Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
But that's my point. The British system is a proportional system so it's not a valid comparison. Look at the political influence that Libertarians, The Reform Party, The Green Party, etc have had in our system? None!
So what has Dixie been up to lately?
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well your back to where I started. Buidling a winning coalition and for a third party you are right, that has to begin as a grass roots level and build from there. Easier said than done though. Lots of compromises and coalition building with often disparate interest must occurs and it's an ugly process.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Mott: We have "winner takes all" elections. Due to that, third party coalitions tend to be wasted votes because they rarely demonstrate the ability to build a winning coalition/constituencies. For all their faults and failures the two major parties do have that ability.
Cap'n: For the moment, you are right. On a national level third party votes equal little.
I am pleased you both agree with me!
Cap'n: For the moment, you are right. On a national level third party votes equal little.
I am pleased you both agree with me!
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Didn't the Greens tilt the 2000 election toward Bush, and the Reformers also tilted the 90s elections toward Clinton. There's some influence there...
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Wait! Are we analyzing here? Shock!
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The British system isn't proportional. They use winner take all single-member districts. They are, in fact, the country we got this concept from. I'm just pointing out that there are exceptions to the rule - in fact, the only country in which the rule seems to apply in America. If a third party can entrench itself sufficiently, it can form a permanent third front without having to replace one of the other two parties. The socialist NDP in Canada has done this and the liberal LD in Britian has done this. The only other countries I can think of with winner-take-all would be Australia - which pretty much has a two party system like ours, at least in the winner take all House of Representatives - and India - which has a system of loosely aligned regional parties.
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I don't think I've ever heard of a third party successfully building itself up locally. Successful third parties tend to come in a flash of high national popularity - then they either fade away, replace one of the other two parties, or entrench themselves and become a permanent third front. All the parties in American history have done one of the first two, but I've mentioned before the NDP and LD which prove that a true three-party system is possible even in a winner-take-all situation.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
I'm a patient man. I am willing to wait for the right moment.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
On the issue that third parties in our nations system are generally a waste of time? Yes, I do agree with you if that's what you beleive.
Yes, in the same way independents, hispanics and blacks influenced Obama's win this last election. Hispanics and independents gave Bush his second win. Republicans, more specifically McCain, lost these voters to Obama. This past election was a non-starter for 3rd party candidates.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Yes, I would say that 2008 was the worst year for independents and 3rd parties since before the 90s, when they were in full-swing. For one thing, did Nader even run this last time around? And the Libertarians embarrassed themselves with Barr. Without a strong showing from Nader, and without Buchanan running, that pretty well means that 3rd parties did nothing on the national level, and probably weaker on smaller levels than normal.
Hell, in WA state, a full 1/3 (take that Dixie!!) of state legislative candidates ran unopposed in their districts.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I Think it would be more accurate to say Bush and Republican party extremism lost Hispanics and Independants for McCain. The reactionary right and their over racism just became to much for them to stomach during Bush's second turn. Katrina was the tipping point there.
That's so wrong-headed. Bush was critisized most by conservatives for his stance or should I say lack of one, on illegal immigration, but that's why hispanics voted for him. McCain failed to get behind his Bush like stance on immigration in any vocal way because he was afraid of how the conservatives who turned on Bush over the issue would react and so allowed his position to get muddled by Obama's bs promises to illegals.
Independents were tired of Bush policies to be sure. Many of them went to Hillary, not Obama, until the end of the campaign. McCain, a largely moderate politician, could not rev up the voters. It was not until he seemed to take a conservative stand by choosing Palin that anyone even got excited about him. He would have won IMO if he had not rushed back to DC only to sign onto instead of off of, the first stimulus.
That's so wrong-headed. Bush was critisized most by conservatives for his stance or should I say lack of one, on illegal immigration, but that's why hispanics voted for him. McCain failed to get behind his Bush like stance on immigration in any vocal way because he was afraid of how the conservatives who turned on Bush over the issue would react and so allowed his position to get muddled by Obama's bs promises to illegals.
Independents were tired of Bush policies to be sure. Many of them went to Hillary, not Obama, until the end of the campaign. McCain, a largely moderate politician, could not rev up the voters. It was not until he seemed to take a conservative stand by choosing Palin that anyone even got excited about him. He would have won IMO if he had not rushed back to DC only to sign onto instead of off of, the first stimulus.