Why is there no public appetite for a Third Party?

[Knife]

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...

Sure, but I'll take a 'non of the above' vote and if it wins, you start the election over.

[bobalot]

I'm sick of people whining about the two party systems that have sprung up in a lot of democracies. I have had a look at the smaller parties and their platforms here in Australia and guess what? For the most part, they are fucking shit. Their policies are unpopular, their candidates are borderline retarded and their supporters fucking annoying.

But of course, it simply can't be because their parties platforms are simply unpopular... it must be the tyranny of the two party system!

[Lord of the Abyss]

I'm sick of people whining about the two party systems that have sprung up in a lot of democracies. I have had a look at the smaller parties and their platforms here in Australia and guess what? For the most part, they are fucking shit. Their policies are unpopular, their candidates are borderline retarded and their supporters fucking annoying.

But of course, it simply can't be because their parties platforms are simply unpopular... it must be the tyranny of the two party system!

It can be argued that that is an effect and not a cause of two party dominance. Once a two party system becomes entrenched, most serious politicians are going to be in one or the other party regardless of how little they agree with it, because that's where the power and electability is.

[General Brock]

Ross Perot didn't do to badly before he got cold feet and seemed to sabotage himself. So, there is public appetite for a third party. Also, a fair number of eligible voters don't vote; they have no stake in either party, but might vote for a party closer to their interests.

The main problem is the 'first past the post' plurality electoral system. If a proportional system were in place, then a third party vote would not have the sense of being a 'wasted' vote (which it pretty much is in most cases) and a much more diverse government could be had. Maybe.

[Temujin]

I'm sick of people whining about the two party systems that have sprung up in a lot of democracies. I have had a look at the smaller parties and their platforms here in Australia and guess what? For the most part, they are fucking shit. Their policies are unpopular, their candidates are borderline retarded and their supporters fucking annoying.

Great point, for example, in America we have:

The Constitution Party: Paleoconservative (goal is "to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations." ), Lou Dobbs style immigration policy, and strong libertarian elements. I' surprised the Tea Party hasn't fully embraced these fuckers.

The Libertarian Party: Nuff said.

The Green Party of the United States: They sound pretty good, at least to most people on this board. Their "Ten Key Values" are listed as:

• 1. Grassroots democracy
  2. Social justice and equal opportunity
  3. Ecological wisdom
  4. Nonviolence
  5. Decentralization
  6. Community-based economics
  7. Feminism and gender equality
  8. Respect for diversity
  9. Personal and global responsibility
  10. Future focus and sustainability

However, they are way to liberal for mainstream America, and likely to be full of ecomentalists of the Greenpeace and PETA variety.


Those are just the big three of the third parties. But we also have, to name but a few of the more crazy, crap like:

• The America First Party: Think Constitution Party
  The Boston Tea Party: More libertopians
  The Objectivist Party: Based on the insane ramblings of you know who
  The Prohibition Party: Alcohol, tobacco, gambling, illegal drugs, pornography, and commercialized vice. Yeah, they have a chance in America.
  The United States Marijuana Party: Dude I was so high I forgot to vote.

There are also a few more in the vain of the Constitution and Libertarian parties, and slew of left wing worker parties, that of course wouldn't have a chance in hell because their all evil communists.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Instant of serial runoff elections, why not adopt Australian style proportional representation? If it still leads to two party dominance, than the US clearly wants two parties. And it can't be horrifyingly bad, as they make it work with mandatory voting, so drooling retards can clearly ultimately figure out how to fill out a ballot.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Instant of serial runoff elections, why not adopt Australian style proportional representation? If it still leads to two party dominance, than the US clearly wants two parties. And it can't be horrifyingly bad, as they make it work with mandatory voting, so drooling retards can clearly ultimately figure out how to fill out a ballot.

Yeah turns out we actually have voter education too.

[eion]

Yeah turns out we actually have voter education too.

Your parties also hand out little step-by-step "How to Vote" cards right outside the polling place that show people how to order their choices so as to best benefit the party, and not necessarily ranking the candidates in the voter's preference.

[Jade Falcon]

Even in the UK there are third parties, but for the most part they are smaller single Issue parties.

The biggest nationally is the Liberal Democrats who went through a variety of leaders and name changes in the 80's and 90's.

In Scotland, the Scottish Nationalist Party is on the rise, though to be honest I think Alex Salmond is a smug (even for a politician) SOB. I used to think that the deputy Nicola Sturgeon was okay but there have been some rumblings around her.

The talks about a two party system remind me of this clip from the popular 80's show Spitting Image..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TFx9u1t1LY

[bobalot]

Yeah turns out we actually have voter education too.

Your parties also hand out little step-by-step "How to Vote" cards right outside the polling place that show people how to order their choices so as to best benefit the party, and not necessarily ranking the candidates in the voter's preference.

How does this in anyway disprove his point? Are you seriously suggesting the only "voter education" in Australia is how to vote cards outside polling booths?

Are you also suggesting that preferential voting is so difficult that the average Australian is incapable of simply ranking the parties in the order that they prefer?

[eion]

Yeah turns out we actually have voter education too.

Your parties also hand out little step-by-step "How to Vote" cards right outside the polling place that show people how to order their choices so as to best benefit the party, and not necessarily ranking the candidates in the voter's preference.

How does this in anyway disprove his point? Are you seriously suggesting the only "voter education" in Australia is how to vote cards outside polling booths?

Not at all. I'm suggesting that people are often lazy, and in that laziness some might substitute a party they trust's judgment over their own. How are they to know whether Bob Billabong (Australians for Mandatory Wallabies Party), a guy they never heard of before they got to the polling place is better or worse than some other guy who has no chance of winning. If you're already committed to vote for Party A, and their main rival is Party B, you'll place Party A at the top and Party B at the bottom, and maybe rank the rest of them individually, or just go off this handy card the Party A organizer gave you on the way in. After all, you trust Party A, they’d never do anything in their interests and not yours.

95% voter turnout doesn't mean the voters are more educated about the choices they are making than countries with 50% voter turnout. It just means they're either coerced or encouraged enough to vote.

Are you also suggesting that preferential voting is so difficult that the average Australian is incapable of simply ranking the parties in the order that they prefer?

Emphasis mine. Wholly incapable? certainly not, but since 95% of Australians vote, one can imagine that a certain percentage don't understand it at all, and a greater percentage only understand it partially, unless you have to pass some manner of civics & I.Q. test to get your birth-right citizenship.
Voting for a party is not the mark of an informed electorate because a party is a giant mechanism designed to win elections. A Candidate is a person you can hold accountable far easier than a party. Anyone who votes for parties, and not people, even when the ballot is set up Party:Candidate does not strike me as a very informed voter.

[bobalot]

So basically you have no evidence for anything you have claimed? Thanks, that's all I needed to know.

[Archaic`]

Voting for a party is not the mark of an informed electorate because a party is a giant mechanism designed to win elections. A Candidate is a person you can hold accountable far easier than a party. Anyone who votes for parties, and not people, even when the ballot is set up Party:Candidate does not strike me as a very informed voter.

This particular part here I think is interesting, and I think may help in understanding the different perspectives you and bobalot have.

One of the things you would often take into consideration in the US when looking at a candidate is their voting record, correct? Because no matter what party they might be in, it's not uncommon for their voting record to be all over the place on certain key issues that may be out of lockstep with their party base.

Except...this doesn't really happen here except for occasional and very rare "conscience votes". Even then, someone "crossing the floor" to vote with the other site tends to become a huge issue in the national news media. It's not that the parties aren't as internally divided as they can be in the US, it's just that they keep their fights off the floor of parliament for the most part, and vote on issues more as a cohesive unit.