• 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!

Congratulations to the Third Parties

Zyphlin said:
For quite some time now, I've used how poorly the Libertarian Party has done as evidence of the ridiculousness of their expectations that they'd win if they could only get a chance to debate, or that they have any chance of putting up an actual good fight. And while my conclusion with regards to those are unchanged, my measurements will have to. I've previously used 1% as my baseline, because outside of the bid by Ross Perot, that's been a number that hasn't really been achievable.

This election changed that, and for that I'd give third parties congratulations. The Libertarians got 3.2%, the Greens got 1%, and even Evan McMullin managed to get .4%.

The downside for third parties is that if there were ever an election where they should've been able to do significantly well, this was it; and combined they still got less than 5%. Regardless, this was a massive improvement compared to their historical participation and is a sign of how dissatisfied people were with the top of the ticket.
Click to expand...

I think the problem with an independent winning the POTUS is the winner take all electoral college system, which in the end heavily favors the big 2 parties.
 
Mac77 said:
Life is arbitary.

If Tweeners dont like the rules too bad

But that is the price you pay for choosing to remain on the outside

The two major parties make those decisions between them.
Click to expand...

I'm 55 - a little too old to be a tweener.

Rules and policies and procedures are not supposed to be arbitrary. They are supposed to make sense in the context in which they are used.

Actually I take it back. Arbitrary was the wrong word. Anti-democratic is more accurate.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I would enjoy seeing 4-5 parties in America.

The competition would be incredible, and good for everyone.
Click to expand...

actually i would like to go back to the original constitution of a separation of interest in the congress, with the house belonging to the people and the senate belonging to the state governments
 
Zyphlin said:
For quite some time now, I've used how poorly the Libertarian Party has done as evidence of the ridiculousness of their expectations that they'd win if they could only get a chance to debate, or that they have any chance of putting up an actual good fight. And while my conclusion with regards to those are unchanged, my measurements will have to. I've previously used 1% as my baseline, because outside of the bid by Ross Perot, that's been a number that hasn't really been achievable.

This election changed that, and for that I'd give third parties congratulations. The Libertarians got 3.2%, the Greens got 1%, and even Evan McMullin managed to get .4%.

The downside for third parties is that if there were ever an election where they should've been able to do significantly well, this was it; and combined they still got less than 5%. Regardless, this was a massive improvement compared to their historical participation and is a sign of how dissatisfied people were with the top of the ticket.
Click to expand...
The problem for third parties has been and always will be the talent pool from which they select their candidates. Talented and ambitious people are not going to dedicate themselves to a party that has a ceiling of "maybe, someday, we can make it to the big stage... and possibly get 10% of the vote."

Bernie Sanders is a Socialist and came close to winning the DNC nomination. Where would he have gotten if he would have actually run as a Socialist?
 
Gaius46 said:
I'm 55 - a little too old to be a tweener.

Rules and policies and procedures are not supposed to be arbitrary. They are supposed to make sense in the context in which they are used.

Actually I take it back. Arbitrary was the wrong word. Anti-democratic is more accurate.
Click to expand...

The debates are not mandated by law or regulated by the government

These are private events so johnson or other 3rd party candidates are not entitled tp participate
 
Mac77 said:
The debates are not mandated by law or regulated by the government

These are private events so johnson or other 3rd party candidates are not entitled tp participate
Click to expand...

That amount to hours of free TV time for the candidates in front of pretty much the entire country. The news media treat the debates as marquee events in the election season. Not being on the stage relegates you to being an also ran. That is a huge advantage for the Democrats and Republicans.
 
I'd give no such congratulations. As TC already stated, if third parties failed to perform marginally well in an election season characterized by unhinged discontent and an obsessive desire for an alternative, then they'll never be a viable option, ever.

That being said, I was particularly amused by Jill Stein's vanity campaign and her absolute political ineptitude that seem to have courted more than a few progressives; you know, those that busted.
 
Gaius46 said:
That amount to hours of free TV time for the candidates in front of pretty much the entire country. The news media treat the debates as marquee events in the election season. Not being on the stage relegates you to being an also ran. That is a huge advantage for the Democrats and Republicans.
Click to expand...

It is a big advantage which is why I tell Tweeners that would do better by changing one of the major political parties than trying to supplant them with a 3rd party upstart
 
Zyphlin said:
For quite some time now, I've used how poorly the Libertarian Party has done as evidence of the ridiculousness of their expectations that they'd win if they could only get a chance to debate, or that they have any chance of putting up an actual good fight. And while my conclusion with regards to those are unchanged, my measurements will have to. I've previously used 1% as my baseline, because outside of the bid by Ross Perot, that's been a number that hasn't really been achievable.

This election changed that, and for that I'd give third parties congratulations. The Libertarians got 3.2%, the Greens got 1%, and even Evan McMullin managed to get .4%.

The downside for third parties is that if there were ever an election where they should've been able to do significantly well, this was it; and combined they still got less than 5%. Regardless, this was a massive improvement compared to their historical participation and is a sign of how dissatisfied people were with the top of the ticket.
Click to expand...

Interesting the claim that Johnson should be in the debates because he was near the 15% poll threshold required for acceptance. Yet he polls 3%. Another poll gone bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom