid block of southern states, and won more electoral votes than Douglas. In the states in which Douglas would ordinarily have done well, the voters were alienated by Douglas' perceived support of slavery, allowing Lincoln to win those northern states and a majority in the electoral college. In the end, although Douglas polled a half million more votes than Breckenridge and less than a half-million less than Lincoln, he only got the electoral votes of Missouri, and three electors from New Jersey.

The lessons of the management of elections was not lost on either the Republicans or the Democrats. The Civil War did not kill off the Democratic Party, and both parties came to recognize that the careful and strong organization of the parties in each state could be crucial to electoral success. The two parties have worked hard in each state ever since to enshrine their own advantages, and to exclude any third parties. Whenever the two parties can see a situation from which either of them might benefit (for example, Senate procedural rules tend to benefit whichever party can organize three-fifths of the vote in the Senate--neither party will change that, because each party wants to take advantage in any situation in which that party can organize three fifths of the vote; both parties will therefore work with one another to keep those rules in place). The most glaring example is the registration of voters by political affiliation, and the system of primary elections for candidates for national office. The primaries give the candidates of the two parties a lot of free publicity, and a third party candidate tends to get sidelined in terms of media coverage during the primary election season. The "winner-take-all" laws which give all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who polls the most votes also helps to enshrine the power of the two parties, which is how it was possible to pass such laws. In 1860, if there had been a winner-take-all law in New Jersey, Douglas with his more than a million votes out of fewer than 5 million would not have gotten even ten votes in the electoral college.

Elections were not as protracted nor as expensive in the past as they are today. Even though the Democrats and Republicans showed that a party can be organized locally within a few years to make a respectable showing in local and state elections, the cost of elections today, the primary election system and the winner-take-all laws for the electoral college all work to exclude a third party from winning a national election. That is why i think it would take 20 years, at the least, to even begin to break the strangle-hold the two parties have on the political system.

**************************************************

I think E_brown is completely deluded with this remark:



It is far more about perception, and the control of the two parties. The Republican Party actually represents a narrow range of interest. Their appeal has successfully been to alarm the public about what the Democrats represent, rather than to convince the public that the Republicans serve a broad interest. They don't--they serve a narrow range of wealthy and corporate interests, and rely upon a fiction of representing traditional conservative values in a nation which they falsely portray as essentially conservative. The Democrats' attempts to erect the biggest tent to accommodate the widest ranges of interests has not only been a dismal failure, it has aided the propaganda of the right that the Democrats are somehow a lunatic fringe.

Setanta... you quoted my statement that a two-party system is a mathematical fact (based on the way our democracy is structured)... and then you went off on a unrelated tangent about the present two parties.

The mathematical fact is that US politics are winner takes all (for each election). There is only one presidency (which obviously means a national campaign with nation efforts). Congressional elections are based on national theme and money... and they are influenced by presidential politics.

I am saying that in such a structure (regardless of social or political facts) is not conducive to more than two parties. As one party gets stronger, members of the two losing two parties will either join the stronger party, or will join together to oppose it.

Third Parties have a pretty dismal record in U.S. electoral politics. Usually, the split away enough votes from a strong party to insure the election of a weaker one. The Bull Moose got the underdog Democrat Wilson into office. Nore commonly third Parties, have no real effect on elections beyond increasing the winning Party's vote percentage.

Splitting a major Party is, on the other hand, a strategically effective means of defeating them. The Federalist Adams might well have defeated Jefferson, even though Adams was unpopular and carried the burden of the Alien and Sedition Acts. When Hamilton worked against his Party's candidate it split the Federalists apart and the Jefferson/Burr ticket won. Lincoln was the beneficiary of a split between Northern and Southern Democrats. The Progressive Party in the late 19th century was successful in fueling many social reforms, but actually had little effect at the polls.

Third Parties tend to represent relatively narrow based special interests, and as such have difficulty in attracting votes. A number of small special interest Parties have tried and failed to attract large constituencies. The Communist and Socialist Parties found support among the working poor and wealthy intellectuals during the Great Depression and Spanish Civil War. The King Fish might have split votes away from FDR, but Hoover was so unpopular that it probably wouldn't have made much difference anyway. The fascist-like Parties prior to WWII never really caught on with Americans. The Peace and Freedom Party may have contributed to the election of Nixon, but the country was pretty much fed up with LBJ and the Vietnam War anyway.

In the coming Presidential canvass, I don't believe that we will see a third Party with enough strength to make a difference. Though the GOP candidates hold varying views on a number of issues, they are fundamentally on "the same page", and will support who ever gets the nomination. On the other hand, the Democrats are more driven by special interests, their candidates hold sometimes have very different political philosophies, and they have a reputation for divisiveness. Who ever gets the Democratic nomination can't count on the support of their defeated rivals. The Democrats have put a lot of their eggs into a small and fragile basket. They hate Bush, but he won't be running. They object to the large National Debt caused by military spending, but they've already increased Federal spending on their pet projects. We can make book on it that the Democrats will promise more handouts to the poor than can be paid for, while increasing taxation. They want to halt our governments military efforts against Radical Islamic Terrorism, even though that will increase the dangers to our country. The GOP candidates are pretty consistent on these issues, but the Democrats will probably find it difficult to provide a platform that can knit all the special interests together into a winning combination. Any Third Party is far more likely to split away votes from the Democrats than from the GOP.

That's what you think and what you have expeienced.

And what the Brits thaught as well ... until the Liberal Democrats were founded.

Sure , the Brits have a two and a half party democracy (and some still make the same claim that rabel made about them being all the same).

But this is not a good comparison... since the Brits have a different system. Different rules alter the mathematics. The key difference is that the Prime Minister is chosen by the Parliament (not by elections).

This canard always bugs me.

Politics is all about special interests.

People who are for gun control are a special interest. People who are against gun control are a special interest. People who oppose the "war on terror" are a special interest. People who want a stronger war on terrorism are a special interest. Please who want to keep abortion legal are a speical interest. People who oppose abortion are a special interest.

Any third party will inevitably be driven by special interests.

To say that one party is more driven by "special interests" than the other is meaningless tripe.

Oh horseshit--i did not go off on an unrelated tangent.

You wrote:



There is not such "mathematical fact" in operation. In the most cynical analysis, political parties never represent any interests other than those of the politicians who serve and their immediate supporters who hope to profit from the association. However, i wasn't responding in the most cynical terms, i was responding in the most obvious terms. There is no good reason to suggest that parties who win elections win them because they represent the broadest coalition of interests.

I also don't buy your contention that the system here is not conducive to more than two parties. History does not bear you out on such a contention, either.

Your reference to "winner take all" is rather naive--George Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000, and may well have lost the electoral vote if the Supreme Court had not intervened. The only place that a "winner take all" system has significant influence on national politics is in the electoral college, and there it can serve to assure that a "minority" President gets elected, as has happened so many times in our history. And it is not some relic of the past, either. In 1960, Kennedy polled somewhat more than 100,000 votes more than Nixon--but he polled less than 50% of the popular vote. He became President because he won in the electoral college. In 1968, Nixon beat Humphrey by about a half a million votes, but he polled even lower than Kennedy in 1960. Nixon in 1968 got just over 43% of the vote, but took almost 60% of the electoral votes. In 1992, Clinton polled even less of the vote than Nixon did in 1968, based on percentage, but he took almost 70% of the electoral votes. He came a lot closer in 1996, although he still did not poll 50% of the vote.

Minority Presidents have been very common in our nation's history. Simple mathematical formulae won't predict the outcomes of American Presidential elections.

Set, you are missing the point of my argument. The fact that the "minority" candidate can win when the electorate is split very close to 50-50 is irrelevant to my argument.

What I am saying is that a third party (the key word here is "third") doesn't make mathematical sense in the US system-- and because of this a third party will never be realistic (unless the system is changed in a significant way).

History backs me up in this.

Take Ralph Nader (who is a great recent example of this phenominon). Philosophically he is right that many issues he brought weren't being discussed. On a theoretical sense... his candidacy should have been appreciated and welcomed.

Nader got some votes in 2000. However after the Democrats lost that election... most of the progressives (who should have been Naders core base) turned viciously against Nader because he had split the votes (and Bush had won). Nader was pilloried by the left and was insignificant in 2004.

Now, I am making a "mathematical" argument here... so I don't care about philosophical arguments about what should have happened or what is right or wrong.

I am saying that the Nader experience (which was also the Perot experience) is the expected outcome of a third party. Elections are about winning and losing. A third party means that some of the people will be voting for a candidate who can't win.

The one way for change is for a third party to spring up and surpass one of the two other parties. This is an unstable state and can only happen if the previously dominant party it passed then becomes insignificant leaving the inevitable two party system.

As long as their partisen sheep like you, a 3rd psrty candidate has no shot.

Unfortunately, Americans these days have the same problem as their politicans, no testicular fortitude to actually create a climate of change.

You can continually re-invent what you originally wrote, E_brown, if that entertains you. You wrote, originally:



That cannot possibly be construed as saying that only two parties are "mathematically" possible in our system. Leaving aside the ludicrous notion of saying the the "two party system" which the Democrats and Republicans have created to their own advantage is somehow "mathematically" ordained, i responded to what you originally wrote, not what you now want to editorially claim you meant.

As for a claim that a third party is not possible and our history shows that--bullshit. Andrew Jackson's Democratic Party was a third party. The Republican Party founded in 1854 (it was not the first Republican Party) was a third party. There is no overarching mathematical, or philosophical or historical principle which ordains that there shall be only two political parties--the two parties which now control the American political system have colluded to create the circumstance. It is nonsense to attempt to claim it were inevitable.

I believe that Setanta is correct in saying that only a two party system is mathematically viable, or possible within the American electoral system.

Still, there has never yet been a strong national third Party, nor is it likely in our lifetimes. Jackson Democrats were a split from the Jefferson Democratic-Republicans, but the Federalist Party was already pushing up the daisies. Whenever one Party becomes too powerful, or is in power for too long, opposition becomes organized and eventually they become strong enough to seriously contend for national office. For the nation's first 50 years both the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans believed that the nation would be better off without Parties (other than their own, which were self-evidently representing the best political philosophy). Even after Jackson, the opposition was muddled and largely ineffective. The Democratic Party Dominated our political scene until Lincoln. From Lincoln until Cleveland the GOP went almost unchallenged. Cleveland was a popular and likeable fellow but the GOP continued pretty much in power until Wilson, and then again until FDR. As time has gone by the two National Parties have in modern times gotten so good at playing the game that there has been a rough equivalence for the past 40-50 years. The Two Party system is stable for the moment with each of the two built around the two primary political philosophies that have dominated.political philosophy in this country since its founding.