The Emerging Three Party System In The U.s.

[Lounge Daddy]

Bob Barr and others in the LP have repeatedly been stating that Bob Barr is not running as a spoiler, and he is absolutely not running to make some point in 2008. He is running for the long-haul. They are running this as a three-way race.
[url="http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=590"]I saw an interesting observation at the Tulsa Beacon.[/url] The writer points out that, unlike Nader, who ran on the same issues that Gore did with the goal of challenging the Democrat's sincerity on his platforms, Barr is running on completely different positions on the various issues. In fact, the positions that Barr hold used to be the GOP's positions at one time. The Libertarian Party now stands alone on many issues.

[quote]First and foremost Bob Barr is running as a small government Libertarian candidate which neither Barrack Obama nor John McCain are doing. Libertarian candidates like Bob Barr are for minimizing government influence over our lives and shrinking the governmental apparatus.

Al Gore was “Naderized” due to the fact that Ralph Nader ran on very similar issues to the Democrats but simply put an anti-establishment spin on it which resonated with many younger liberal voters. Bob Barr ,on the other hand, has serious differences with both John McCain and Barrack Obama regarding the war in Iraq, how to deal with Iran, the overblown fiscal budget, border security, the detainees in Guantanamo and many other issues.

...

There are clear distinctions on the Libertarian sides of the major issues facing our country as opposed to both the Republican and Democratic sides. I would hope that Americans would be much more responsible in looking closely at the candidates rather than simply whining that a third candidate only hurts their candidate’s chances of winning.[/quote]

There is also [url="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-centrists13-2008jul13,0,1800667.story?page=1"]a great op/ed that ran in the LA Times[/url] that points out that Obama and McCain seem to agree on pretty much every issue. In fact, the few areas where Obama and McCain agreed, the two now agree--including FISA (which Obama now agrees with McCain), and setting deadlines on troop withdrawal (which McCain now agrees with Obama). Thus, the two are making it all the easier for Barr to run this as a three-way race.

I think that the election of 2008 is the launch of a strengthening three party system. Furthermore I also think that, unintentionally, Obama and McCain are just making it much easier for this to happen. I think that we can expect some very strong three-way election within the decade. What do you think?

[Apotheoun]

Hopefully the third party that emerges will be a pro-life party that supports traditional family values (e.g., the American Independent Party), and not the Libertarian Party, which holds positions in its official platform that are contrary to Catholic doctrine and the natural moral law.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it would be nice if there was a three or more party system.

but, i'm not as adament about that as i used to be. we have primaries.... there's twenty plus people running in them. republicans range in different years pick varying degrees of repubcan and dems the same. so, essentially.... there's plenty of chance to pick who you want, in the context of the two parties we have.

so these who we have now,,,, are who the nation picked out of what we had.
i doubt a third party would do much better,,,, or they would have won in teh primaries.

i might be wrong though, if people in the middle split repub and demo, and their divided vote costsed a good third party from getting ahead.

[Era Might]

Isn't it up to the American people how many viable parties there are? If millions of Americans refuse to vote Democrat and Republican, then that would instantly create a three-party system. But for that many people to vote third-party, there would need to be a major movement by the American people, and there would probably need to be a common cause that ignites such a movement. For example, the pro-life cause. If every pro-life American united to vote third-party, maybe it could work. But there would need to be major unity for the sake of the cause, and it might require some compromise on things which are open to legitimate debate.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1602303' date='Jul 17 2008, 07:21 PM']Hopefully the third party that emerges will be a pro-life party that supports traditional family values (e.g., the American Independent Party), and not the Libertarian Party, which holds positions in its official platform that are contrary to Catholic doctrine and the natural moral law.[/quote]

agreed, but I think this is at least a start.

[CatherineM]

With a third party, there would at least be an end to them - us mentality.

[Justin86]

Even if the most exaggerated polls are correct Barr only gets 10% of the votes from every state.

Grow up LD. This is not a three way race.

[goldenchild17]

maybe not this election year

[kenrockthefirst]

The structure of our current system mitigates against a three-or-more party system. With the "first past the post" method of determining who wins a race, elected positions are allocated on the basis of whoever gets the most votes. The perfect illustration of this in the context of this discussion is the presidential election of '92, in which the "third party" candidate, Ross Perot, had a really good showing, denying either of the "major party" candidates an outright majority. Bill Clinton, of course, went on to win with a "plurality," i.e. not the majority of votes but more votes than either of the two other guys. In order to have any real chance of a three-or-more party system, we'd have to move to a parliamentary system of government with proportional allocation of votes. In that case, if we take the '92 presidential election as our scenario, the Reform and Republican parties could have formed a coalition. Or, the Reform party could have formed a coalition with the Democrats. The interesting thing is that although the Reform party received the fewest votes, in its role as "king maker" it could have demanded that attention be paid to its issues.

The other consideration in the context of our current system is that viable third parties never emerge. Viable *second* parties emerge, which eclipse and do away with one or the other of the existing parties. This has happened multiple times throughout US history, and perhaps will again with the Republican Party.

Finally, in order for a viable third party to emerge, it needs to do more than put forth a candidate for president every four years; it needs to build from the ground up, i.e. local councils, state government, legislature and governors, and Congress. Even supposing the Bob Barr somehow was elected, what could he hope to accomplish without party allies in Congress?

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1602312' date='Jul 17 2008, 08:41 PM']Isn't it up to the American people how many viable parties there are? If millions of Americans refuse to vote Democrat and Republican, then that would instantly create a three-party system. But for that many people to vote third-party, there would need to be a major movement by the American people, and there would probably need to be a common cause that ignites such a movement. For example, the pro-life cause. If every pro-life American united to vote third-party, maybe it could work. But there would need to be major unity for the sake of the cause, and it might require some compromise on things which are open to legitimate debate.[/quote]

I just want to expand on this.

I look at the turnout in the primary elections, where in most districts the race is basically decided, and see at most 25% turnout by me. I also look at the figures for membership at the Catholic parishes. If a single pro-life candidate were put forth in each party and every Catholic voted pro-life, my guess is that the majortiy of races in the country would be between two pro-lifers.

[Justin86]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1602609' date='Jul 18 2008, 09:41 PM']The structure of our current system mitigates against a three-or-more party system. With the "first past the post" method of determining who wins a race, elected positions are allocated on the basis of whoever gets the most votes. The perfect illustration of this in the context of this discussion is the presidential election of '92, in which the "third party" candidate, Ross Perot, had a really good showing, denying either of the "major party" candidates an outright majority. Bill Clinton, of course, went on to win with a "plurality," i.e. not the majority of votes but more votes than either of the two other guys. In order to have any real chance of a three-or-more party system, we'd have to move to a parliamentary system of government with proportional allocation of votes. In that case, if we take the '92 presidential election as our scenario, the Reform and Republican parties could have formed a coalition. Or, the Reform party could have formed a coalition with the Democrats. The interesting thing is that although the Reform party received the fewest votes, in its role as "king maker" it could have demanded that attention be paid to its issues.

The other consideration in the context of our current system is that viable third parties never emerge. Viable *second* parties emerge, which eclipse and do away with one or the other of the existing parties. This has happened multiple times throughout US history, and perhaps will again with the Republican Party.

Finally, in order for a viable third party to emerge, it needs to do more than put forth a candidate for president every four years; it needs to build from the ground up, i.e. local councils, state government, legislature and governors, and Congress. Even supposing the Bob Barr somehow was elected, what could he hope to accomplish without party allies in Congress?[/quote]
This is completely false. America had a multi-party system prior to the Civil War.

The point I am trying to make is America is not going to have a multi-party any time soon when all the so-called "third-parties" do is run for offices they can never win.

[CatherineM]

For a third party candidate to make a run at the white house these days, it would have to be someone in the middle, who was universally respected, who does not run in the Democratic or Republican primaries and loses, then runs independent. It would have to be a big business owner, a military hero, or someone from Hollywood. Warren Buffet, Alvin York, Paul Newman, people like that. I just hope Tom Cruise never wants to run.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1602716' date='Jul 18 2008, 11:33 AM']This is completely false. America had a multi-party system prior to the Civil War.

The point I am trying to make is America is not going to have a multi-party any time soon when all the so-called "third-parties" do is run for offices they can never win.[/quote]
Please elaborate. What you had between the founding of the US and the Civil War was a series of parties being supplanted by other parties, e.g. the Whigs. Immediately *prior* to the Civil War, if that's what your referring to, there were actually four presidential candidates who split the vote, giving Lincoln a plurality and enabling him to win, similar to what happened in '92 with Clinton. Lincoln's victory, of course, was the precipitating event of the Civil War.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1602314' date='Jul 17 2008, 06:43 PM']agreed, but I think this is at least a start.[/quote]
[url="http://www.aip-ca.com/"][u]American Independent Party of California Nominates Alan Keyes for President[/u][/url]

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1602908' date='Jul 18 2008, 05:32 PM'][url="http://www.aip-ca.com/"][u]American Independent Party of California Nominates Alan Keyes for President[/u][/url][/quote]

yeah I heard about that. Should be interesting. Not sure he's got enough to make a splash right now unfortunately.

[Justin86]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1602768' date='Jul 19 2008, 02:26 AM']Please elaborate. What you had between the founding of the US and the Civil War was a series of parties being supplanted by other parties, e.g. the Whigs. Immediately *prior* to the Civil War, if that's what your referring to, there were actually four presidential candidates who split the vote, giving Lincoln a plurality and enabling him to win, similar to what happened in '92 with Clinton. Lincoln's victory, of course, was the precipitating event of the Civil War.[/quote]

You could make an argument that all third parties generally do is supplement right an left. Third parties in Europe typically have very similar platforms that only diverge on a few issues.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1603237' date='Jul 19 2008, 08:45 AM']You could make an argument that all third parties generally do is supplement right an left. Third parties in Europe typically have very similar platforms that only diverge on a few issues.[/quote]

Like the "Beer Party" in Poland?

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Beer-Lovers'_Party"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Beer-Lovers'_Party[/url]

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1602581' date='Jul 18 2008, 05:10 AM']Even if the most exaggerated polls are correct Barr only gets 10% of the votes from every state.

Grow up LD. This is not a three way race.[/quote]
Did you know that you are cute when you make a comment dismissing something out of hand?

Wayne Root, the vp candidate, has repeatedly stated that this is a 16 campaign to place a Libertarian in the White House. Do you really think that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party will simply be the only two major parties indefinitely? The only constant is change, my brother.

[quote name='Justin86' post='1603237' date='Jul 19 2008, 08:45 AM']You could make an argument that all third parties generally do is supplement right an left. Third parties in Europe typically have very similar platforms that only diverge on a few issues.[/quote]

Right now it is the Republicans and the Democrats that are sharing platforms. Even the mainstream news is noticing. [url="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-centrists13-2008jul13,0,1800667.story?page=1"]Just last weekend the LA Times had a great write-up about the presidential campaigns running with virtually the opinions on the same issues[/url].

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1602324' date='Jul 17 2008, 09:10 PM']With a third party, there would at least be an end to them - us mentality.[/quote]

Oh goodness yes!

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1602609' date='Jul 18 2008, 08:41 AM']Finally, in order for a viable third party to emerge, it needs to do more than put forth a candidate for president every four years; it needs to build from the ground up, i.e. local councils, state government, legislature and governors, and Congress.[/quote]

Yes! I agree. Here in Michigan, as well as in other states, there has been a huge effort to support qualified candidates who wish to run as Libertarians. [url="http://michiganlp.org/Shared%20Documents/officials.aspx"]In Michigan, we have elected many people to local-level seats across the state[/url]; city boards, commissioners, and parks & recreation directors, etc. Bottom up, as you stated.

We now have a major push for the state-level and federal-level elections.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1603197' date='Jul 19 2008, 01:03 AM']yeah I heard about that. Should be interesting. Not sure he's got enough to make a splash right now unfortunately.[/quote]
I am just happy that there is now someone running that I can vote for in good conscience.