Well, Obama won.

[seawasp]

Which is better than the only practical alternative.

I did not vote for either one; I knew that New York would be going to Obama barring an act of God directly changing the minds of millions, so I took the opportunity to vote for a third party.

However.

In the next four years, we need to *MAKE* a third party, and WIN, and kick BOTH the Democrats AND Republicans out.

Because honestly? There's not really much difference between Obama and Mitt. The news and each groups' boosters like to talk up the differences like they're huge, insuperable gaps, but they're really both much closer to each other than either of them would have been to, say, Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon, let alone Jimmy Carter or JFK. While Mitt and his party do seem more bound up with the obviously 1% interests, Obama's got plenty of support and interests in those areas as well; he just played the stage somewhat differently.

We need to BREAK the two party system. We need to SHATTER it. It needs to be turned into a system of PEOPLE, not organizations that perpetuate themselves as though the purpose of politics was to perpetuate politics.

Comments

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Good luck with that.

[seawasp]

I sense... much cynicism in you.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Call it what you like, but as a recovering Libertarian (and before that, as an actual Libertarian) I've been paying at least some attention to third parties over the last 30 years or so, and I see no reason to believe that there is any party out there that has the political chops or the broad appeal to make a viable third party. Even efforts with massive financial backing and superficial populist appeal like the the Tea Baggers or Ross Perot's Reform Party haven't gotten enough momentum or credibility to make any kind of lasting impression. They mostly wind up peeling off the nuttier components of the Republicans for a while and acting as spoilers. For that matter, given that the US doesn't have a parliamentary system anyway, and no mechanisms for coalition governance, it's not clear to me that the dominance of the two parties is the core of our political problems, or that a viable third party would solve any.

[david wilford (from livejournal.com)]

A Green Liberty party sounds good in theory, but I haven't the faintest idea how to make it work as an actual coalition of environmentalists and libertarians.

[ninjarat.livejournal.com]

Call me a cynic but I don't see it happening. I'm Libertarian enough to want it, but I'm also realist enough not to expect it to happen that way. Not a shattering. Not an immediate change.

What I want to happen is for the Tea Party to formally split from the Republican Party. I don't want them to win anything. I want them to be taken just seriously enough to crack the perception that elected officials at the federal level need to belong to one of the Big Two. I'm willing to accept them taking a few seats in Congress to get across the message that other parties are viable and that voting off Big Two party lines isn't a waste.

[melchar.livejournal.com]

I also could not bring myself to vote for either corporate shill and voted for a 3rd party candidate. However, with the 2 options presented, I am glad that Obama won re-election because Mittens fell off the Cliff of Insanity when he picked Ryan as a running-mate.

I agree that what is needed is a viable 3rd party, but it needs to be sane. I fear that with the current feelings about politics, any 3rd party that gains a lot of notice will do so by attracting a self-defeating fringe - instead of by attracting the moderate center. Sadly, the middle ground is perceived to be boring and boring does not make for good soundbites.

[seawasp]

How does the current system dictate there be two and only two -- legally, rather than by habit? Not saying it doesn't, but I don't recall anything in my own knowledge that says it's so.

There's quite a movement currently for "National Popular Vote", which would seem to eliminate the necessity for any parties at all, let alone two and only two; if a hundred million people voted, and ninety-eight candidates got a million votes, and the 99th got two million, the 99th would be the winner.

[kengr]

And the 99th winning is why such a system would *not* be acceptable. The winner has to get the *majority* of the votes cast, not just more than any other candidate. That 99th candidate may hsave more votes *for* him that the other 98, but he's got 98 million voters who *don't* want him and only 2 million who do.

That's simply not a viable system.

If we are going to have more than two choices, we need a voting system that lets voters list candidates in order of preference. Not necessarily the Australiam system, but one of the several systems in use that *do* allow for such things.

[seawasp]

But the current system doesn't give the Presidency to the person who gets the majority of popular votes. It goes to the guy selected by the electoral college, regardless of whether fifty million people voted to him or none, in theory. So clearly there's no requirement that the person who gets the majority of popular votes wins.

(What happens if guys in the electoral college say "Hey, I'm not voting for either one" and thus make it impossible for a majority to be achieved? Yes, it's never HAPPENED, but I see no reason to believe it's physically impossible)

[murstein.livejournal.com]

What happens if guys in the electoral college say "Hey, I'm not voting for either one" and thus make it impossible for a majority to be achieved?

That could be . . . interesting. Some States make it illegal for an elector to vote for anyone other than the person who won their State; I'm suddenly curious whether those laws are in compliance with the US Constitution. (But not curious enough to do the research tonight.)

The most viable way of getting a President not from the Big Two would be for nearly all the States to adopt proportional voting, instead of nearly all having winner-takes-all. For Congresscritters, it's even easier: You just have to have more people who vote for something other than the Big Two.

[elainegrey.livejournal.com]

Amen.

Well, you know what i mean.

[elainegrey.livejournal.com]

Also, i too did a third party vote.

[llennhoff.livejournal.com]

I don't believe 3rd party is the way to go. We need to imitate the right and take over one of the two major parties from within. This is a project that will take a generation - in some other posts today I have said "today is the first day of the 2028 election." We have to be a virus taking over the host and replacing its DNA with our own, not an ecological competitor trying to displace someone from the niche they already possess.

[hvideo.livejournal.com]

We've seen what can happen when two different parties control the House and Senate. What makes you think that adding a viable 3rd party would improve the situation? Would that not simply make it more difficult for anyone to actually get things done?

Or by "kicking both the Ds and Rs out" are you really, REALLY advocating your single new party controlling the entire thing all the time? A single-party system has been tried many times in the world - dictators, communist nations and so on. Those examples don't seem to be the ideal you are shooting for either. (Oh, sure, having a Benevolent Dictator may indeed be the most efficient and desireable political situation - but there's this little problem of making sure of the Benevolent part.)

As for a time scale of 4 years - rediculous. Yes, completely open to redicule. You used the term "practical alternative" above - why then set such a horrendously IMpractical timetable for your revolution? Had you discussed a 40-year goal (as sharrukin suggested), you might have been seen as an optimistic dreamer but you wouldn't necessarily be dismissed outright.

[seawasp]

Because if all the people who voted, not FOR a candidate, but against a WORSE candidate, were to just vote for a THIRD candidate, you'd HAVE a third party right now. The "Fed Up Party". That's not a four-year goal, that's a "you could have done it THIS time" goal.

I don't expect it to actually HAPPEN, but the potential's there.

As for benevolent dictator? Eh. I'm not benevolent. I'm not malevolent. I want to be left out of it. If elected I will do a job I'm elected to do, but I won't run, and I don't want the job (of President OR Dictator-For-Life).

[eacole72.livejournal.com]

Because if all the people who voted, not FOR a candidate, but against a WORSE candidate, were to just vote for a THIRD candidate, you'd HAVE a third party right now. The "Fed Up Party".

You're postulating that everyone who does that voted for one candidate and would want to vote for the same person. There are a lot of people on the far right who held their nose & voted for Romney because he wasn't Obama/a Democrat, and there were as many on the far left who angsted & anguished & voted for Obama because he wasn't Romney/a Republican. Neither of the far ends would consider voting for someone the other far end found acceptable.

[seawasp]

You're postulating that everyone who does that voted for one candidate and would want to vote for the same person.


Actually, I'm assuming all of them would want to vote for thousands of other people.

But that maybe, just maybe, you could get them all to vote for some random schmuck not because any of them agreed he or she was a GOOD choice, but because they wanted to send a REAL message to the existing parties, which is: GET OUT, OR GET A CLUE.

[donald young gloversville (from livejournal.com)]

Bullseye Dude!!!!!!!
I tried to vote for none of the above (Richard Pryor from Brewsters Millions) but the elector wouldn't let me so I walked out. I am so sick of the lies, broken promises(lies), misspeaks(more lies) and errors in research(even more lies). If you don't have tens of millions or cant raise tens of millions, then you are out of luck. It was hard to figure out the lesser of the two evils.
So more of the same for four more years.... and on... and on....

[k-kinnison.livejournal.com]

A third party wont work. because the current big two would be worried about losing votes to the third party. Four party system would work better.

Of course the current election system is completely geared towards a two party system. After Perot, the DNC and RNC just decided no one else could join them in the televised.

Barring Jesus coming again and running for president as a third party, it will never happen short of some sort of armed rebellion against the current government

[saladin-count0.livejournal.com]

i understand you and i feel sorry for you ´cause a third party can´t work in your political system ON A NATIONAL LEVEL in the long run
what can work (look at canada or britain) are regional third parties

what could happen (not likely)
that the gop collapses to a rumo southern party (formerly known as dixicrats)
and the rest reforms nationally as a conservative party focused on fiscal conservativity

an other scenario would be:
the gop looses influence on the national stage but remains powerful on the state level
the clashes in the democratic party after severel cycles of easily one national power grow stronger and the dems break up into a centerright wing (bluedogs/moderates/what was once known as moderate republicans) and a center left team


but the most likly scenario is that after a time of trouble there comes a realignement of positions around new conflicting lines

to have more than 2 big parties you would need a more pr-based (proportional representation) system or more regional with political agendas (you only have 2 with enough votes: the south and the ne+ca/coastlines , some swingstaates in between that form no real independet political agenda and big plaines without people)

p.s.:thats just a political commentary and not meant to offen anybody
i can imagine that the great planes are sometimes fantastic places to be - but beside your votes to the senate there is not much POLITICAL power to you

[saladin-count0.livejournal.com]

typo
rumo should be : rump(party)

[rezendi.livejournal.com]

Neither Canada nor the UK have regional third parties. Both do have regional fourth parties, though.

[saladin-count0.livejournal.com]

true - but not completly

uk: lab and cons are the two big, governing parties (although you could argue that the cons are an english party by now)
the libdems......in an pr-system they would be a real third party that could be even the biggest under the right circumstances
but under fptp they have their regional powerbases and elsewhere their potential support vanishes ´cause it would be a wasted vote

as there are strong regional parties (snp, pc) there was never any big push by the bid 2 to kill the libdems off (the nader argument wouldnt work with more regional parties)


canada---quite similar

there are many factors involved
a big one is quebec
an other is th usa :-) the south (usa) is often nearer as their neighbourprovinces
the west(oil) with completly different interests and more aligned with the usa; the east with a longer british/european political tradition, the teritories

the fact remains: without the existance of the regional parties (mostly with nationalistic reasons) there would be tremendes force to squeeze out the third party (or at least any third party that could realy influence the electionoutcome outside of crazy circumstances )

[rezendi.livejournal.com]

(blink) (blink) That's, er, a remarkably unusual description of both the UK's Lib Dems and Canada's NDP.

http://www.maptube.org/map.aspx?mapid=841
http://www.maproomblog.com/2011/05/mapping_the_2011_canadian_federal_election_results.php

Explain to me again how either is a "regional party"? Somehow I'm not seeing it.

[saladin-count0.livejournal.com]

no libdems nad ndp´s are not only regional parties (although the strengh of the libdems - meaning the areas where can win seats is lemeted to some traditional areas like the sw or london or scottland) but that the survival of a real national third party is only allowed/made possible by the existance of regional parties or an BIG wedge issue that breaks up the bipolarity of an winner takes all system)

[amberdine.livejournal.com]

Not only is there very little difference in the candidates fielded by the two parties, neither side ever honestly pursues the more extreme positions they claim to support.

I never understand people getting all upset or excited about a candidate winning or losing. Really, folks, it's going to be the same old government, slightly different label, no matter who wins. Have they not paid attention to any of the previous elections or candidates? Don't be so gullible!

(I'm not actually saying this lack of change is necessarily bad. I'm not smart enough to know. But it's surely not worth any level of excitement.)

[isleburroughs.livejournal.com]

I agree with melchar that they are both "corporate shills" and didn't want to vote for either but the thought of Mitt and Paul being our fearful leaders was worse than Obama. I was afraid everyone was bailing and that it would lead to a Ross Peroting of the margin and that we'd be stuck with those two. I really wanted to vote for the Green Party but I don't see any hope of them getting more than a third of the population, ever.

[randallsquared.livejournal.com]

Michael Duff has a similar idea/plan: http://michaelduff.net/2012/11/07/operation-deep-blue/ :)

[isleburroughs.livejournal.com]

Cool, Randall. As much as I fear more pot-heads running around blithely laughing during natural disasters and whatnot they're mostly harmless and non-violent, and the war on drugs is such a useless waste of money.

[claidheamhmor]

Hey, at least you have a two-party system. Over hear, our leading party gets 65-70% of the vote every election, and there's not much hope of that changing in decades. I've figured that the best way of changing things would be to join the leading party, and change it from within.

[gary-jordan.livejournal.com]

Hurrah! Elsewhere I said that if the sensible people of the Republican Party want to be elected, they'd abandon the GOP to the extreme elements and join the Democrats. Then they could work from within.

[aardy.livejournal.com]

I know I'm late to the party, but my two cents:

If I remember my AmHist correctly off the top of my head, in 212 years of Presidential politics, we've had exactly two periods with three viable parties, and both times two squeezed out the third and/or the third imploded and vanished within a few cycles-- and both of those times were pre-1900, which is why we no longer have a Federalist Party (replaced by the Whigs) or a Whig Party (replaced by the GOP splitting off from the Democrat-Republican Party). There've been other elections with major third-party candidates for President, but not for more than an election cycle or two, and almost always backed by personal finances (e.g. Perot) and/or personal fame & ego (e.g. Teddy Roosevelt) and thus had no breadth to the ticket nor any staying power for the next cycle.

At this point, without drastically changing election procedures, even a four-party system would probably devolve into a three- then a two-party system again within a few decades, due to the forces of raising enough money to stay major enough to be viable and the pressure of being "in power" and "in opposition" driving them to join in or go defunct as voters gravitate to whichever two are most attractive/most likely to win. Humanity has a built-in tendency for duality, after all.

What's more likely is that the current two realign to be split along different lines/issues over the coming years, absorbing or spinning off different minor parties in the process. (As seems to happen every 40 years or so.) The Tea Party spinning off to join the Libertarians and the Blue Dog Dems then joining up with moderate Repubs to form the base of a revitalized GOP is one such scenario. (That would most likely temporarily be a 4-party system, with the Greens as the most likely fourth, but the two most successful out of those four would probably marginalize the other two to the point of being ignored within a cycle or two.)

I think the only way to have a somewhat stable more-than-two-party system in the current U.S. setup is for a party to build strong regional support and build a base from the bottom up. (Electing Congresscritters & governors first rather than shooting only/mainly for President.) That way, provincialism prevents the "extra" parties from either merging with the big two, fizzling out, or becoming one of the big two after one implodes. Canada's Bloc Quebecois sort of works that way, but I can't think of a U.S. region that would have unique yet major enough issues to drive that sort of dynamic--though upper New England seems to be taking a shot at it anyway, albeit in an unorganized way. If the Electoral College or something substantially like it is kept, then truly proportional allotment (rather than the "winner of the popular vote takes all electoral votes regardless of state-by-state results" that the National Popular Vote movement is pushing) would make it easier for lesser parties to get their toe in the door, at least regionally.

[justin alexander (from livejournal.com)]

If you're serious about wanting viable third-party candidates, then you need to start by changing a system which makes it virtually impossible for third party candidates to be viable.

The quickest path to this would be instant run-off voting. The ability to say "I like this guy best, but if he doesn't win then I'd prefer the guy who isn't completely insane" would instantly free voters who feel trapped (and are trapped) by the current dynamics of the two-party system. (Some people talk about proportional assignments for the house of representatives, but that tends to just strengthen the party machine while silencing independent voices.)