Don't third parties lead to fourth, fifth, and twentieth parties which has been a small disaster for some European countries?

Namely, Germany, 1933.

Philly the Kid wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The real problem with US democracy isn't the domination of two parties, is the way do-gooding reformers have weakened political parties and allowed interest groups to step into that vacuum. A strong two party system would be way more democratic than our current interest group based politics.

The romantic desire for a "third party" is worse than wishful thinking--it is a bigger obstacle to responsive politics than the two party system itself is.

I don't buy that a lick.

3rd parties would emerge very broadly if they had equal opportunity to the airwaves. The system is not benign. It's corrupt. It's planned. It's controlled. Call me whatever you want... but I'm not wrong.

I'd be happy for starters to simply allow the constitution and bill of rights to have the day, and not be gutted at will.

We need many parties with many ideas all getting representation. We need to not have "Senators for life" and TV-sound-byte simpleton knee-jerk politics.

I'm not looking down at anyone. I'm sad, that people are denied the real information they require and the real historical perspective to analyze informaiton -- because I think that most people are a lot more liberal than they know. And this stuff only comes out when someone finally takes something away from you, or you are one of the unlucky ones to have your water dumped in, or the wrong tires on your SUV and lose a loved one, or whatever...

I think there is great value in many voices in the debate. Whatever you think of Nader and his motivations and the harm he may have caused, a debate with Nader forces Obama to deal with some things he doesn't have to deal with if he isn't there, and those are things I relish to hear come out in the discusison. McCain would be exposed. Instead, we will have a debate that is all about subtle technqiues and then the talking heads and their blather as they try to recap and analyze it.

If people truly understood what proportional representation could yield, they'd be all for it, I contend.

You simply can't have our consitutional system and more than two parties. It's mathematically impossible.

You want a viable third party? Start at the bottom--city councils, county government. Your goal will be to replace one of the existing parties. You may find this easier at a regional rather than national level.

Of course, there's no reason not to expect a nasty third party will emerge first. Lots of nut jobs on the right who don't think Bush has gone far enough and are unhappy with McCain are ready to do so.

As messed up as our political system is, it is far more functional than the one you'd find in Italy--the Mayor of Rome was recently cheered by his supporters as Il Duce.

Barry Jive wrote:Namely, Germany, 1933.

Italy 2008

Philly the Kid wrote:

dajafi wrote:

Woody wrote:

dajafi wrote:conspiracy theorist?

She thought the Bushies did 9/11.

They aren't clean in the matter, I'll tell you that. The 911 commission was a sham and the mainstream accounts of the facts are not the whole story perhaps nto the story at all. That mcuh, I'll be certain of til i go to my grave.

because why? some college students wasted time making movies for youtube?

Philly the Kid wrote:I'm not looking down at anyone. I'm sad, that people are denied the real information they require and the real historical perspective to analyze informaiton -- because I think that most people are a lot more liberal than they know. And this stuff only comes out when someone finally takes something away from you, or you are one of the unlucky ones to have your water dumped in, or the wrong tires on your SUV and lose a loved one, or whatever...

Sorry to just pull out this one paragraph, and feel free not to comment in depth if this was offhand remarks. But I'm not sure what you mean when you say we lack historical perspective and the ability to analyze information. Will 3rd (and 4th and 5th) parties do more to bring out information? I don't disagree when you say more parties are better when it comes to bringing more viewpoints to the table. It's just that I don't think more parties will affect information in any way, and I dont understand how someone's liberal-ness comes forth "when someone finally takes something away from you, or you are one of the unlucky ones to have your water dumped in, or the wrong tires on your SUV and lose a loved one, or whatever..."

If anything, I think people move toward economic liberalism (pretty much the opposite of modern american liberalism) when they see government screw up one thing or another. Every time government screws up, the bill for how much I pay for the screwup is a reminder that less government is generally better. On this last point, I'm definitely projecting my own experiences, but I don't think I'm the only one with similar experiences.

Philly the Kid wrote:I'm not looking down at anyone. I'm sad, that people are denied the real information they require and the real historical perspective to analyze informaiton -- because I think that most people are a lot more liberal than they know. And this stuff only comes out when someone finally takes something away from you, or you are one of the unlucky ones to have your water dumped in, or the wrong tires on your SUV and lose a loved one, or whatever...

If I remember right, you live in San Francisco? I think people in the rest of the country are a lot more conservative than you know. We live in a time when real information is more available than it ever was. The Spanish-American War was started partially by the media. People didn't know any better. Look at the comparison of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and the Iraq War. Here is a 2005 NSA Analysis of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident:

[I]t is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on 2 August.

There was no attack and Johnson used this event to get the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which was an informal declaration of war not dissimilar with the 2002 Iraq vote. Yet no one knew until many many years later. Today there is an almost immediate response from people. Perhaps not the mainstream media, but then the mainstream media didn't uncover the truth then. Then people accepted what the government told them. They don't know. The Internet gives people a voice. Granted it gives them the ability to make stuff up too, but it allows people to question. In 1964 that couldn't happen.

The US doesn't have a Parliamentary system. In other countries parties that get 3% of the votes can get MPs. As such, a third party is less viable. But it's not that it couldn't happen. The Reform Party failed because all it really did was stand against the Democrats and Republicans. A party needs to stand for something. Look what Ron Paul's done. He pulled in 6-8% of Republican votes. His beliefs are more libertarian. If he joined that party and grew the popularity of his beliefs they could probably increase their vote totals each year.

I don't have time right now to respond to several things that have been asked or commented on. I'll try at a later date.

I will try to simplify the main thrust of what started this morninig. I heard Nader on Democracy Now, a daily news program that I often wake up to on radio. It airs out here at both 6am and repeats at 9am. It's an hour broadcast and has had Nader on before. He was on for about a 15minute segment and she asked him some interesting questions. He didn't sound like he had early alzheimers he seemd up on issues and rhetoric in the discourse with Obama, Clinton and McCain.

He has a commentary, an analysis and a value system, that I find a vabluable addition to the discours and dialog int his political season. I believe that both Obama and McCain would have to take positions and possibly shift some of their stated stances if they had to respond to some of Nader's ideas, statement of facts, etc...

The value for me in 3rd parties and or Nader -- isn't being hung up on what a new party stands for in its entirety, or a single individual -- no one is perfect, no one is going to bat 1000 for what I believe -- but it's to get a kind of conversation going that is virtually impossible. Of the Dems that tried, Edwards had a more populist message and was virtually ignored and Kucinish was somewhere between most DNC Dems and Nader -- and he's made out to be some hyperbolic kook if he gets any coverage at all.

I want real change. I don't buy in to this myth that govt is just a big malaise of incompetence. I find it to be instrument of the elite to keep things a certain way, control the populace, and distract, divide and conquer. There are a lot of things that people don't really know the truth about.

Lax brought up the possible skewed vision I have from a perch in SF relative to the true tenor of the rest of the nation. While my style, the affect of my speech and some of what I think and believe might be farther left of the mainstream, i contend that if people were as informed as I'd like them to be, many things I think and believe wouldn't seem radical at all. People want clean water. Safe food. Good health. They don't want the interests of transnational and an elite that hides behind the IMF and secret meetings and banking shenanigan's to have the day. There's absolutely no reason gas should be $137 a barrell, its a manipulation, it costs $10 for crude ...

There needs to be someone who talks about the corporate control of the flow of information. Is there anything more important than operating off the real facts?

I would prefer a proportional representation system. We have a big country with a lot of different people and different values. There is a way to share some ideals and principles and be united and yet express differences. Right now Dems and Rep are lackeys of the power elite. They are wealth men who represent other wealthy men. The lie to the public, they do things that are no in the interets of the majority of people. They use bad science, bad economics, and are unduly influenced by the powerful.

I appreciate the refreshing breath of fresh air of someone coming on the radio this morning, who actually calls that all out. Call me crazy.

Philly the Kid wrote: I find it to be instrument of the elite to keep things a certain way, control the populace, and distract, divide and conquer. There are a lot of things that people don't really know the truth about.

Lax brought up the possible skewed vision I have from a perch in SF relative to the true tenor of the rest of the nation. While my style, the affect of my speech and some of what I think and believe might be farther left of the mainstream, i contend that if people were as informed as I'd like them to be, many things I think and believe wouldn't seem radical at all.

Call me crazy.

Perhaps people are as informed as you'd like them to be, have considered what you know, and still reject it. To assume you're in a tiny minority that gets it and that your ideas would be in the majority if everyone else understood could be called crazy. People want clean water, safe food, and good health. Why assume there's only way to get that? I'd be scared to live in a world where there was only way to see things, only one truth.

You sound like you're saying you're smarter and know more than everyone else here. You could be a prophet who sees the truth while everyone else is blind. Or maybe not.

Philly the Kid wrote:3rd parties would emerge very broadly if they had equal opportunity to the airwaves. The system is not benign. It's corrupt. It's planned. It's controlled.

It hasn't always been Republican or Democrat. They weren't even our first parties (the Republican Party didn't even exist until mid 1800's). Before them we had Federalist, Whig, Democratic-Republican. Some morphed, some split into factions, et al.

It isn't that the system is necessarily "gamed" against third parties. It's just that R and D have been around so long, they have the infrastructure, organization, financials, support structure, et al. And being around so long, they have experience and recognition, and have built substantial "fan bases". A third party can have opportunity to the airwaves if they had the money to spend on ads and "marketing". Outside of ads and the like, they don't have a substantial enough "audience" to warrant mainstream media focus. R and D have bases that number in the millions... how much media attention can be expected for a party who's base numbers in the low thousands? Most media outlets are for-profit businesses that rely on numbers for selling advertising.

As mentioned earlier up thread, for a third party to become more viable it will need to take the long road... starting at the local levels, then state, etc. Build its base and build its cred. It will take time, and a concerted effort. Even so, for another party to become a major player like the big 2, it would likely take something "happening" to one of the big 2 (collapse, in fighting and breaking into factions, etc.).

VoxOrion wrote:TenuredVulture,

Just so I have some confirmation that I'm not crazy - is it not a fact (as far as facts can go in political science) that a third (or fourth) party can not succeed in any meaningful or long term way in a winner take all/non proportional representation system like the the one in the US? Is it not a fact (as far as facts can go in political science) that comparing the United States' system of government/process of elections to parliamentary proportional representatation systems is akin to comparing an apple to a preposition?

I need a gasp of fresh non-consipiracy non-internet intellectual air here, and I'm asking... nay, I'm demanding that you pull rank and confirm or deny my assumptions.

That is all,

The Management

I was wondering about the self same thing. Realistically, is a third party (or more, hell, we've got about 10 back home in ireland - blame the original IRA and their many splits, each necessitating it's own political wing, all with a completely original and unique take on the relevance of Irish Nationalism) going to have more of an impact on senate/congress than in a presidential election? I'm not very familiar with other political systems of democracy within europe (I've got the UK, Ireland, and vague grasp of federal germany), but the relatively unique nature of the three executive arms of goverment in the states does make you wonder where the third party would have the most impact. Plus, I have no clue as to how varied the political spectrum is at state representative and city council level.

I'm thinking if you do want to introduce multiple parties into the US political scene, Proportional Representation would be kind of a pre requisite. What is apparent from years of looking at Irish Elections is that enables smaller groups to get some kind of political power without having to throw major war-chests at a given election.

Last time I checked, India has PR (single transferable vote flavour), a number of different parties and a fucking massive electorat. I would suggest starting your reading there before elaborating as to how it might be applied within the US.

I could see an interesting situation evolve where only the democrats and republicans ever contest the presidency, but then are forced to do business with a ruling coalition within your representative houses.

FWIW, People generally assume coalitions to be some kind of legislative pain in the ass, and that governing in minority means not governing at all. Having seen a single parties domininance whither away and watch it adapt to more varied political realities in Ireland during the 80s I would disagree. Coalition politics is about prioritising political goals, comprimise and deal making. I personally feel it makes for a healthier political environment than the situation we've had in the UK since 1997 where one party's absolute dominance has allowed them to put through no end of crap legislation because they think their focus groups are telling them that they are serving the people best (oh, and it's what they think is best for us anyway).

Here in Scotland, at regional level in the Scottish Parliament, the SNP (scottish national party), has had good success governing in minority. They got through their budget unopposed having had extensive talks with the scottish conservatives and liberal democrats, and are busy working on a 'national dialogue' about independence with the goal of securing a referendum on same in 2010. This, in the face of massive opposition from Scottish Labour. Realistically, this is the shit politicians live for. Deal making, and making themselves look best to their electorate. Plus, it's more interesting.

there is no way for 3 equally powerful parties to exist in the US system for more than one cycle. that's because of winner-take-all.

That moveon ad that everyone is talking about isn't really grabbing me. Sure, the "mom" is kind of cute in a reformed hippy milf kind of way, but I'm not even convinced that's really her baby. She doesn't seem all that maternal.

And she goes on far too long about how much she loves his drooling.

Obama is opting out of public financing. Fuck.

May god have mercy on our eyeballs. We are going to see a ton of Obama ads between now and November.

Wizlah wrote: Realistically, is a third party (or more, hell, we've got about 10 back home in ireland - blame the original IRA and their many splits, each necessitating it's own political wing, all with a completely original and unique take on the relevance of Irish Nationalism) going to have more of an impact on senate/congress than in a presidential election?

I can't answer or even effectively address Wiz's possibly rhetorical question, but I can assert that disintermediation is a righteously disruptive thing.

Parties and party apparatus are a compromise of a sort which is itself compromised when barriers to more effective (easier? more convenient?) social connection/interaction are battered down, when fractious technologies spritz some air freshener underneath the doors of smoke-filled rooms (at very least).

I guess what I'm saying is that while people perceive that their 'political' differences lie in contrasting assemblies of beliefs, it may be that a crucial element of the contrast has little to do with the beliefs themselves, and more to do with the relative ease/convenience/familiarity of different ways of coalescing and disseminating those beliefs among all kinds of people.

G Washington felt that political parties of any sort were basically abhorrent, perhaps implying they are not 'natural' to 'real' Americans; I guess I agree with the big guy.

One thing to like about McCain is that he's down with the nucular

Woody wrote:One thing to like about McCain is that he's down with the nucular

there;s a great combination. republican pandering to big business by deregulating entire industries (energy, mortgage, mineral mining) combined with the massive destructive capability of nuclear power.


i know that this shouldn't be a partisan issue, but i don't trust any republican to handle the oversight of building a nuclear powerplant, let alone 45 to 100 of them over a 20-30 year period.

Republicans have been president 28 of the last 40 years. Has there been a rash of nuclear meltdowns that I have missed?

And Republicans are the fear-mongerers as well. I wouldn't be surprised if John McCain is the next president that he doesn't just wipe everything off the map outside of North America.

Some of the stuff people say just leaves me dumbfounded. Some people fearmonger themselves then point there fingers in eight different directions. You'd think one of them would have to be right.

jerseyhoya wrote:Republicans have been president 28 of the last 40 years. Has there been a rash of nuclear meltdowns that I have missed?

Well, there haven't been any built in the latter 30 of those 40 years