The failure of third parties

[skiracerj1]

Why is it that this country is run by only two parties, why have third parties been so unsuccessful in american poilitics? Is it realy because they are to radical and dont represent the people, or is it something else? Is it because of the stigma of voting for a third party is like throwing away your vote, and if so why? Personnaly I believe its because the two major parties do such a good job of shutting them out. If a third party candidate could ever manage to piss off either one of the parties enough to draw attack ads from them I think it would add much more in their compain, and the poeple would begin to pay attention to them, but the two big parties know this and merely buck them away like an annoying mosquito on the horse's ass of humanity. Thats just my opinion on this though and would enjoy hearing other peoples opinions.

[Shavo989]

Gee, I've never really thought about that before. Well said.

[SanguineSolitude]

i would say it isnt as much third parties being overly radical (though some are) as it is the general public not recognizing them as even an option. people by and large think you have to either be a republican or a democrat, this is how elections turn out and this is who gets media coverage. some of the independent parties like the greens dont allow corporate sponsorship or even large donations. they are focused on a grassroots level of politics. because they dont have huge companies directing policy, their policies actually match up to what their members want them to. unfortunately the 2 major parties are not very different except for a few key issues. Its unfortunate that the average dem or republican cant support everything the party supports(unless deliberately misled with propaganda.) Until a different way of voting and an equal access to advertising funds and media coverage is in place, we wont actually be able to get much change done.


the nice thing about third parties (were they able to make it in) is that their policies are not driven by oil interests and big business interests. as such they are able to support environmental movements, clean fuel, humanitarian aid, etc. things that we really need to be focussing on but are being paid off to avoid. especially oil companies with global warming. the government is being paid to not deal with global warming in any significant way.

[Krautle87]

as such they are able to support environmental movements, clean fuel, humanitarian aid, etc. things that we really need to be focussing on but are being paid off to avoid. especially oil companies with global warming. the government is being paid to not deal with global warming in any significant way.

Payoffs? Did you ever think that maybe economic realities have more bearing on important public policy decisions than pie in the sky "environmental" issues?

I do fully support alternative energy initiatives, not for the B.S. tree hugging reasons, more that I'm sick of funnelling money to OPEC everytime I fill up.

As for humanitarian aid...since when does America NOT help those in need?

[Lakemonster]

I think ultimately, the general public want to vote for someone who has a shot at winning... so they can be a "winner" too. Something like that...

I voted for Mike Peroutka (CP) in the last Prez election.

Darren Karr (Party X) frequented my site back when the campaign trail was in full swing.... I wonder if he will run again? I admired his "pluck"

Personally I believe that there is no real difference between the two parties out there.... I really believe that they are both owned by the same people in the long run..... iuts easy to control the power if there are two chjoices clandestinely owend by a single source. A third interest really undermines the strategy.

[SanguineSolitude]

well those treehugging initiatives will have looked mighty nice when new york city is underwater. im not a treehugger, but i feel that responsably managing environmental destruction. particularly unneccessary environmental destruction is important.


yes economic realities have much more bearing on public policy. should they? maybe not. i think theres a hell of a lot of money to be made in green building and such.

so basically you dont want to pay for high priced gas, gas thats also polluting the world making it a worse place to live, but you also dont want any "tree hugging" initiatives like alternative fuels which would be cheaper and benefit the quality of your life.



america does do quite a bit to help some countries in need. but much more could be done. im sure youre gonna say well its not our job. and youre right... some of us who have alot think its a good idea to help out those who have less.

[Buford]

The thing that people forget is that the Democratic and Republican parties were once third parties. They didn't have the same platforms back then, however. Politics in the US seems to be polarized, a "for it or against it" approach, with no room for in-between views, and that lends itself to a bland two-party system... a system of two mostly identical parties that vie for power for no other reason than to have it.

The system is geared towards the two major parties, and in some localities you really can't even run a third party candidate by local laws. Ballot access is a nightmare unless you're a R or D. Even when third parties get on the ballot, there is the stigma of the "wasted vote". In non-electoral college based races (pretty much anything but President) that argument is a non-starter as every vote has weight in the outcome.

Still, it is seen as "wasted" so most folks go with the safe choices. Probably the psychological reason is that no one wants to vote for a loser, and third party candidates are almost guaranteed losers due to this self-fulfilling prophesy.

I myself have run for office under a third party label (Libertarian Party). I managed to pull 27.3% of the vote, but this was in a two-way race against a well-liked (in this district) Republican. The Democrats rarely ever run anyone in this district. I'll be trying again for a different office next year, against a Republican who is usually unopposed. Funny thing is - he used to be a Democrat. I certainly can't tell either way.

[stevehookah]

skiracerj1..

I hate politics..

However, there is no 'straight' answer to your question. It was well thought, and well spoken. However, there are 'liberal demos', 'conservative demos', liberal repubs... ect....

i.e. Nobody will be happy...

I live by a simple rule...

"Do as you wish, until it affects me or mine."

The world should live by such simplicity.

[Sonthert]

The laws have been heavily loaded by the democrats and republicans, so that they are the only two parties than can get elected, more or less in many areas. Moreover, many areas have been set up by predominant parties to benefit the election of the their candidates...so called gerrymandering.

[Sariél]

'liberal republicans', 'conservative democrats',

The 2 majors have diluted themselves into in invisible 3rd party whereby only moderates are electable. The last 4 major elections, I have voted for a Green, Independant, or Libertarian candidate, not because I thought the candidate had a chance in hell of winning, but to support the IDEA of an alternative. The more votes an "outsider", the better chance another party might attract an electable candidate. Remember when the networks would air the republican, democrat, and Lyndon LaRouche because they had to be nonpartisan? Ralph Nader was a huge step up.