What About Third Parties in the United States

[SallyA]

Growing up, I was a Young Democrat. When I was in my 20's, I switched to Republican because they seemed to represent my views on social and most other issues. A few years ago, I became disillusioned with both parties and started looking for a third party, but it seems like the Democrats and Republicans have the elections wrapped up, except one every now and then for Congress.

What would it take to get a third party candidate elected President of the United States? Is that even possible in today's world?

[Midas]

It's not a particularly USA problem Sally, many countries have exactly the same problems, and to a large degree it's exacerbated by voting systems which are unduly biased toward the major parties with the largest number of seats in their respective governments; once any country adopts true proportional representation on a national basis and has the resultant governing coalition government make policies based not on party lines but on what's best for the country lines, we'd see some huge changes.

There's also the issue of 'better the devil you know', so even if a third party is formed which has all the possible populist requirements as its policies, whilst people might say "I'd vote for it", come election time, the majority of those people would I believe tend to stick with what they know, even though they dislike parts of it.

[IndependentThinker]

I think the current campaign would have been a good one for third parties to succeed in, but third party candidates are few and far between. People are disgusted with both parties and that might have been enough to put third party candidates in office.

[Midas]

I think the current campaign would have been a good one for third parties to succeed in, but third party candidates are few and far between. People are disgusted with both parties and that might have been enough to put third party candidates in office.

I will confess my own knowledge about the political scene in the USA is not great, however I've always though it a shame that the Libertarian Party didn't make substantially more gains when it was headed by Harry Browne.

[Scooter]

what would it take to get a third party candidate elected president of the united states?

votes!!

[Durzo Blint]

I feel the one thing that makes it difficult to have third parties is our senate. Two senators for every state. We have states that have under a million people living there, yet they have just about the same power politically as a state with millions of people.

Senators are elected to six year terms, so any change that we want to happen is usually stopped by the senate. With the senate in place it is a big reason why we do not get equal representation under the law, and the reason third parties are so hard to come about in America.

Senate seats are so important that people here in America can not bring themselves to vote for a third party candidate. If you do so you may bring to power the person who you didn't want to get to power.

Over two hundred years ago the senate as it was set up made sense. Today IMO it does not work, people do not have equal representation under the law with the senate in place, and it is a big part why third parties will not succeed in America.

[Midas]

I feel the one thing that makes it difficult to have third parties is our senate. Two senators for every state. We have states that have under a million people living there, yet they have just about the same power politically as a state with millions of people.

Senators are elected to six year terms, so any change that we want to happen is usually stopped by the senate. With the senate in place it is a big reason why we do not get equal representation under the law, and the reason third parties are so hard to come about in America.

Senate seats are so important that people here in America can not bring themselves to vote for a third party candidate. If you do so you may bring to power the person who you didn't want to get to power.

Over two hundred years ago the senate as it was set up made sense. Today IMO it does not work, people do not have equal representation under the law with the senate in place, and it is a big part why third parties will not succeed in America.

I've long thought that the American political system to be over-complex and far too open to outside influence, but I'll admit that its intricacies are something I've never studied. Is part of the problem here that the way the government is run has simply been perpetuated from a much earlier time with far fewer states and far less people, rather than it having evolved to take account of changing demographics and conditions?

[Durzo Blint]

I agree with you. Things are to over-complex that is for sure. I don't know much about UK politics that is for sure, though I think we are facing similar problems as far being properly represented. Our Declaration of Independence was fairly straight forward, though the Constitution as written was wrote in what I like to call lawyer speak. We have judges trying to determine what the law is all the time.

I guess it all comes down to language and how one understands the language being spoken.

So if the US constitution is so simple why the need for judges and lawyers to make sense of the law? Know what I mean?

You bring up changing demographics and conditions, I think we are way behind the eight ball on this.

Great post Midas, it really made me think, and I hope my response was decent.

[Midas]

I agree with you. Things are to over-complex that is for sure. I don't know much about UK politics that is for sure, though I think we are facing similar problems as far being properly represented. Our Declaration of Independence was fairly straight forward, though the Constitution as written was wrote in what I like to call lawyer speak. We have judges trying to determine what the law is all the time.

I guess it all comes down to language and how one understands the language being spoken.

So if the US constitution is so simple why the need for judges and lawyers to make sense of the law? Know what I mean?

You bring up changing demographics and conditions, I think we are way behind the eight ball on this.

Great post Midas, it really made me think, and I hope my response was decent.

Indeed it was. I've just had a very superficial browse through the original text of the Constitution, and you're right, it is written in legal terminology, but of course it's the terminology of the day. It's also very vague and open to interpretation in parts, for example "Section 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide." You could probably put half a dozen different interpretations and ways of implementing that, all of them correct in one sense or other. Proscriptive wording like that is far too inflexible for today's fast-changing world, and has been the basis of many delaying tactics to important proposals over the years.

We certainly do have our problems here too, and although we have no written constitution (which at least means we don't have quite the same proscriptiveness), the way that government is run seems to have been moving further and further away from democracy and putting power and control, and of course influence, in a smaller number of hands. That's why I'm such a great believer in true proportional representation for the election of our MPs from all qualifying political parties, the formation of a permanent all-party government which divorces the party political ideology of debate from the implementation of laws, and of public referendums on matters which affect the average man in the street.

[Jim Franklin]

I have to go eat dinner now....will do a longer posts later, but I am sorry to say here that proportional representation is not the answer. People think it is some panacea to all democratic ills, it is not.

One sure fire way to true democracy is to ban political parties and make all representatives independent.

[Barry]

One sure fire way to true democracy is to ban political parties and make all representatives independent.

How could banning political parties be in keeping with "true democracy"?
It doesn't make any sense, banning parties is itself undemocratic.

[AMGINGLES]

Its the western model,you have two parties, when one pushes through the elite agenda people will get upset and vote for the other one, while the other one is in the media will build up the old one again (with a new leader) and when the other one pushes through the elite agenda the old one will go in and go about the same business as the last.

[Jim Franklin]

How could banning political parties be in keeping with "true democracy"?
It doesn't make any sense, banning parties is itself undemocratic.

Political Parties are undemocratic Barry. MP's (UK) are supposed to represent the will of those who elected them, this premise still holds in the US, but all too often local needs are circumvented by Power Players in the Party who insist that only voting in the way the Party wants is acceptable.

By banning Parties and making all MP's independent and answerable to those in the community they represent you are nearer to Democracy. The nation should then elect the Head of Government (Prime Minister or President) and the top 6 most important Governmental roles (Home, Foreign, Defence, Health, Education, Justice). Only then are you approaching a Democracy.

As long as there are Political parties, the system will be screwed toward the Party who can get the biggest financial backers and thus afford the best add and spin campaigns as a general rule.

[Barry]

I see your point, Jim, but the cancellation of the party whip system would have the desired effect, wouldn't it?

[AMGINGLES]

good points jim

[Don]

Indeed it was. I've just had a very superficial browse through the original text of the Constitution, and you're right, it is written in legal terminology, but of course it's the terminology of the day.

It's also the "terminology" of the law which is entirely appropriate seeing as how our Constitution is the supreme legal document of the land. That said, it would be nice if English speaking lawyers could/would speak plain English.

It's also very vague and open to interpretation in parts, for example "Section 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide." You could probably put half a dozen different interpretations and ways of implementing that, all of them correct in one sense or other.

Personally, i see no ambiguity here. One of the reasons we have courts and judges is to decide matters of Constituionality - interpretation of the Constitution.

Proscriptive wording like that is far too inflexible for today's fast-changing world, and has been the basis of many delaying tactics to important proposals over the years.

The only thing I see proscribed here is doing business absent a quorum. What are important proposals to some are not necessarily important proposals to all. It prevents the ramming of legislation down the throats of the citizenry by a minority sitting without a quorum.

[SIZE=2]We certainly do have our problems here too, and although we have no written constitution (which at least means we don't have quite the same proscriptiveness),

It would appear that without a written Constitution, the government isn't proscribed from defining and redefining your rights at will, their will, not yours. No thank you, I'll stick with written and codified rights.

[Midas]

It would appear that without a written Constitution, the government isn't proscribed from defining and redefining your rights at will, their will, not yours. No thank you, I'll stick with written and codified rights.

I'm with you 100% on this. I think we're long overdue a proper, written constitution and codified bill of rights here in the UK.

[Jim Franklin]

I see your point, Jim, but the cancellation of the party whip system would have the desired effect, wouldn't it?

Barry, apologies, I should have relied to your question sooner.. remiss of me.

In theory yes, it will certainly help to aid the transition to a better system of Governance I hope, but it will not remove the power players and the corruption of Office that party pressure brings. Not all corruption is financial, in fact I would say that in the UK and the USA most political corruption is not financial at all, the motives are more personal and connected to friendship, political allegiances and nepotism. Most may not see that as corruption, but I do if it is not what your electorate elected you to office to do.