Will we ever see a 3 party system?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I mean a legitmate 3rd party, who has just has much chance as the Democrats and Republicans of winning? IMO...no. While, third parties during history have made a name for themselves none of been able to really stick around. Know, it could be argued that the Reform and Green party cost Bush and Gore their respected elections.I mean in terms of winning outside of some ultra liberal San Fran. district. Many people want to see another option, will it ever happen?

[Guest Lightning Flik]

Hmph. Just be glad that you've gotten TWO parties to decide from.

 

Here in Canada it's just the Liberals or... Well... The other guys who pretty much are the Liberals who just use different names and just vary slightly on things. But still it's all the same group of people.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

To get there, we first need to get Instant Runoff voting off the ground.

 

Unfortunately, the places that are already setting it up are having problems, it seems.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

My opinion on a viable Three-Party system working in America -- not in my lifetime.

 

However, you gotta love those wacky fringe political parties -- they make C-Span one of the most entertaining channels to watch, what with their goofy rallies and conventions...

[Guest JMA]

I think there will eventually be a third party on par with the Democrats and Republicans. Not for a long time though, IMO.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

Well, it has happened before, but not in almost a century.

 

I don't think it will happen until there's a candidate strong enough to build a party around. That's how Bull Moose worked, and sorta how Perot's Reform party came about. A group will need a strong candidate to get off the ground, and more strong candidates to stay around.

[Guest J*ingus]

I'd guess it'll happen eventually, but not anytime soon, and would probably evaporate before too long, i.e. the Whigs or the Anti-Federalists. The thing is, the nature of a representative government is that it tends to fall into a two-party system no matter what: Conservatives vs. Liberals, regardless of what their party name happens to be at the time. (A hundred years ago, the Democrats were the stodgy fundamentalists, and the Republicans were the pinko leftists.) Third party systems occasionally spring up and flourish for brief periods, but usually break up eventually, their supporters absorbed back into the two main parties.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I think the only person strong enough politically (right now) to build a new party is Clinton. That would really hurt the Democratic party though.

[Guest TJH]

*I'm Back*

 

Never say never in politics, but I can't see it happening any time soon. Would it be a good thing? Probably.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I think the democrats will become obsolete if they can't beat Bush's successor in 2008 (provided they don't beat HIM in 2004). They will, at that point, move so far to the right by then that they won't be distinguishable from the Republicans. At that point, I believe, they will cease to be as a party.

 

Uhhh... go Dean?

[Guest MrRant]

Uhhh... go Dean?

 

 

No oil or extracts!

 

YES! GO DEAN! ^

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I think the democrats will become obsolete if they can't beat Bush's successor in 2008 (provided they don't beat HIM in 2004). They will, at that point, move so far to the right by then that they won't be distinguishable from the Republicans. At that point, I believe, they will cease to be as a party.

 

Uhhh... go Dean?

Remember the name Bill Owens. I like, what I've read about him.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Care to further inform?

[Guest NoCalMike]

the biggest factor is the money. Perot got noticed and recieved a lot of votes, mostly because he had the funds to put himself out there and get noticed and get his message out. Green Party and others have no automatic funds being sent in, and since they aren't very pro-big business, I am sure they aren't recieving much cash payoffs from corporations.

 

Anyways, yah it all comes down to the $$$

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The Dean campaign has proven that it doesn't take big business to finance a campaign.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Care to further inform?

Certainly. Keep in mind this very early talk, and he may not have an interest in running.

 

Bill Owens

[Guest NoCalMike]

The Dean campaign has proven that it doesn't take big business to finance a campaign.

Well, umm not yet. The task isn't over by a long shot. Plus, he is running as a DEMOCRAT. You don't think that will equal some automatic funding that 3rd parties would NEVER see. Dean has funded his campaign well up to this point, but I think there was a study done right after the 2000 election that said 9/10 times, the candidate that spends/raises the most money on his campaign(including tv ads) wins. So maybe Dean will be that lucky guy to defy the odds.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

From reading that, he sounds like a true conservative (which, in ways, isn't a bad thing). I like his fiscal conservatism (to an extent; he's likely against any type of social welfare with his cutting of government spending, but I may be wrong), and his educational accountability program interests me (although, I'd have to read it more extensively; like Dean, I'm against No Child Left Behind because it takes away funding from "failing" schools. Does his do that?).

 

Given a battle between him and Bush, I'd certainly take him, though... that is, preliminarily. He sounds like a classic anti-government conservative that is tolerable in most situations.

 

Hey, at least he isn't a neocon.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The Dean campaign has proven that it doesn't take big business to finance a campaign.

Well, umm not yet. The task isn't over by a long shot. Plus, he is running as a DEMOCRAT. You don't think that will equal some automatic funding that 3rd parties would NEVER see. Dean has funded his campaign well up to this point, but I think there was a study done right after the 2000 election that said 9/10 times, the candidate that spends/raises the most money on his campaign(including tv ads) wins. So maybe Dean will be that lucky guy to defy the odds.

Very true, but Dean does NOT have the backing of big business. I was more referring to that dynamic; he's raising much of his money by clearly representing his message to the little people (like me).

 

The Greens could easily get federal matching funds if they focus on states which will be no-contest to the big contenders. If they get that, they could focus on building up an even larger grassroots movement in 2008, and possibly even become a viable third party by 2012.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I know in 2000, it was reported that a LOT of potential green party voters backed out at the last second when they heard reports of how close the race was between Gore/Bush, which goes back to the stigma, of whether you should vote for who YOU TRULY agree with, or if you should vote for someone in order to keep someone else out. If every intended Green Party voter, actually went through with it, who knows, maybe they would have got the 5% they needed for 2004. People have to be willing to take risks and chances before a viable 3rd party is going to be recognized.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I actually think 9-11, the economy, and the Iraq situation has turned Dems & Repubs against each other so badly right now, that people will be expecting a bloodbath next election and it will actually be a backwards step for 3rd parties in 2004, since the general public will be eager to "pick a side" in the 2004 election. I could be wrong though.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

It really depends on who gets the nomination for the Democrats. If it's someone like Lieberman, hell, the Greens will probably get their 5%, and one of those votes will probably come from me.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I will be so irritated and annoyed if a Dem that voted for the war wins the bid.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Well, then you'd be irritated with the following:

 

-- Lieberman

-- Kerry

-- Edwards

-- Gephardt

[Guest NoCalMike]

Well, then you'd be irritated with the following:

 

-- Lieberman

-- Kerry

-- Edwards

-- Gephardt

Yes, that is EXACTLY my point. So I guess my "secondary" vote goes to Dean, if I don't like what the Green Party is offering up in 2004.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Does the Green Party, have any other names beside Ralph Nader? It seems like he's old hat and isn't helping take that next step by running again.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Well Nader is the most recognizable name that non-Green Party members know. So he would get more votes on name recognition then probably any other Green Party candidate at this point. That is why I was hoping he would be grooming some young gun to take over, since his time is almost up.

[Guest Brian]

Green party ran 300 seats last election and won a third, mostly local seats in the Western states. Still a good showing.

 

Clinton was too friendly during his term to globalization and terror bombing, not to mention the sanctions he continued. I'd rather go Nader than that.

 

Third party systems have to begin at a grassroots level. Nader runs on a platform, helping out other locals while trying to wake up the Democratic party and pull them back to their traditional stance. They've taken labor and the minority vote for granted.

 

I don't understand why people blame Nader for 2000 when it was really Gore's election to lose.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I don't understand why people blame Nader for 2000 when it was really Gore's election to lose.

Same reason people blame Perot for Bush losing in '92.

 

I saw on Fox News (UH-OH FAUX NEWS ALERT LOOK OUT!!!) this report on a twentysomething mayor for some pseudo-hippie college town in (I think) New York State. He said his big plan was to have all the public transportation vehicles run on soy fuel or something. Funny stuff...

[Guest DrTom]

Perot got a significantly higher percentage of the popular vote in 1992 than Nader did in 2000, IIRC. Plus, there was that whole dropping out of the race thing, and his, "I will return as your servant" BS speeches.