Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been an Independent for over 20 years and have often wondered what it would take to create a truly viable, electable third-party candidate. In other words something more than just a method for a "protest vote".
I suspect it would necessitate a complete teardown/redesign of the political process in this country, since the two-party system is so firmly entrenched.
Is it all about money/financing? If so, would it take candidates with bottomless-pit pockets (like Mike Bloomberg) to start the ball rolling?
One can argue it's all about power, but then it becomes a chicken/egg argument: Does the battle for individual political power hold up the 2-party system, or does the 2-party system itself enable the ongoing battles for politcal power?
So, a two part question re: a TRULY VIABLE third party
Our system makes it extremely difficult because of the vast amount of money needed. If we were brave enough to do a complete election overhaul -- get rid of the caucuses in favor of primaries, have just one national or a few regional primaries, shorten the campaign season, and declare winners based on popular vote and do away with delegates, then it might be easier for other parties to emerge.
Our system is incredibly complicated, uneven, and wearisome. It's a joke to hear any candidate demand finance reform or accuse others of taking money from special interests because of the vast sums of money required to run for president. How could any candidate NOT have to accept money, unless he or she has the wealth of Bloomberg? We need an overhaul.
there should be a free access political channel so it would not cost so much for any candidate to run, since most of the budget (i would assume) is in advertising. you could see all of the politicians with their own platforms and then make your own decision, without the press agenda and influence. you would also be electing substance over style because everyone would have a chance to tune in and see the political positions of the candidates without media intervention and commentary.
The parties control ballot access and debates. Until that changes, no third party looks to be viable.
I thought I read somewhere that if a candidate has 15% of the general election support and a chance of actually winning the Presidency by being on enough states' ballots, that they are required to be allowed into the debate. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
you could see all of the politicians with their own platforms and then make your own decision, without the press agenda and influence. you would also be electing substance over style because everyone would have a chance to tune in and see the political positions of the candidates without media intervention and commentary.
The media definitely is a major part of the problem (meaning the maintenance of the status quo). Look at how they promoted the Giuliani/Hillary matchup in the beginning, not to mention the hype over Fred Thompson who turned out to be the biggest flop since the Edsel. I have watched every single televised debate (on both sides) since this current circus began and the ratio of specific-candidate-directed questions were always ridiculously skewed in whatever direction the media felt the winds of opinion were blowing.
IMO a "baby step" forward would be for all states to have open primaries (or caucuses, as the case may be). I live in an "unenlightened" state where Independents are shut out of the Primary process entirely. Yes I know the argument that primaries are for both parties to choose THEIR candidate, blah blah etc etc. But look what happens to moderates like Biden in that process: They get shunted off to the side by the media (all kinds) and as a result they do poorly in the primaries (due to lack of equal coverage) and end up having to drop out under the weight of "party" numbers. I honestly believe that candidates like Biden and Dodd and yes even Ron Paul would have a much better shot at making it to the finals if they were allowed to acquire primary votes outside of party lines. As bale002 said, it would at least be a more representational format, albeit indirectly.
the problem with the concept of a third party is the fact that most people fit fairly well into one of the two existing parties and most of those who dont are split by those who are too conservative or too liberal for either party.most of the people who fit in neither party are too oposite to support a common candidate so you would really need a 4 party system and the two current parties candidates would still win most elections because most registered independents sit somewhere in the middle already and arent terribly idealogical.close elections are always decided by the moderate independents which is why candidates always run to the middle after the primaries
I've been an Independent for over 20 years and have often wondered what it would take to create a truly viable, electable third-party candidate. In other words something more than just a method for a "protest vote".
I suspect it would necessitate a complete teardown/redesign of the political process in this country, since the two-party system is so firmly entrenched.
Is it all about money/financing? If so, would it take candidates with bottomless-pit pockets (like Mike Bloomberg) to start the ball rolling?
One can argue it's all about power, but then it becomes a chicken/egg argument: Does the battle for individual political power hold up the 2-party system, or does the 2-party system itself enable the ongoing battles for politcal power?
So, a two part question re: a TRULY VIABLE third party
* Will it ever be possible?
* If so, how? If not, why not?
Is it possible, yes, is it doable, yes, will it be easy, no.
Biggest problem with third parties is that the first seat in government they want to occupy is the Presidency. Hello.... anyone home?
It MUST start at the bottom and head upwards not the other way around. You must have a base of support to get anywhere or be viable, simple as that.
The current two party system is going to do everything in its power to ensure that it remains a two party system as they above all others have the most to lose from the viability of third parties. They have and will continue to do everything they can to make it difficult to get ballot access, to maintain their hegemony of the American press, and to stifle any dissent in view outside what the two parties deem in bounds.
Ultimately it takes a large group effort that is well organized, motivated and has goals and a purpose. So for that you need a fair amount of people to get motivated to desire such a thing and there in lies the problem. While a charismatic person in a leadership role certainly helps any effort it will all boil down to the foot soldier, the individual voter.
Personally, the only way the average American will get motivated to do anything outside the political "comfort zone" is for the current establishment to screw things up so bad that large segments of the population end up either on the street, hungry, in poverty of all of the above. As long as most people can still afford a new plasma tv (even if it is only the 42" instead of the 50") then things will remain the same.
All political and social change that occurs in a drastic fashion happens when some event takes place the upsets the balance in a large scale manner, such as the Great Depression or to a lesser degree, Pear Harbor or 9-11. As long as a given population is satisfied to a certain level, then getting change to take place become extremely difficult unless it is done over a long time period. Like rust, drastic change can occur that is unrealized until it becomes so out of balance as to cause unrest among the people.
In the end, you need to convince at least 20% of the total population that not only is change needed, and in this case a third party, but you will have to convince them that it is a viable thing to do. As it stands right now, most Americans are not convinced it is possible, largely because of the office they continually attempt to occupy they never achieve. So it will have to be a bottom up effort unless you are lucky, or unlucky depending on how you look at it, that a major event takes place that diminishes the faith in the establishment.
Third parties should be looking towards the year 2016-2020 to make decent run for President, unless of course George Cloony and Arnold Schwarzenegger decide to run on a Green Party ticket after a repeal of the 26th amendment, an economic collapse, and Hillary is cloned.
I recall one particularly eloquent post on this very issue... I'll see if I can't dig it up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
