If we had a strong third party . . .

[werepossum]

Say we have a strong third party between the two major parties. Posit that it has a tight-fisted fiscal policy, a strong safety net but few wealth transfer payments, a restrained foreign policy, strong but sane environmental policy, did not support using the power of government to enforce either traditional or progressive mores. (Or whatever you think or feel is between the two major parties. Could be Libertarian Party if you wish.) Say further that this part has succeeded in gaining significant representation in the House, say enough that neither party can muster a majority in the House at least. And say this third party manages to get enough electoral votes that neither party can win outright - or at least has enough support to make this a realistic threat.

Now in order to elect a Speaker, both parties need a coalition, suggesting a moderation. In order to pass any legislation, both parties need a coalition - no more straight partyline votes. And if it is truly between the two parties - at least, assuming that members of both parties vote in line with their professed beliefs - then this third party is going to drive the agenda to a considerable degree, much like being the SCOTUS swing vote.

It gets even more interesting at the Presidential level. If neither main party candidate wins an outright majority of electoral votes - a virtual certainty if a third party candidate wins any significant number of electoral votes at all - then the election is tossed to the House. Now it gets really interesting, because each state gets one vote. Wyoming becomes California for a day. And only half the states legally bind their electors to vote for the candidate for which they ran even on the first ballot. At first blush, this casts the election to the Republicans every time, but assuming this third party has significant support in the House, it's entirely possible that they outnumber the Republicans in enough Red states to require yet another compromise coalition to reach a decision.

It gets even more interesting at the Vice-Presidential level, since the Senators elect the Vice-President. It's much more difficult to get elected and gain power in the Senate - but the Senate is usually much less susceptible to large swings as well. So it's entirely possible that the President and Vice-President would be from different parties, and in the case of a successful coalition to determine the Presidency it would be a virtual certainty.

I know it's fashionable to call for a third party, but I've never been enamored of the idea as a practical alternative. But HAL9000's thread made me think about the effects here. It's certainly interesting. If someone could honestly craft a third party between the other two, with enough support to win significant representation and at least enough electoral votes to be a player, that third party would have enormous power.

 

[Red Dawn]

Well there's always the Tea Party

 

[CrackRabbit]

So you would welcome a more Canadian/British style parliamentary government?

 

[a777pilot]

The Wing Party!

 

[nonameo]

The place to get third parties going is at the state/local level. It would be much easier to fund and drum up support for. Show some success on the state level and you will get national attention.

edit: libertarians have already called "dibs" on new hampshire

XD

 

[theeedude]

We already have a strong center-right third party, the Democrats. What is missing is a Major party to the left of them.

 

[Infohawk]

How do you have a safety net without "wealth transfer payments"?

Edit: and of course a third party isn't really likely in a first past the post system.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I've come to the belief that the chances of a strong third party is impossible barring an asteroid strike or similar catastrophe.

That said I don't think it would do any good because I also believe that our system is fundamentally outdated and completely unfit to provide good governance.

The key problem is that while a hundred years ago the subject the legislatures dealt with were relatively straightforward. These days the amount of items which come before Congress are staggering. No individual has the expertise to understand all they are asked to do. The reply is that there are staff which will do research, but they too are not experts. It seems to me that Congress should not be making key decisions on important issues without expert guidance. Health care is beyond them. Economics seems to be as well. Environmental, technical, well you get it. It would be far better IMO if there were panels of scientists or other professionals who would be called upon who were recognized by their peers as exemplary who would define the issues in clear and hopefully less political terms who would make public reports that Congress had to use as guidance before laws and regulations are passed. The downside is that if someone came up with good ideas then the pols couldn't take the credit. Consequently it won't happen.

 

[nonameo]

How do you have a safety net without "wealth transfer payments"?

I think he means not giving people cash. IOW don't give people food stamps, give them food.

 

[werepossum]

So you would welcome a more Canadian/British style parliamentary government?

"Welcome" would be too strong; I really value our country's traditional values. Say rather that I recognize that a two-party system evolves much more painfully than does a three-party system.

The place to get third parties going is at the state/local level. It would be much easier to fund and drum up support for. Show some success on the state level and you will get national attention.

edit: libertarians have already called "dibs" on new hampshire

XD

Quite true. Any useful third party has to evolve from the ground up.

How do you have a safety net without "wealth transfer payments"?

Edit: and of course a third party isn't really likely in a first past the post system.

You can't have a safety net without some wealth transfer payments. What I'm talking about is limiting them. Say, we'll support you if you are truly unable to work, or temporarily if you are out of work. We will not however send your ass a check each month because you have no job skills and/or can't hold a job anyone would want.

 

[werepossum]

Well there's always the Tea Party

In some ways, the Tea Parties are a moderate third party.

Your entitlements are killing my country!

My entitlements are too damned small!

(Sorry, should have put that in caps.)

 

[werepossum]

I've come to the belief that the chances of a strong third party is impossible barring an asteroid strike or similar catastrophe.

That said I don't think it would do any good because I also believe that our system is fundamentally outdated and completely unfit to provide good governance.

The key problem is that while a hundred years ago the subject the legislatures dealt with were relatively straightforward. These days the amount of items which come before Congress are staggering. No individual has the expertise to understand all they are asked to do. The reply is that there are staff which will do research, but they too are not experts. It seems to me that Congress should not be making key decisions on important issues without expert guidance. Health care is beyond them. Economics seems to be as well. Environmental, technical, well you get it. It would be far better IMO if there were panels of scientists or other professionals who would be called upon who were recognized by their peers as exemplary who would define the issues in clear and hopefully less political terms who would make public reports that Congress had to use as guidance before laws and regulations are passed. The downside is that if someone came up with good ideas then the pols couldn't take the credit. Consequently it won't happen.

There's a lot of truth in what you say. On most issues Congress votes not on the relative merits, of which they understand little, but rather on the basis of how they feel about the people on each side. Even more importantly, how those people pay. I'm not saying that a significant number of Congress Critters decide positions based on the largest offered bribe, but they have limited time and energy, and I'd bet my last dollar that the issues whose backers are both ideologically aligned and big donators are the ones that get pushed.

That in itself is a good argument for limited government. Problem is, in an increasingly complicated and global society, the amount government can be limited and still be effective is, well, limited.

 

[wuliheron]

We already have a strong center-right third party, the Democrats. What is missing is a Major party to the left of them.

Give it time. The democrats are just waiting for the republicans to hang themselves. The tea party is just helping to speed the process up. Once the democrats become the dominant party gain they'll also split in two and start the whole sad professional-wrestling-trash-talking nonsense over again.

 

[woolfe9999]

You presume a third party would be centrist. A centrist third party with some electoral credibility might have a positive impact on American politics, depending on a number of different variables. However, systems with more than two viable parties are not all that great just because they are different from ours.

Take Israel, for example. They have these small extremist religious parties who get a few seats here and there in their parliament. When the mainstream right wing party gets the plurality seats they don't have enough to form a majority without bringing the small extremist parties into it, and in order to do so, they are beholden to the agendas of those parties, sort of like how the GOP is beholden to the tea party right now even though the tea party isn't a real political pary.

 

[BeauJangles]

The place to get third parties going is at the state/local level. It would be much easier to fund and drum up support for. Show some success on the state level and you will get national attention.

edit: libertarians have already called "dibs" on new hampshire

XD

A third party is not viable given the way the US electoral system is structured. Long-term, our government is designed to be two party.

 

[werepossum]

You presume a third party would be centrist. A centrist third party with some electoral credibility might have a positive impact on American politics, depending on a number of different variables. However, systems with more than two viable parties are not all that great just because they are different from ours.

Take Israel, for example. They have these small extremist religious parties who get a few seats here and there in their parliament. When the mainstream right wing party gets the plurality seats they don't have enough to form a majority without bringing the small extremist parties into it, and in order to do so, they are beholden to the agendas of those parties, sort of like how the GOP is beholden to the tea party right now even though the tea party isn't a real political pary.

Actually I presume that new parties are almost always NOT centrist, but are usually fringe parties. The Green Party, for instance, is pretty much the American Communist Party without the "C" word. There are several minor parties to the right of the GOP as well. But I was specifically positing a centrist third party, mostly as a thought experiment, because I can see some beneficial effects, whereas with the fringe parties I can see no beneficial effects. When a fringe party grows, it merely siphons off support from its nearest major party, thereby empowering the opposition.

In reality, I expect no centrist third party to emerge. For one thing, as government becomes ever more powerful and intrusive, the stakes of losing get higher, so people are less likely to desert the major party with which they most identify for fear that the opposing party will gain power. For another, any centrist position drawing significant support will immediately be co-opted by one if no both major parties, rendering its appeal much less. But if a centrist third party did emerge with enough support to prevent donkeys and elephants alike from achieving a majority, like Justice Kennedy it would have a hugely disproportionate affect on policy.

And I'm not really a fan of parliamentary-type government. But again, as government grows ever more powerful and intrusive, people become less likely to compromise, which tends to drive them into fringe or specialist parties. I think that favors parliamentary-type government more in the future.

 

[Phokus]

Actually I presume that new parties are almost always NOT centrist, but are usually fringe parties. The Green Party, for instance, is pretty much the American Communist Party without the "C" word. There are several minor parties to the right of the GOP as well. But I was specifically positing a centrist third party, mostly as a thought experiment, because I can see some beneficial effects, whereas with the fringe parties I can see no beneficial effects. When a fringe party grows, it merely siphons off support from its nearest major party, thereby empowering the opposition.

In reality, I expect no centrist third party to emerge. For one thing, as government becomes ever more powerful and intrusive, the stakes of losing get higher, so people are less likely to desert the major party with which they most identify for fear that the opposing party will gain power. For another, any centrist position drawing significant support will immediately be co-opted by one if no both major parties, rendering its appeal much less. But if a centrist third party did emerge with enough support to prevent donkeys and elephants alike from achieving a majority, like Justice Kennedy it would have a hugely disproportionate affect on policy.

And I'm not really a fan of parliamentary-type government. But again, as government grows ever more powerful and intrusive, people become less likely to compromise, which tends to drive them into fringe or specialist parties. I think that favors parliamentary-type government more in the future.

The Green Party is more of a democratic socialist type than a communist party.

 

[werepossum]

The Green Party is more of a democratic socialist type than a communist party.

True, but their aims are completely in line with the ACP. Look at their Presidential platforms come election time; you'll find the ACP's platform is almost identical to the Greens' and not much different from the Democrats'.

 

[classy]

Its not the party, but its the people. We as a country just believe in voting for politicians. Lawyers mostly, but people's sole purpose to be a career lawmaker. Thats the problem, true leaders, everyday ordinary people who would make the right choices for our coutry, we won't vote them. People forget the the foudning fathers weren't all lawyers and politicans. When we start voting for ordinary folk, thats when our country will change for the better.

 

[ayabe]

In some ways, the Tea Parties are a moderate third party.

Your entitlements are killing my country!

My entitlements are too damned small!

(Sorry, should have put that in caps.)

Tea Party is automatically DQ'd because 100% ran as R's.

 

[wuliheron]

Hardliner moderates. Orwell is rolling over in his grave.

 

[woolfe9999]

True, but their aims are completely in line with the ACP. Look at their Presidential platforms come election time; you'll find the ACP's platform is almost identical to the Greens' and not much different from the Democrats'.

The Green party supports decentralization of government. Their goals are to the left, but they want it done on a state, or preferrably, a local level.

 

[Jaskalas]

Well there's always the Tea Party

Yes, the 'Tea Party', which hopefully devours the GOP amidst your horrific screams of 'extremist extremist extremist!'. You know, you could actually work with them to split the vote instead of just attacking them all the time.

 

[First]

Yes, the 'Tea Party', which hopefully devours the GOP amidst your horrific screams of 'extremist extremist extremist!'. You know, you could actually work with them to split the vote instead of just attacking them all the time.

Except the Tea Party is extreme, Americans reject them by large supermajorities. And they're just wrong on the issues, consistently, and that's just fact.

 

[Thump553]

Our system is set up as a two party system and has all kinds of reinforcement mechanisms (like the electoral college, election financing laws, laws as to who can be on the ballot, etc) to preserve that. We will never have a three party system that lasts more than two presidential election cycles without huge systematic changes.

A more significant question in my mind is whether the current GOP will collapse. This is certainly no longer the party of Lincoln or Teddie Roosevelt. Heck, Reagan, Nixon, George HW Bush and Ford would all be considered RHINOs in today's party. We've had major parties dissappear before (like the Whigs), I see it happening again-soon. It would have happened a decade ago except for the comingling of bible thumpers and politics.