• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If A Third Party Went Mainstream...

If A Third Party Went Mainstream, Which One Would You Want It To Be?

  • Total voters
    53
Zyphlin said:
The reality is, given our current system, it's not realistic to have a viable third party on a national scale. PERHAPS on a state level it could work in a narrow set of circumstances. But the way our political system has grown and become entrenched in the two party setup, there's just no real feasible way for a legitimately "mainstream" viable 3rd party.

A 3rd party becoming mainstream would most likely create two non-viable 2nd tier parties and one defacto dominant one until such a point that one of the two second tier parties devours the other and again we return to 2 party status.
Click to expand...

We've never had a substantial third party. It has almost always been a binary system, with the exception for "The Era of Good Feelings," which created a single-party system suffering even more focus to geographic differences and a lack of national coalition.
 
TeleKat said:
If a third party suddenly went mainstream and got national footing, which one would you want it to be?
Click to expand...

Probably none of the parties you mentioned. Has a member of the Reform Party, Perot did get 19% of the vote in 1992 and the Reform Party was about as mainstream as you can get. But we had to fight the election laws which were written by Republicans and Democrats as a mutual protect act and since Perot the two major parties has tighten their laws to ensure no third party arises to challenge them. Then there is the money issue, Corporations, Wall street Firms, hugh money donors, lobbyist, pacs and super pacs, etc. all donate their millions, their tens of millions to the two major parties. A lot of those I mentioned donate to both parties, they do not give a single dime to third parties. This is just two reasons why a third party will never be viable or gain enough strength to challenge the two major parties.

Back when Perot ran in the 90's only 39% of the electorate said they would consider voting for a third party candidate. Today that percentage is up to 81%, which seems like good news for the rise of a third party. But it will have to over come the two major obstickes I mention above. Also back in the 90's 68% of the electorate identified themselves with the two major parties and only 32% as independents. Today only 55% identify or associate themselves with the two major parties while 45% say they are independent. This shows an over all dissatisfaction with the two major parties as they are a shrinking entity among the electorate. This also should give any third party hope, but only if it can overcome those two major obstickles I mentioned above.
 
Fiddytree said:
I like your thinking. Not necessarily to make the Democrats win, but to smash 3rd party voters to bits, make them hate politics, and drive them into even further obscurity.
Click to expand...
Thank you. They do deserve it. Non-mainstream bastards.
 
Zyphlin said:
But it's not. It's inherently not. The majority of the general voting population do not spend significant time daily or weekly, especially on off election years, talking and going in depth about politics. DP is a horrible representation of the voting public as a whole. Ron Paul would've beaten Obama and McCain in 2008 if it wasn't ;)

And again, I disagree with any notion that a 3rd party would make it as a "major" party. Getting 20-30% every time and losing each time because another party always gets 20-30%, and a third almost never finishes below 40% is not a "major player". It's the Washington generals.
Click to expand...

40% isn't the Generals, that's 0%. 40% is more like the Redskins.

I you have a viable third party, you only need 34% to win. In any race other than President, anyway. In a Presidential race, 3 candidates getting about 1/3 throws it to the House. So they'll need to get that many House seats as well. However, if you have Congress split so that nobody has a clear majority, if the 3rd party stays firm they can control the election. It would require a candidate who can get enough of a coalition together to win, which would keep things like Obamacare from happening.
 
TeleKat said:
Yeah, how dare they not agree with the current state of failure. :lol:
Click to expand...

Government has been working so well with the Democrats and Republicans. I can't imagine why we'd change that...
 
Fiddytree said:
We've never had a substantial third party. It has almost always been a binary system, with the exception for "The Era of Good Feelings," which created a single-party system suffering even more focus to geographic differences and a lack of national coalition.
Click to expand...

In the 1850s, you could argue that there were 5 or 6 parties that were players. The Whigs were gone, the Republicans were a purely Northern phenomenon, and by 1860 even the Democrats had split North and South. It was precisely that split that resulted in Lincoln winning.
 
Not gonna' happen. If it ever did go 3rd. party, it might want to be Independent.

But then, people would need to recognize third parties. Not all people (voters) like a third party.
 
rocket88 said:
40% isn't the Generals, that's 0%. 40% is more like the Redskins.
Click to expand...

The generals don't score 0 points...they just (almost) always lose.

If the Libertarians became a "major player" as a 3rd party, all that would likely mean is that they and the Republicans would split 50% of the vote, give or take 10%. Thus leaving the Democrats with the other 50% (give or take).

So while they would be a "major player" compared to today where if they got over 5% of the total vote it'd be astounding, they'd still be essentially the Washington Generals....a team that pretty much ALWAYS loses.

I you have a viable third party, you only need 34% to win. In any race other than President, anyway. In a Presidential race, 3 candidates getting about 1/3 throws it to the House.
Click to expand...

The problem with the 34% notion is the assumption that you have three parties that relatively evenly split the voting populatoin.

Going off Haymarket's (and seemingly your) logic, it's mostly Republicans voters that would flock to the Libertarian party (see haymarkets whole "courage" notion).

So for the Libertarians to get from the low single digits they're at today to your suggested "34%", the reality is...based on the logic used to suggest they could possibly do such a thing...that extra 25 to 30% is being siphoned primarily off the Republicans instead of the Democrats.

So to get to that 34% number, it's far more likely that the vast majority of times that would mean it'd look like:

34% libertarian, 16% Republican, 50% democrat.

Then it would 34%, 33%, 33% with fill in parties as you'd like.

THEORITICALLY, you're idea in a general sense (not specific to libertarians, or to haymarkets theory on it) is correct. A third party candidate COULD concievably win IF they found some way to siphon off votes from both sides in a relatively even split.

However, I don't think any of the three parties list above could reasonably do that, and I don't think any long stand established "party" of some sort would be able to do it. I could, on a HUGE off chance, see a cult of personality type of individual with significant financial backing possibly pushing ahead as an independent of sorts and winning on a national scale.

But the far more likely scenario is that if a "third party" becomes a "major player" then all it's going to do is assure that two of the three "major players" are really just seat fillers. To continue the basketball analogy, you change it from a game of one and one between Byrd and Magic into a game of 1 on 2 between Jordan and two high school kids. Sure, they're in the same game as Jordan....but being in the game doesn't mean they're ever likely to win.
 
Zyphlin said:
The generals don't score 0 points...they just (almost) always lose.

If the Libertarians became a "major player" as a 3rd party, all that would likely mean is that they and the Republicans would split 50% of the vote, give or take 10%. Thus leaving the Democrats with the other 50% (give or take).

So while they would be a "major player" compared to today where if they got over 5% of the total vote it'd be astounding, they'd still be essentially the Washington Generals....a team that pretty much ALWAYS loses.
Click to expand...

I was thinking winning percentage. Generals 0%, Redskins about 40%. Of course, the Generals are specifically paid to lose. I don't know what the Redskins' excuse is.



The problem with the 34% notion is the assumption that you have three parties that relatively evenly split the voting populatoin.

Going off Haymarket's (and seemingly your) logic, it's mostly Republicans voters that would flock to the Libertarian party (see haymarkets whole "courage" notion).

So for the Libertarians to get from the low single digits they're at today to your suggested "34%", the reality is...based on the logic used to suggest they could possibly do such a thing...that extra 25 to 30% is being siphoned primarily off the Republicans instead of the Democrats.

So to get to that 34% number, it's far more likely that the vast majority of times that would mean it'd look like:

34% libertarian, 16% Republican, 50% democrat.

Then it would 34%, 33%, 33% with fill in parties as you'd like.

THEORITICALLY, you're idea in a general sense (not specific to libertarians, or to haymarkets theory on it) is correct. A third party candidate COULD concievably win IF they found some way to siphon off votes from both sides in a relatively even split.

However, I don't think any of the three parties list above could reasonably do that, and I don't think any long stand established "party" of some sort would be able to do it. I could, on a HUGE off chance, see a cult of personality type of individual with significant financial backing possibly pushing ahead as an independent of sorts and winning on a national scale.

But the far more likely scenario is that if a "third party" becomes a "major player" then all it's going to do is assure that two of the three "major players" are really just seat fillers. To continue the basketball analogy, you change it from a game of one and one between Byrd and Magic into a game of 1 on 2 between Jordan and two high school kids. Sure, they're in the same game as Jordan....but being in the game doesn't mean they're ever likely to win.
Click to expand...

True, it could work out the way you said, but it is also possible to win with 34%. Jesse Ventura won with 39%.
 
TeleKat said:
If a third party suddenly went mainstream and got national footing, which one would you want it to be?
Click to expand...

I don't see the Libertarian Party expanding beyond where they are now. Ever. Simply because to do so they would have to become what they despise... an organized compromising money-seeking political machine.
 
Fiddytree said:
I like your thinking. Not necessarily to make the Democrats win, but to smash 3rd party voters to bits, make them hate politics, and drive them into even further obscurity.
Click to expand...
Be careful what you wish for. You may think that sounds good, but it's actually very shortsighted. Third-parties (and/or individual candidates) have never influenced elections much as individuals or parties, but their ideas have historically been cutting edge ideas that the major parties are reluctant to consider. Historically, many of these good ideas eventually get adopted by one or both of the major parties, and we all benefit. Single-issue parties tend to fade away after this happens. If we "smashed 3rd party voters to bits", then the two major parties would never evolve and would just push the same old stagnant crap on us.
 
Robbie Loucks said:
I'd want it to be the Constitution Party so that right-wingers would have their votes divided between the Constitution Party and the Republican Party, therefore allowing the Democratic Party to win more elections due to the divided vote and forcing the Republican Party to become more moderate. Realistically, the Libertarian Party is the most likely to go mainstream.
Click to expand...

No thanks. I'd rather people with a shred of economic sense be in charge of the fiscal side of things. Liberals couldn't be more financially illiterate if they tried.
 
rocket88 said:
I was thinking winning percentage. Generals 0%, Redskins about 40%. Of course, the Generals are specifically paid to lose. I don't know what the Redskins' excuse is.

True, it could work out the way you said, but it is also possible to win with 34%. Jesse Ventura won with 39%.
Click to expand...

Not getting dragged into the Redskins thing :p

And absolutely...I acknowledged that a third party would likely have a better shot at the state level than on the federal level. Also, I think there is a large difference between an individual third party CANDIDATE being viable, and a third PARTY being viable.

And hey, even the General win SOMETIMES ;)
 
It's not going to happen. The only way a party can go mainstream is if it's platform appeals to a wide swath of American voters and I don't see any of the third parties that we have in America today doing that.
 
Zyphlin said:
The generals don't score 0 points...they just (almost) always lose.

If the Libertarians became a "major player" as a 3rd party, all that would likely mean is that they and the Republicans would split 50% of the vote, give or take 10%. Thus leaving the Democrats with the other 50% (give or take).

So while they would be a "major player" compared to today where if they got over 5% of the total vote it'd be astounding, they'd still be essentially the Washington Generals....a team that pretty much ALWAYS loses.



The problem with the 34% notion is the assumption that you have three parties that relatively evenly split the voting populatoin.

Going off Haymarket's (and seemingly your) logic, it's mostly Republicans voters that would flock to the Libertarian party (see haymarkets whole "courage" notion).

So for the Libertarians to get from the low single digits they're at today to your suggested "34%", the reality is...based on the logic used to suggest they could possibly do such a thing...that extra 25 to 30% is being siphoned primarily off the Republicans instead of the Democrats.

So to get to that 34% number, it's far more likely that the vast majority of times that would mean it'd look like:

34% libertarian, 16% Republican, 50% democrat.

Then it would 34%, 33%, 33% with fill in parties as you'd like.

THEORITICALLY, you're idea in a general sense (not specific to libertarians, or to haymarkets theory on it) is correct. A third party candidate COULD concievably win IF they found some way to siphon off votes from both sides in a relatively even split.

However, I don't think any of the three parties list above could reasonably do that, and I don't think any long stand established "party" of some sort would be able to do it. I could, on a HUGE off chance, see a cult of personality type of individual with significant financial backing possibly pushing ahead as an independent of sorts and winning on a national scale.

But the far more likely scenario is that if a "third party" becomes a "major player" then all it's going to do is assure that two of the three "major players" are really just seat fillers. To continue the basketball analogy, you change it from a game of one and one between Byrd and Magic into a game of 1 on 2 between Jordan and two high school kids. Sure, they're in the same game as Jordan....but being in the game doesn't mean they're ever likely to win.
Click to expand...

I think you are being rather kind of the prospects of the Libertarians. The best they could do today - and that would be with lackluster candidates from the other two parties might be 20%. The ideology - what there is of it - is simply too far right on too many important issues to attract any of the half that normally votes Dem. I suspect money oriented Republicans - the Wall Street wing of the party - would see them as dangerous and a threat and pull out all the stops against them.

But lets imagine for a moment that the tea party GOP elected officials had the courage of their convictions and assembled and declared themselves Libertarians and changed their party identification tomorrow. That could be the start of something that could be reaping some results - at least in those same offices - quickly. It would give them a base of elected legitimacy and they could present themselves as responsible and not just fringe zealots on the outside looking in like they are now.

It would give them a good base to begin.
 
TeleKat said:
If a third party suddenly went mainstream and got national footing, which one would you want it to be?
Click to expand...

For a third party to "go mainstream and got national footing" (more so than several now anyway), they would have to start by appealing to more people. The reason more people are not Greens or Libertarians is those parties do not represent their beliefs. So by requirement, any such party would not be one that is current, at least not in recognizable form.
 
Redress said:
For a third party to "go mainstream and got national footing" (more so than several now anyway), they would have to start by appealing to more people. The reason more people are not Greens or Libertarians is those parties do not represent their beliefs. So by requirement, any such party would not be one that is current, at least not in recognizable form.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of people whose views line with the Green Party and Libertarian Party. These people just don't vote this way because they are afraid it will be a "wasted vote" or something.
 
TeleKat said:
There are plenty of people whose views line with the Green Party and Libertarian Party. These people just don't vote this way because they are afraid or will be a "wasted vote" or whatever.
Click to expand...

More so than the big 2? And in enough numbers to make them viable? I doubt it strongly, but feel free to document your claim.
 
TeleKat said:
There are plenty of people whose views line with the Green Party and Libertarian Party. These people just don't vote this way because they are afraid it will be a "wasted vote" or something.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true at all. Most third parties are very similar to either the Democrats or the Republicans for the vast majority of their platform, then they take one or two things to absurd extremes and that's usually what loses the majority of voters. The only people who side with these parties are those voters to whom these one or two issues mean everything. For the vast majority of people, they go with the more mainstream party because they are not extremists.
 
TeleKat said:
There are plenty of people whose views line with the Green Party and Libertarian Party. These people just don't vote this way because they are afraid it will be a "wasted vote" or something.
Click to expand...
I fail to see how a vote for someone with whom you KNOW you will be dissatisfied is any less "wasted". If one is dissatisfied, yet uses this argument to continue voting for the status quo, that tells me they have this insecure need to identify with what they hope will be the winning side.
 
We need 5 parties in this country:
Social liberal/Fiscal liberal - 10%
Social liberal/fiscal conservative - 20%
Social conservative/fiscal liberal - 10%
Social conservative/fiscal conservative 20 %
The "NO" party (votes "No" on EVERYTHING) - 40%

This way it would take everyone working together to over-ride the NOs. We'd be strongly fiscally conservative with a solid socially liberal voice.
 
Cephus said:
I don't think that's true at all. Most third parties are very similar to either the Democrats or the Republicans for the vast majority of their platform, then they take one or two things to absurd extremes and that's usually what loses the majority of voters. The only people who side with these parties are those voters to whom these one or two issues mean everything. For the vast majority of people, they go with the more mainstream party because they are not extremists.
Click to expand...

The Libertarian Party could not be further from the Republican and Democratic Parties. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, personal freedom, and non-interventionism. Neither of the two parties stand for any of what I just listed.
 
TeleKat said:
The Libertarian Party could not be further from the Republican and Democratic Parties. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, personal freedom, and non-interventionism. Neither of the two parties stand for any of what I just listed.
Click to expand...

Today, that's true but there was a time when the Republican party was actually conservative and that wasn't the case. Yet even though I am very much a conservative, I'd never vote Libertarian because I want a lot more personal responsibility than personal freedom.
 
TeleKat said:
The Libertarian Party could not be further from the Republican and Democratic Parties. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, personal freedom, and non-interventionism. Neither of the two parties stand for any of what I just listed.
Click to expand...
Problem is that many fiscal conservatives latch onto the libertarian theme of free markets and personal freedom (for them) and don't really give a rat's arse about the rest. Libertarianism, to them, becomes a talking point and a rationalization instead of a heartfelt belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom