What would a functional American Third Party look like?

[Zkribbler]

A functional third party in America is probably not going to happen.

In any sizable election (city or larger), the winning candidate or party needs to put together a coalition of different interests in order to gain a majority.

In Europe, various interests form their own parties, and the coalition is created out of these smaller entitities.

But in the U.S., we've taken these various factions into the two major parties and have created internal coalitions.

The best chance now for a major third-party to appear is if there's a schism in the Republican Party, with the traditional conservatives (balanced budget; small govt) breaking a way from the new-order conservationalists (less taxes with deficients; Patriot Act omnipresence).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
conservationalists

new word!!!!!!!!

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
the libertarian party is fine - in the last wisconsin gubernatorial race, the libertarian candidate (who was a mayor of a city) recieved over 10% of the vote.

nationally, we pulled as much as the green party.

You call that fine?

This is the problem with the LP, there is an institutionalised culture of failure. When a candidate gets 10% for something its declared a huge victory. When you have your sights set on beating out the Green Party you are irrelevant by definition.

Che says the point of third parties isn't to win, but to help spread the message. Yes and no. The only possible point of spreading the message is for eventual electoral victory. It is a building step. When a party is stuck at the same building step for 30 years, its no longer building its treading water waiting to drown.

The best way to spread the message is to WIN. Why would the media bother to donate their valuable newsprint/airtime to a party that has always lost and will always lose? They wouldn't, and they don't. No one is interested in a loser.

So how do you win? Stop running crazy people. Stop driving out sane people. Start realizing how politics actually works. If someone has never had any electoral experience whatsoever, they probably aren't the best candidate for Governor (or President). Connections are very important when running for office. You need friends, and you need allies. Libertarians (and I imagine other 3rd parties too) don't seem to do much. They sit out in the woods with their guns smoking pot and reading Hayek. What makes any rational person think this guy is a qualified candidate for office?

[Odin]

Leftist 3rd parties need to have name that don't remind people of the USSR. The leftist parties should use names like "Workers Party", Labor party", or "Progressive Party". "Socialist", and especially, "Communist" scare people.

[Jon Miller]

the idea of running for president has worked so well in the US for 3rd parties...

wait, it hasn't

I think they should focus for a local level, and get heard there

than go for the national

it will take sometime... but it has been a long time with no result with the current method

Jon Miller

[Jaguar]

I think we could use a functional Second Party, myself.

[Jon Miller]

I agree

Jon Miller

[DanS]

The last time Congress had an approval rating this low was 1996 the year control switched.

Control switched in 1994, not 1996.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think that any 3rd party that did have success would be brought back into the fold by one (or both) of the 2 parties changing their platform to get those people back.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by MrFun
new word!!!!!!!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is the problem with the LP, there is an institutionalised culture of failure.

No, the problem is (as you alluded to) they are all nuts . Moderate Libertarians become Republicans because all the hardcore Libertarians run the LP and run wackjobs like Harry Browne.

They think nominating a moderate means they are selling out. Bah!

[Ramo]

[i]Vermont has a socialist congressman?[i]

Social-democratic AFAIK. Incidentally, he's the most popular politician in the state, and is a shoe-in for Jefford's Senate seat in '06 (Jeffords is retiring).

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS


Control switched in 1994, not 1996.

The last time
Congress had such a low rating the control of Congress switched.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Odin
Both US parties are basically huge coalitions of voting blocs that would be seperate parties under a PR system. Democrats range from social dems, left wing neo-liberals (Bill Clinton), and religious progressives. The Republicans range from traditional pro-business types and right-wing neo-liberals, the Religious Right, moderate libertarians, and the Neo-Cons.

The problem with that is you have a lot of areas in which one party or the other doesn't have virtually ANY chance of winning (especially in gerrymandered areas). The openings that third parties would have is targetting those areas. Greens should target areas where Republicans don't stand a chance (and only those areas, at least to start with) this would not only maximize the Green's chances of winning but shake things up and keep Dems from getting too complacent. Same goes with Libertarians targetting areas that are very safe Rebublican seats. A party that could draw support from both traditional Dem and Repub voters would do the best in areas where either one of the two big parties traditionally shuts the other our since they'd have a very good chance of getting the few supporters the underdog party has to vote tactically for them (for example "Republicans in Massachusetts district X and Utah district Y, vote Moderate Party since your favored party doesn't have a chance in hell of winning).

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Don't be so down on the Democrats. With Congress's approval ratings down to 33% and polls showing people are blaming Republicans for causing fights over nonissues (Shiavo & Senate procedural rules) instead of things which matter to people (health care costs and education) things are looking up for Democrats. If they can hone their message and speak with one voice then next November is looking very good for them.

The problem is that there's no sign of the Dems either speaking with one voice, or outgrowing the old "tax and spend liberal" baggage that's heaped on whether it applies or not, or of demonstrating any real fiscal sense, or of appearing to have a credible, strong policy on national defense, or....

The only thing the Dems have going for them now is Republicans fragmenting and overreaching the extent of power they currently have.