Why is there no public appetite for a Third Party?

[Einzige]

The question I'm posing here is quite distinct from asking why there is no viable third party at the moment, though it is related: if there were sufficient public will, it almost certainly could be done, and the system would stabilize itself (or transform into a tyrannical nightmare, take your pick.)

I can't think that most citizens are truly happy with just two options on the table, particularly when the debate between their two philosophies is dead as a doornail and most of their representatives unpalatable in equal degrees. Moreover, it's not as if either Party is nearly comprehensive to hold the gamut of most voters into steady coalitions - both seem to be veering off into radicalism, and not a generic radicalism, but a radicalism of the particular, that legitimizes only its own radicalism (I probably used that word too many times in that sentence, but I digress). Note that I'm not saying that radicalism on certain issues is bad or somehow wrong, but it is alienating to your typical voter, who dislikes strong opinions because he has none of his own.

In fact, as much as I absolutely loathe populism, a case could be made that a third party dedicated to it - further to the Left of the Democrats on economics (and not just on bread-and-butter issues, either -- I am far from convinced that the Republicans really have won the day on environmental issues, especially as it relates to long-term national security) and much further to the Right than Republicans on social issues could be legitimately viable, especially if our instability today remains or grows even more severe. And I'm afraid that certain elements will probably do just that.

The answer, it seems to me, is that most third parties hitherto have been either stridently ideological - which, by its very nature, excludes most people - or personality cults, ala Perot's runs at the Presidency. Neither of these are the way to build enduring power blocs; rather, both elements must be present in some degree - Andrew Jackson is archetypal of this approach - but not to the extent it detracts from the message, which, in turn, must be broadly agreeable to the average voter, without running to such an extreme that it finds itself already encompassed on the fringe.

I don't think these demands of a third party are mutually exclusive, and I think that the inevitable course of the next few years is the most fertile ground we as a nation will have yet seen for its planting.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I think that it's mostly due to the perception that a third party can't possibly amount to anything, so there's no point in wasting your votes. A fairly accurate point of view unfortunately; barring major upheavals I don't see that changing. Perhaps if something seriously discredited and disrupted both parties at once.

[Havok]

I think it is because the third parties that would be viable in the country do not actually represent true American thinking and acts, which are decisively conservative and we already have two conservative parties.

[Einzige]

I think that it's mostly due to the perception that a third party can't possibly amount to anything, so there's no point in wasting your votes. A fairly accurate point of view unfortunately; barring major upheavals I don't see that changing. Perhaps if something seriously discredited and disrupted both parties at once.

What I think might be happening - and please don't hold me to this; I'm a very intuitive person, and hence more wrong than right - is that both parties are presently in a state of self-discretization; the Republicans are virtually ignoring a lot of the people who voted for, say, Huckabee in the 2008 primaries (southern evangelicals with a streak of The Democracy in them) in the name of full-bore laissez-faire, while Obama appears ineffective in delivering any sort of economic reform.

I don't expect it to happen overnight; but I suspect that something may happen along these lines.

Havok: I fundamentally agree with you, but I think the overriding majority of conservatives in this nation aren't (and, to me, unfortunately so) laissez-faire libertarians. Rather, I think many of these people really haven't changed since the 1960s in their fundamental way of thinking - that is to say, they wouldn't, push comes to shove, mind Federal economic intervention on their behalf, provided it wasn't coupled with any sort of social permissiveness. Which might be room enough to threaten the status-quo, albeit not in a direction which I would approve of.

[Serafina]

I think that it's mostly due to the perception that a third party can't possibly amount to anything, so there's no point in wasting your votes. A fairly accurate point of view unfortunately; barring major upheavals I don't see that changing. Perhaps if something seriously discredited and disrupted both parties at once.

It's not so much a perception as a fact - due to the way the voting system works, it is nearly impossible to make any impact if you are a new party - or rather, if you are the third-largest party around.
To put it in easy terms, the abundancy of "most votes take all"-elections leads to this.

You know, i think that's one of the major factors that radicallizes the political system of the USA so much - after all, that means that one of the major party can get a lot of votes by catering to the radicals, instead of them voting for a minor, relatively unimportant party.

[Simon_Jester]

I'd say there are actually three conservative factions in the US that are distinct enough to form their own party:

-The center-right (the ones who make up the Democratic mainstream)
-The far-right (the Republican mainstream and the Blue Dogs)
-The loony-right (the Teabaggers and extreme fundamentalists)

The Republicans are trying to keep both the far-right and the loony-right in the same tent. It was working during the Reagan-Bush era, because the mainstream Republicans could coopt the loonies easily enough by using the right vocabulary. But now there's a distinct possibility of the two factions separating, because the loony-right is starting to scare the centerward portion of the far-right.

Another thing to remember is that the US has very low voter participation in the two-party system. It's entirely possible for a new party that speaks for new people to conjure up ten million or so voters "from nowhere," simply because they'd given up on the idea of any party really representing them. Perot managed it, for instance.

[TheKwas]

In fact, as much as I absolutely loathe populism, a case could be made that a third party dedicated to it - further to the Left of the Democrats on economics (and not just on bread-and-butter issues, either -- I am far from convinced that the Republicans really have won the day on environmental issues, especially as it relates to long-term national security) and much further to the Right than Republicans on social issues could be legitimately viable, especially if our instability today remains or grows even more severe.

This is one of the worst written sentences I have ever seen. You start out with two subordinate clauses and then use dashes as a license to print every side-thought you could ever think of. If your side-thoughts aren't worth their own sentences, they probably aren't worth sharing in the first place.

I'm sorry for being off-topic, but your writing style is really too big of a pain for me to get on-topic. Simplify your sentences and eliminate words that contribute nothing to your meaning.

[Einzige]

I think that it's mostly due to the perception that a third party can't possibly amount to anything, so there's no point in wasting your votes. A fairly accurate point of view unfortunately; barring major upheavals I don't see that changing. Perhaps if something seriously discredited and disrupted both parties at once.

It's not so much a perception as a fact - due to the way the voting system works, it is nearly impossible to make any impact if you are a new party - or rather, if you are the third-largest party around.
To put it in easy terms, the abundancy of "most votes take all"-elections leads to this.

Unless, of course, a third party totally subsumes one of the main parties. This has happened twice in our history: in the electoral cycle of 1824-28 (when the Democratic-Republicans were displaced by Andrew Jackson's Democrats), and in 1856-1860, when the Whigs re-organized themselves into the Republicans. Might an event similar to this be on our horizon?

[Crossroads Inc.]

I posted this in another thread that is pretty much about the same topic:

Any third party would simply detract from the group it split from and hurt them in any elections.

I mean in America, there are only 'Republicans', and 'Democrats'. This isn't 'really' true, there is a huge spectrum of different viewpoints, but when it comes to voting that is how things boil down. If suddenly a huge group of people that currently votes "Republican" decides to form its own party then all they are doing is decreasing the over all "Republican" votes.

We see this with Nader and Democratic votes as well as Ron Paul and Republican votes.

Basically if the GOP actually split into a third party, it would be the End of any Republican organization for quite some time to come. The next group of elections would have a Flood of Democrats coming into office as Republicans find their votes cut off by the "Tea Party"

Eventually the party is going to realize just how useless it is and go back to being just "Republicans"

To expand on that, and as Serafina just mentioned, the Way America is set up makes Third parties basically useless. America's politics runs just by "Majorities". Theoretically, if the entire Congress was ALL Democrats and only ONE sitting Republican, there would not be anything unconstitutional about it. Because basically "parties" aren't counted, only people.

America is a very wide spectrum of voters and thinking, but if you want to get anything done, you have to be either Democrat or Republican. The oNLY way a Third party could ever rise to power, was if BOTH Democrats and Republicans left their parties in equal amounts ot make a third. It's something that just won't happen, You would never get enough people on either side to agree with each other for long enough to form a powerblock.

For the forceable future "Third Parties" in America are basically nothing more then a splinter group that will divid existing votes from one of the two main parties.

So sorry to burst your bubble Einzige

[Simon_Jester]

Today, the brand names are so strong that a new party will have trouble doing well simply because its name isn't "Republican" or "Democrat." It's more likely that one of the parties will reinvent itself, forming a new and different political alliance along different lines than before.

The Republicans already did this in the 1960-1980 era, by building a new coalition around the Southern Dixiecrat wing, the fundamentalists, and the reactionary elements of the older WWII generation.

The oNLY way a Third party could ever rise to power, was if BOTH Democrats and Republicans left their parties in equal amounts ot make a third. It's something that just won't happen, You would never get enough people on either side to agree with each other for long enough to form a powerblock.

For the forceable future "Third Parties" in America are basically nothing more then a splinter group that will divid existing votes from one of the two main parties.

This actually happened with Perot: he got a bunch of new voters and took away Republicans and Democrats in roughly equal numbers. The only catch is that he didn't do enough of it, partly because he made some major mistakes on the campaign trail.

[Einzige]

This actually happened with Perot: he got a bunch of new voters and took away Republicans and Democrats in roughly equal numbers. The only catch is that he didn't do enough of it, partly because he made some major mistakes on the campaign trail.

To be fair, Perot, aside from outsourcing and the deficit, was really quite vague about any broader slant to his political thinking. And I've read some horror stories about his mistreatment of volunteers and almost total lockstep control over the Reform Party in 1996. As I've said, I don't think a third party can afford to be so ideological that it ostracizes moderates, but neither can it be tied to one man's distinct personality.

[Teebs]

I was under the impression that when serious third parties rose in the past they either displaced one of the main two to continue the two party system or had their ideas absorbed by one of the big two and so faded into obscurity.

[eion]

Why are there no viable third parties? Because victory in American elections is based on a plurality of the votes, rather than a majority.

There is plenty of distrust and distaste amongst many towards the two major parties, so why don't they go off and form their own party and kick the other two out of office? Because they can't.

Let's say we want to form a more liberal party than the current Democratic Party. We gather together grassroots support and even get our candidates on the ballot in some congressional districts. Awesome, now we can stick it to those corporate pseudo-liberals!

But wait, now liberal minded voters have another choice at the polls, do they vote for John Steady, the Democratic candidate, or Neil Newheart, the New Party candidate? Let's say it is a particularly small turnout this year and that only 100 voters in this district cast ballots.

But we forgot about Billy Biblethumper, the Republican candidate!

So here's the results of our little election

Total Electorate - 100
John Steady (D) - 35
Neil Newheart (NP) - 20
Billy Biblethumper (R) - 44
Donald Duck (DIS) - 1

So even though Billy didn't get a majority of the vote, he has the most votes in the district, a plurality, and therefore the Republicans have won the district and Billy Biblethumper is a new congressman! Notice that 56 percent of the voters didn't want Billy to win, but he still does.

But it's our first year; we'll try again in two years and do better, right? Probably not. Political party funding, which drives campaigns and helps recruit candidates, relies on having people in power who can actually do something to satisfy the donors. So long as a plurality of Republican voters show up, they'll always win the election.

This means new parties will rarely if ever attract serious funding, serious candidates, and will not achieve serious successes in almost all cases.

And both parties like it that way. Maintaining plurality based elections means no competition will form to challenge their foothold on power.

So the political reality that no new party can overcome the spoiler barrier drives the ideological reality that serious fundraisers, activists, candidates, and operatives do not support third parties.

Want to change that? Demand Majority Elections! If no candidate wins a majority (50 + 1 votes) of the votes in the election then you have to have a run-off with some systematically reduced slate of candidates until someone wins a majority of the votes. This allows you to have actual third, fourth, and even fifth and sixth party candidates. It limits drastically the effect of Duverger's law and encourages parties to develop strong voter satisfaction, rather than catering to wedge issues.

[Serafina]

*what eion said*

Well, the problem is that there is absolutey no representation for small parties.

Let's suppose you have four parties:
Two large ones and one small one.
The large ones get between 35 and 40 % of the votes each, varying by state etc.
The small ones get between 10 and 15% each.
Now let's for simplicity suppose that this is an average of most states and that there are no states where the small parties get really high percentages.

Now, even while 25% of all americans vote for both small parties, they will have next to no representation under your system.

Now, if we take the german system for comparision, the small parties would still have about 25% of all seats in the Bundestag (split amongst them).
Also, they can actually get into the goverment by allying with one of the major parties.
So if the election goes 35% for party A, 40% for B, 10 % for C and 15% for D.
Which means that both major parties will have to convince at least one minor one to form a valid goverment (which needs at least 50% of the seats) - so the minor parties can bargain their policies in, too.

Now, could it work that way in the USA too?
Well, theoretically, yes, but the hurdle for small parties is way smaller, since they would have to get the most votes in a significant amount of states. While theoretically possible, it would be extraordinarily hard to do so.

[Liberty]

Unless, of course, a third party totally subsumes one of the main parties. This has happened twice in our history: in the electoral cycle of 1824-28 (when the Democratic-Republicans were displaced by Andrew Jackson's Democrats), and in 1856-1860, when the Whigs re-organized themselves into the Republicans. Might an event similar to this be on our horizon?

Close, but not quite.

Originally, you had the Democrat-Republicans and the Federalists. The Federalists were an old boys' club and were discredited by the War of 1812. And then, for a time, you had one party rule. This didn't work out very well, as the party name no longer meant everything, as everyone was a Democrat-Republican. The party split into two factions (Democrat and National Republican) in 1828, each centered on one of the presidential candidates (rather than on an actual platform). Jackson, the Democrat, won. However, the National Republican Party didn't function that well, or have that much pull, and in essence all you had was the Democrat party, which was for a time the cult of Jackson. Then, all of the opponents of Jackson (mostly former National Republicans) joined together and founded the Whig Party. The Whig Party fractured and dissolved in the 1850s over slavery, and the Republican Part was founded on its ruins. And since then, we've had Democrats and Republicans.

So:

1790-1820: Democrat-Republican and Federalist
1820-1828: Democrat-Republican
1828-1836: Democrat and National Republican
1836-1850s: Democrat and Whig
1850s-present: Democrat and Republican

Caveat: I wrote this quickly and it's really a summary.

[eion]

<snip>

The only thing I'd add was the mass defection of the Dixiecrats (southern Democrats) to the Republican party during the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Prior that that, the parties were quite regional, and southern Democrats tended to get along better with their southern Republican colleagues than fellow Democrats from other regions.

[Ryan Thunder]

Notice that 56 percent of the voters didn't want Billy to win, but he still does.

That's an asinine way to look at it. He got more votes than anybody else did. More people wanted him in office than wanted the other candidates. Now if you still think that's a bad way to do it, okay, but framing it that way isn't helpful. Say there should be coalitions or something.

Personally, I think there should be an anti-vote, where whoever gets the least anti-votes ends up in office.

[Liberty]

Notice that 56 percent of the voters didn't want Billy to win, but he still does.

That's an asinine way to look at it. He got more votes than anybody else did. More people wanted him in office than wanted the other candidates. Now if you still think that's a bad way to do it, okay, but framing it that way isn't helpful. Say there should be coalitions or something.

Personally, I think there should be an anti-vote, where whoever gets the least anti-votes ends up in office.

Oh yeah, and that's not confusing. I mean, you thought the butterfly ballot was bad...

[Ryan Thunder]

Oh yeah, and that's not confusing. I mean, you thought the butterfly ballot was bad...

If you didn't notice the , yeah, that was a joke.

[Liberty]

Oh yeah, and that's not confusing. I mean, you thought the butterfly ballot was bad...

If you didn't notice the , yeah, that was a joke.

Ah. Good.

So I've heard some people suggest that we have a test for being able to vote. Now before everyone yells about the history of such tests, this test would be designed to determine if people actually know the views of the candidates running. Basically, the argument is that people shouldn't vote if they don't actually know the positions of the candidates (i.e., Obama is not a communist). Not sure how I feel about the idea, it might just be simpler to try to make the public more well educated, etc, but I'm not really sure that is achievable at this point...or maybe I'm just a cynic.

[eion]

So I've heard some people suggest that we have a test for being able to vote. Now before everyone yells about the history of such tests, this test would be designed to determine if people actually know the views of the candidates running. Basically, the argument is that people shouldn't vote if they don't actually know the positions of the candidates (i.e., Obama is not a communist). Not sure how I feel about the idea, it might just be simpler to try to make the public more well educated, etc, but I'm not really sure that is achievable at this point...or maybe I'm just a cynic.

The risk of abuse is just phenomenally high. Who gets to decide what the "facts" of the test will be? You're assuming perfect knowledge too, but candidates have changed their positions based on their audience, just look at Mitt Romney calling his own health-reform plan a bad idea nationwide, so one group of voters may have seen the candidate rail against the evils of issue A, but another group of voters saw him criticize some aspect of issue A without being wholly in opposition to it. Who's right? Who gets to vote?

What I would like to see is a requirement to vote in local elections before voting in national ones, "Oh, I'm sorry, it looks like you didn't vote in last year's state delegate or school board election. Did you have a waiver? Oh, I'm sorry then, you can't vote for president this year."

Such a system would require lots of warnings to the voter to allow them to file a hard-ship waiver. And yes, I realize it's a pipe dream with equal levels of potential corruption and abuse, but so long as we're throwing out theoretical ideas...

[adam_grif]

I'd like to point out that even countries that have much more sane voting techniques like Australia have still ended up in the same kind of depressing two party system with no hope of anything else getting ground.

[open_sketchbook]

Even in Canada we effectively have two parties, with a whole bunch of hangers-on that exist solely to ally with one party or another. People like having their issues polarized, less thinking is involved that way.

[Archaic`]

Honestly, given that you're from Tasmania adam, I find it hard to understand why you'd think that when 20% of your state legislature are now Greens. Third parties don't tend to win huge numbers of seats, but they do tend to have a fairly significant influence on the outcome of the election with their distribution of preferences, and often end up in a balance of power situation in the senate.

[adam_grif]

Honestly, given that you're from Tasmania adam, I find it hard to understand why you'd think that when 20% of your state legislature are now Greens. Third parties don't tend to win huge numbers of seats, but they do tend to have a fairly significant influence on the outcome of the election with their distribution of preferences, and often end up in a balance of power situation in the senate.

Well I was talking about Federal government really, but this win by the greens was, as far as I know, unprecedented. At best, minorities get the larger parties to compromise on some issues, but it's really not all that much better than your run of the mill two party system. Fact of the matter is, most people want one of the two major parties in.