With both political parties pandering to corporate and special interests, which political party represents the American mainstream anymore? Who represents the interests of the working-class and ever shrinking middle class anymore?
Is it time for a new political party that truly represents the needs of the middle class? An anti-illegal immigration, anti-NAFTA/CAFTA, fair-not-free trade yet pro-Education, sensiblie environmental, universal-access-to-healthcare kind of political party. Can one exist?
You are describing what was, at one time, the Democratic Party. (circa 1960)
If it could be reconstituted, it would never have been superseded by the new left. Third party challenges have not shown a historically significant impact on policy setting. In fact, they tend to undercut the very principles they espouse by siphoning votes from the closest mainline party approximation. (Perot brought Clinton to power)
If you want your vote to count, it is best to look within the "Rockefeller" wing of the Republican party where diversity is still tolerated.
noel wrote: If you want your vote to count, it is best to look within the "Rockefeller" wing of the Republican party where diversity is still tolerated.
__________________
Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land.
- D&C 38:29
bokbadok wrote: I hate "if you want your vote to count" arguments.
When I lived in California and voted for Republicans in presidential elections, my vote didn't count.
It is precisely this kind of thinking that dooms a third party from ever getting off the ground.
Baaaaaaaaa
It used to be possible for political parties to get off the ground. Neither the Republican or Democratic parties are the original parties that existed when the Constitution was ratified. They went from "newcomer" status to duopoly status. I think that the only thing preventing a third party from getting off the ground anymore is the concept that it can't.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Our system of district representation dooms third parties. For instance, say you lived in a state that gets 20 representatives. But each representative has his own district. The electorate in that district decides who their representative will be. The advantage always goes to the biggest coaltion of voters. So if you have 3 parties, and A gets 25% consistently, and B gets 30% consistently, but C gets 45% consistently, then that third one gets the representative in that district. If A&B can get together, then they can start winning the elections. So the system encourages two parties--simply because that is the best way to get a winning coalition. Now the 20 representatives from the state may be all of one party or the other, or a mix. Depends on the district.
If we lived in a system with proportional representation, the dynamics change dramatically. All of a sudden you can have three parties get the votes described above, and in my hypothetical state, party A gets 5 representatives, party B gets six, and party C gets 9. Or you could have many more parties, and the national legislature turns into a constant shifting ball of coalitions.
Our present system actually encourages a more "moderate" policy. Because both sides can usually count on their "base" support, they have to campaign to win the swing voters in the middle--those who are usually more "moderate" or maybe just more wishy-washy. But neither party, except in dramatic instances like 1932, can shift the party strongly to one direction or the other. Change is gradual and difficult. This is a good thing. The Founders designed our system to make it that way. Tyrannies are very efficient in legislation. Our system forces compromise and moderation.
__________________
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
A "concept" does not have the ability to make or break third party viability, and concepts are not what defeated George Wallace, John Anderson, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, or Pat Buchanan. (The complete historical roster lists 73 candidates, not including Joseph Smith...none were elected.)
They fail because our system does not reward attempts to leverage a power grab . It punishes them, and it should. Shiz explained the mechanics of government by coalition, and this is inevitably what third parties are reduced to. For example, the Reform Party opposition to Pat Buchanan was John Hagelin, who based his platform on transcendental meditation. What conceivable basis for unified purpose was going to grow from a Buchanan presidency had he managed to get elected? In 2004 Buchanan reasserted his alliegence to the Republican Party, but by that time no Republican wanted to be bothered with him. He is a political orphan. Coalition government vests disproportionate power in the political faction which holds out the longest to ally itself, and the result is inherently undemocratic.
LUL expressed disapproval at my suggestion that Mattai find a home within the left wing of the Republican house. I was not endorsing Olympia Snow, or any other of the Republican liberals. I was simply saying that working within the two party system is the only way to make a difference at the national level. Vote the marginal candidate at the local level if you actually expect to cast a meaningful ballot for someone close to your heart. Expressing a conservative protest vote in a presidential election is self-defeating...and it is the left we are depending on to be stupid.
I tend to look at third parties with an eye of skepticism.
It just smacks of the fellow who takes his ball home cuz he didn't get his way and tries to ruin the game.
Many of these parties exist to extort a viewpoint from one of the two parties.
I think it's okay to identify oneself as a member of such party, but during the close 2 party races, I would almost think it better if you get involved in either one of those and MAKE YOUR CASE within the party.
The whole point of a party is to duke it out a little.
--Ray
PS> My personal experience with people I've met (IN PERSON, and this is entirely anectdotal) is that they tend to be smarmy overbearing know-it-all types who engage in conspiracy thinking, and seldom have much good to say about the future of the country. They tend to be low on practical ideas, and high on idealogy, which often doesn't translate well to the voting masses. Not that I don't enjoy hanging with them... cuz... well... it's very fun to tweak a 3rd partier... they have pushbutton issues that just "set them off" on long diatribes of how all government is ruined... not that I've been known to push people's buttons... ...ahem...
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
I like what Shiz had to say in regards to the way the two party system is encouraged by the way the political process works. Unlike other countries, we don't have to worry about all the lost effort of building a coalition once an election takes place in order to get things done. Cooperation, of course, but we don't have to create a majority of differing parties that come together to form a government like so many other countries do. Our coalitions occur for the most part within the two main parties during the electoral campaigning process. That is perhaps why so much contention is going on right now. The coalition of conservative interests represented by the Republican Party is very strong right now. It is pretty cohesive. The coalition of whatever interests represented by the Democratic Party is and has been weak and fairly fractured since their poster boy President of the '90's was revealed for what he was. The Democratic Party is undergoing massive changes as it is trying to define itself all over in it's goal to get back into power. They have tried to appeal to so many and "represent" so many different things since the '60's, that in reality, no one really knows what the Democratic Party stands for anymore except non-conservative political philosophy.
What's the saying, the role of the party in power is to govern and the role of the party not in power is to get into power? Because of what has been going on with power struggle and political strategy to garner power over the last decade and a half, we don't see a lot of moderate political views though. We see the extremes.
Is there room for moderate political view? Sure. I think most of the moderate political view though is currently finding a home in the coalition in the Republican party (much to the consternation of the Democrats), and as Ray indicated, many who are true moderates politically between conservative and liberal philosophies view third parties with a great deal of skepticism after seeing what occured as a result of the Independent Party back in the early '90's. I voted Independent, not because I necessarily felt Perot was as good a candidate as Bush Sr., but because I honestly felt he had a chance at keeping Clinton out of office and Bush Sr. had been beat by Perot from an everyman's standpoint in the debates. Instead, Perot's campaign essentially only split the Republican vote instead of the vote in both parties as I'm sure Perot hoped it would (and those of us who voted Independent) and ended up giving Clinton a plurality and the Presidency.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. That is how I think a lot of moderates think about third parties. Anything beyond the two coalitions represented by the two major parties is essentially just fringe.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
Third parties serve a very valuable function for those of us who feel that we aren't represented by either major political party. I don't vote third party to try to change or influence the Republican party. I realize that my vote will not change their minds. I vote third party because I can no longer hold my nose and vote for a candidate who does not even vaguely support my principles. I realize that at this point third parties cannot win major elections. I continue to support the Constitution Party because, over time, we can gain enough strength to win major elections. That is already happening to a degree. Rick Jore would have won a seat in the state legislature in Montana if an activist judge hadn't stolen the election from him. Candidates from both the Constitution and Libertarian parties are starting to win local elections. When they start to win enough local elections, people will see that third parties are a viable option for major elections. I don't feel that I have abandoned the Republican party. They have abandoned me. I was active in the Republican party. I wasn't just a passive complainer. But the Republican party platform and its leaders are abandoning their conservative base wholesale. I no longer care about reforming the Republican party. I don't think that's possible. I care about getting the country back on course. In my mind the least effective thing I could do to effect change would be to vote Republican. What have I really gained if I vote for a major party candidate and he wins, if he doesn't represent me? The prizes you "win" from a Cracker Jack box are more valuable. Everyone always says to find the candidate who most closely represents you, hold your nose, and vote for them, because that's the closest you'll get to what you want. But the major party candidates no longer even closely resemble what I want. It's like asking me to choose the person who most resembles Elvis when the available candidates are a dimunitive vietnamese woman and a troglodyte.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
I tend to look at third parties with an eye of skepticism.
It just smacks of the fellow who takes his ball home cuz he didn't get his way and tries to ruin the game.
Many of these parties exist to extort a viewpoint from one of the two parties.
I think it's okay to identify oneself as a member of such party, but during the close 2 party races, I would almost think it better if you get involved in either one of those and MAKE YOUR CASE within the party.
The whole point of a party is to duke it out a little.
--Ray
PS> My personal experience with people I've met (IN PERSON, and this is entirely anectdotal) is that they tend to be smarmy overbearing know-it-all types who engage in conspiracy thinking, and seldom have much good to say about the future of the country. They tend to be low on practical ideas, and high on idealogy, which often doesn't translate well to the voting masses. Not that I don't enjoy hanging with them... cuz... well... it's very fun to tweak a 3rd partier... they have pushbutton issues that just "set them off" on long diatribes of how all government is ruined... not that I've been known to push people's buttons... ...ahem...
If the two political parties were actually different then I could see your point. But now aside from the rhetoric, both political parties are increasingly becoming the same so there is no diversity of political thought, ideas, and will. Corporations now supporting both parties to serve their agenda, so in the end it doesn't matter which party gets elected as long the corporations' needs and not the average American needs are met.
The evidence that both parties are the same requires review of what the R party has proomised to do vs. what it has in fact done. That you can search our for yourself.
What is really needed is for LDSs to wise up to their obligations to "befriend" the US Constitution instead of looking for ways for government to do things the Constitution does not permit. If LDS voters ever get that straight we will at least get legislators who will promote constituional principles. Getting the resst of the country on board -- I don't think it will happen anytime soon.
And what are these awful things? I seem to recall nearly all the Contract with America being passed. And the promised tax cuts after Bush was elected. And attempts to amend the Constitution to protect marriage. And the admission to the Supreme Court of some strict-interpretationalist judges. You think any of those things would have happened if Dems had had the majority????
__________________
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
...And do not forget about that, most unlikely, of presidential nominations from the Republican Party...Reagan.
Greatness can still emerge from the mundane, but idealists must remain in the game to effect change. That does not happen unless ideals interface with practicality...even God contends with the paradox.
I hate "if you want your vote to count" arguments.
When I lived in California and voted for Republicans in presidential elections, my vote didn't count.
It is precisely this kind of thinking that dooms a third party from ever getting off the ground.
Baaaaaaaaa
I would be happy if my vote did anything on the Statewide elections in California. The State Senate and Assembly districts are so gerrymandered that the oposition has no chance. Some of these districts run down narrow strips of land to gather up the areas where the parties can get the most like minded people together. Is that democracy or monkeying with the system?
A good number of third party movements are either based on one idea or one person. That is why they fail. Single issue politics drives people to form third parties all the time. There was an Anti-Masonic party once in this country that actually had a presidential candidate. It was a pretty powerful third party but their party was formed on one issue, antimasonry. Ross Perot made a shot at third party politics but without him where was the party? You have the Green Party based on environmentalism, the Peace parties based on pacifism, etc.
A true, viable third party would need money and lots of money. A platform of issues not just a single issue and have a large group of people who agree with those issues (nearly impossible to get enough people to agree on anything), and several different, visible leaders who will lead the party (not just one charismatic person), and lots of donations. Then you have to get around the gerrymandering for most races which both parties have put into place to create safe districts for their fellow party members. Aside from the money, the hardest part would be getting enough people to agree on anything. Even members of the church can't agree with enough common ideas or points in the typical ward. How then would a party be formed?
Isn't that the job of the ward activities committee?
Good point on the reason why third parties are usually just fringe and short lived for the most part in our system. Even when Joseph Smith was running for President, it was pretty much on just a single issue... the government will not redress the wrongs that have been thrust upon us by our enemies, so if The Prophet becomes President, it will finally get the attention it deserves. Who, outside of members of the church at the time and perhaps some friends of the church would have even bothered giving him second notice as a candidate?
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
Isn't that the job of the ward activities committee?
Good point on the reason why third parties are usually just fringe and short lived for the most part in our system. Even when Joseph Smith was running for President, it was pretty much on just a single issue... the government will not redress the wrongs that have been thrust upon us by our enemies, so if The Prophet becomes President, it will finally get the attention it deserves. Who, outside of members of the church at the time and perhaps some friends of the church would have even bothered giving him second notice as a candidate?
Oh, that's going to be unpopular..
Seriously though you have a point. My old seminary teacher was of the firm belief that had Joseph not been killed at Carthage he had a good shot at becoming president. Yea, and the moon is made of cheese. As much as I can say he would have been a great president he didn't have a snowballs chance.
...ahem... 
