Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

Something real, as in something they can accomplish with the funds they have to realize goals and increase their own power base. They are playing at being political parties instead of doing the work needed to become one that's worth paying any attention to. There is absolutely NO reason to waste any time on a Presidential election when they could be trying to make an impact.

You know what was pretty awesome that a third party did?

They got John Eder elected. And he was awesome. And accomplished some good stuff. The ONLY reason he lost was because he engaged in some sketchy robocalling that alienated a bunch of his major supporters. That is the sort of thing I'd like to see more of - I'd like to see the third parties supporting and pushing for local candidates to get actual government positions.

They are obviously screwing something up, because they've only got two other legislators elected, and both turned on the green party immediately afterwards, dropping them as nothing but baggage and switching party affiliation.

That's BAD. When you get three people total elected, and then they turn on you?

I'm sorry, that just tells me its a party not worth supporting. And this is the STRONGEST of the third parties, from what I understand.

[RedKing]

IMHO, the vast majority of third parties candidates in this country are either people who are really trying to make a difference but are too divorced from reality to realize they're having zero effect or they're egotists doing it to feel important. And often they're both (see: Nader, Ralph).

I can totally understand not wanting to run as either Dem or Republican. If I ever ran for office, I'd be loath to slap either label on. But you know what? I'd just run as "Independent" rather than going to the trouble of creating the "New American Progressive Patriot Liberty Freedom Party of America". These parties are small, and stay small and frequently splinter for the same reason that you'll find umpteen hundred different churches in a small rural town or seventy flavors of Communist party in a given country: People with strong beliefs often have strong egos. And if things aren't going to be done their way, then they'll start their OWN party/church/faction!

[Karlito]

A current survey of the offices held by major third parties in the US (according to Wikipedia):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

There's some independents in the Senate, and probably in some state legislatures as well, but third parties might as well not exist.

[GlyphGryph]

And I maintain that when you have a better chance getting elected by not involving yourself with a party at all, that is the fault of the management of the third parties. There are NO serious national-based third parties or even many regional parties in the US right now - The local Green party in Maine, barely affiliated with the national party, is pretty much all there is.

[RedKing]

Also has to do with popular perception. Running as independent is seen as a reasonable (if somewhat suicidal) option. Once you proclaim allegiance to an actual third-party, it flags you as some kind of radical weirdo.

Given that their fundraising and ground game are so weak, there's really no upside to running third-party as a candidate. You're better off on your own, IMHO.

[Nadaka]

One of the reasons that a lot of these 3rd parties don't do much locally is that the issues they care the most about are primarily national issues. Greens want to protect the whole environment, Libertarians want to neuter the federal government. And Reform? I kinda lost track of them after they went schizophrenic and put Pat Robertson in charge.

[PTTG??]

My favorite president was an independent.

[GlyphGryph]

One of the reasons that a lot of these 3rd parties don't do much locally is that the issues they care the most about are primarily national issues. Greens want to protect the whole environment, Libertarians want to neuter the federal government.

Well, then, they aren't going to get anywhere. It's really that simply. If you don't put the work in, you're not going to get anywhere.

And are there really not any Libertarian, Green, or Reform issues that can be addressed on the state level? That seems unlikely.

[RedKing]

My favorite president was an independent.

He also didn't care for political parties.

[mainiac]

And are there really not any Libertarian, Green, or Reform issues that can be addressed on the state level? That seems unlikely.

There are tons.  I wish the libertarians would actually bring their anti regulation fervor to bear on some local level stuff where we seriously do need deregulation.  But they would never do that.  It just doesn't fit with their raison d'etre.

[nenjin]

Which is stupid. You build support for the party and its ideals at the local and state level, demonstrate they can be achieved in that scope, then you go on to preach your national platform.

Their approach is completely backasswards. As though they can really be heard on the national stage above the drone of the other two parties and the scorn of the media.

[RedKing]

Which goes back to what I said. It's about ego, not producing results. Look at groups like the Moral Majority movement back in the 80s. They knew how to do it right...they targeted seemingly minor (but actually quite potent) races like school boards and county commissioners and stealthed their way into thousands of communities. Why can't the Left pull off a manuever like that? (beyond the natural problem of "the Left" being a hydra with 1000 heads and no brain)

[darkflagrance]

Perhaps issues like the environment are not as capable of producing people truly committed to action as religious or moral ones?

[Aqizzar]

Something interesting: California is planning to change its primary system after the 2012 elections.  Instead of the current system - common across the country, where each registered party holds its own vote, and the winner of that gets a designated slot on the ballot - they're adopting a system very similar to Louisiana's "primary" system.  Pretty much everybody who gets enough signatures is placed on a statewide ballot, and then the two highest placers from that are the general election candidates.  They can even be from the same party, as long as they're the two highest votes.

Louisiana adopted it back in the Jim Crow era as a way of making sure only party would ever be in power, but it's wound up having a moderating effect on the elections.  Normally, each party's candidates are picked by the 5-10% of the population who give enough shits about their party's plank to turn out, dragging the general election toward the most stalwart platform guys.  With this system, you get exactly two choices in the general election (as opposed to usually just two), but they're both chosen by a plurality of the whole population, necessarily making them considerably more "centrist" (if that's your thing).

Of course, it also means you're likely to be choosing between the two best funded candidates who can get the necessary recognition, and it often means that you're still getting one candidate from each party.  Instead of holding a primary, the state's party leadership just picks a guy to back as the "real" representative, to spend the party's money on.  Still, it's theoretically a moderating development, and I think another half-dozen states are considering the same thing.

This just in: Andrew Breitbart dead at 43.

Huh.  Well, that's sad.  Funny that I haven't heard mention of it anywhere on TV.

[mainiac]

Is there anything in this system to prevent parties from holding primaries to decide who to back in the general primary?  It sounds to me like it's essentially a two tiered election system like the french presidency.  First comes the free for all election, then is a 1 on 1 runoff.  It's just calling the first election a primary.