Will we ever see another third party candidate make a serious run for President?

[hippie_hunter]

Fascism is a European concept, which I am honestly not sure if it works in American politics. Don't get me wrong, I use it all the time, but I mean in a serious politics discussion, I don't know if I would use that.

The Tea Party is what I would call Christian Nationalistic. I would say they're more like Islamists than Fascists, in the sense that they see the world in terms of religion and nationalism. The Catholic Church sanctioned Fascism, but it didn't play a big role in Fascist policy, besides the inherited beliefs and prejudices (against Jews) its members had.

The Tea Partiers seem to envision their ideal America as a sort of homogenous quasi-theocracy. They're ultra-reactionaries, but they have an interesting relationship with the concept of a strong state. Regionalism seems to hamper them from being traditional nationalists who want a strong state.

I would say that's a more fair label than labeling them as fascists.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Will we ever see another third party candidate make a serious run for President?

Yes. But for the candidate to have a serious chance, I think he/she must have the following.

1 ) A clean political career and business career.

2 ) Being from a large state, with the ability to win it.

3 ) Deep pockets or a winner at fund raisers.

4 ) A weak field of Dem's and Republican's

5 ) A complete melt down of USA economy and a nation at its tipping point for social programs where neither party has an answer.


Ross Perot was the last serious independent candidate, and he won 18.9% of the vote, but no states.

The only way I can see a serious third party is if the GOP or Democrats spectacularly fail their base to epic proportions the way Labour did in the UK.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I would say that's a more fair label than labeling them as fascists.

Their provincialism dooms the Tea Party on a national level.

When they do get into national office, they're so destructive that they immediately lose moderates.

It also makes it impossible for them to form any sort of compromise in the House, and to a lesser extent Senate.

Ted Cruz is probably the most hated man in the senate.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Their provincialism dooms the Tea Party on a national level.

I would say their social views and inept campaign apparatuses doom them on a national level, more than their provincialism.

In the end, the United States leans more to the right on economic issues and the American left's attacks on big business, unfair tax rates, cuts in social services, etc. really don't do anything beyond galvanizing the base. Even though more people tend to lean towards the Democrats on issues like tax rates and the minimum wage, they're just not electoral winners for the Democratic Party, or much of the English speaking world for that matter.

It's their social views that really turn away voters that would most likely vote for Republican candidates. Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Ken Cuccinelli, Ken Buck, Tom Tancredo, etc. all cost Republicans what should have been guaranteed victories mostly thanks to their horrid social views on gay marriage, abortion, immigration, etc.

Their campaign apparatuses are also horrid because they do not get along with the GOP establishment for consistently challenging them. They don't like supporting them when they do things like knock out incumbents and preferred candidates and when they say horrid things like "legitimate rape" they outright abandon them. Thus they don't have the money and infrastructure needed to win. They also stupidly think that there are more die-hard conservatives than there actually are and they just sit home waiting for the conservative messiah because people like John McCain and Mitt Romney aren't conservative enough.

When they do get into national office, they're so destructive that they immediately lose moderates.

It also makes it impossible for them to form any sort of compromise in the House, and to a lesser extent Senate.

Very true.

Ted Cruz is probably the most hated man in the senate.

If the political junkie news is to be believed, Ted Cruz is indeed the most hated man in the Senate with only Mike Lee and Rand Paul being the only ones that really tolerate him. There is no probably here.

 

[bell110]

I expect Bernie Sanders to lose the Democratic nomination, and I expect him to run as an Independent in the Presidential race.

 

[SV Fan]

I expect Bernie Sanders to lose the Democratic nomination, and I expect him to run as an Independent in the Presidential race.

I don't, I think he just wants to voice his concerns on a few issues in the debates. My guess for the most likely chance of somebody running as a 3rd party would be if Jeb Bush wins(even then I think most candidates will realize if they oppose Jeb they are just making it that much easier for Hillary to win)

 

[bell110]

I don't, I think he just wants to voice his concerns on a few issues in the debates. My guess for the most likely chance of somebody running as a 3rd party would be if Jeb Bush wins(even then I think most candidates will realize if they oppose Jeb they are just making it that much easier for Hillary to win)

Hillary is not going to win. I'm pretty sure she isn't even going to win the Democratic nomination. Too much drama and baggage with her.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think Hillary is the favor, but she isn't going to coast it the way she is expected to.

 

[Canadian Rider]

As an outside observer to American Politics I don't understand why a Third party hasn't gotten more traction.
Both Dems and Reps have people in their parties who would fit into a third party but there has never been a truly successful one. Centrist party?

 

[hippie_hunter]

As an outside observer to American Politics I don't understand why a Third party hasn't gotten more traction.
Both Dems and Reps have people in their parties who would fit into a third party but there has never been a truly successful one. Centrist party?

The biggest reason is because of the voting system within the United States. While many Western democracies use a proportional system of voting and vote by party, many English speaking countries and former British colonies, not just the United States, use a First Past the Post system of voting. In a proportional system of voting, seats in a legislature are typically rewarded based on the percentage of votes a party received in the election. But in a First Past the Post (we'll call it FPTP from now on) system of voting, voters typically vote for a candidate, not the party, and the candidate who receives the most votes wins.

Nations that use FPTP typically develop two-party systems ranging from the extreme where there are literally only two parties in power, like in the United States, or are de-facto two-party systems where you have only two parties that really matter and everyone else is pretty damn irrelevant like in the United Kingdom (Conservative/Labour), India (National Democratic Alliance/Indian National Congress), and Canada (Conservative/Liberal).

The main reason why FPTP systems typically evolve into two party systems is because unlike proportional systems where smaller parties can aim small and eventually grow from there by developing governing experience, smaller parties in FPTP systems don't get the chance to develop governing experience because they have no one in power that matters. Even though voters can be ignorant, they're not irrational. They're not going to give power to an idealistic party that has no governing experience like the Libertarians or Greens. Instead, they're going to give power to the experienced parties, the Republicans and Democrats.

Now the reason why the United States is more extreme than the other English speaking countries is because of its system of government. While the other English speaking countries use a form of parliamentary system of government, the United States is more like its brethren in the Western hemisphere, in using a Presidential system of government where the head of government is completely separate from the legislature. We elect our head of government as opposed to many other countries where the head of government is the leader of the party with the most seats.

While the other English speaking countries use FPTP, the parliamentary system they use at least allows for a few minor parties to get a few seats and be completely irrelevant. Sometimes, they may get lucky and be invited in a coalition government if no party barely gets enough seats. The combination of a Presidential system of government with a FPTP system of voting in the United States just makes things a lot more narrow and creates even less opportunity for minor parties to develop governing experience and power. There isn't much opportunity for a small party to shake hands and form a coalition with the Republicans or Democrats and a lot of it comes from the President being completely independent of Congress and when he appoints members of his cabinet outside of his own party, it's because of his own choosing, not because of any deals made with other parties.

And finally, just look at the utter size and scale of the United States, it's a huge country with very, very, very expensive media markets where only the parties in power have the ability to take full advantage of. If the United States were a much smaller country, like many European ones are, perhaps they would have better opportunities to market themselves. But the vast expanse of the United States that doesn't have a single city that is the center of everything like the United Kingdom, Japan, or France, can make it very difficult for smaller parties to develop the resources to make themselves known.

 

[Canadian Rider]

or are de-facto two-party systems where you have only two parties that really matter and everyone else is pretty damn irrelevant ... and Canada (Conservative/Liberal).

Canada has several parties beyond the two you listed and the NDP actually have impacted federal and provincial elections alike so they are hardly irrelevant - the last Federal Election they played a huge role, as did the Bloc in prior years.

I understand your arguments and how you feel that a political party needs to be 'popular' across the nation, but with the rise of Media that is more national and the use of the Internet and SuperPacs etc., it still doesn't fully answer the question of why the United States can't or don't have more than the two parties you have.

While a multiple party system like Israel creates a great deal of Chaos, it would seem to make sense that the US as a 'Beacon of Democracy' should be able to have more than just the two parties you have.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Canada has several parties beyond the two you listed and the NDP actually have impacted federal and provincial elections alike so they are hardly irrelevant - the last Federal Election they played a huge role, as did the Bloc in prior years.

There are other parties in Canada thanks to Canada's parliamentary system, but it is still a de-facto two party state. Right now the only two parties that matter in Canada are the Conservatives and NDP. The rise of the NDP came at the cost of turning the Liberals into a completely irrelevant opposition party in the 41st Parliament. And it wouldn't surprise me to see the Liberals continuing to be irrelevant after the next election due to the NDP doing a far better job in representing the Canadian left than the Liberals have. But if the Liberals manage to regain their luster and restore the status-quo, it's going to come at the cost of the NDP.

This has also happened in the United States, the rise of one party often comes at the cost of another. The rise of the Whigs came at the expense of the Federalists. The rise of the Democrats under Andrew Jackson came at the cost of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. And the rise of the Republicans came at the expense of the Whigs.

As for the Bloc, you need to think of them more along the lines of a regional party like the SNP in Britain. Because they are a regional party they don't have the wide appeal that a national party would like the Conservatives or NDP do. As a result, just like the SNP in Britain, the Bloc is also primarily unimportant in the grand scheme of things. And they've been made irrelevant due to recent electoral failures.

I understand your arguments and how you feel that a political party needs to be 'popular' across the nation, but with the rise of Media that is more national and the use of the Internet and SuperPacs etc., it still doesn't fully answer the question of why the United States can't or don't have more than the two parties you have.

SuperPACs aren't going to support minor candidates that will never win. SuperPACs are designed for two reasons: 1. To support a major candidate that is capable of raking in millions and millions of dollars (Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, etc.) and these candidates are typically Republicans or Democrats; or 2. Created by those with connections to millions like Americans for Prosperity, Priorities USA, Crossroads, MoveOn.org, etc. that are designed to promote their ideology and thus will support candidates who will deliver upon that ideology (i.e. Democrats or Republicans).

As for the rise of cheaper media, it still doesn't change the overall media environment that still favors the big two parties.

While a multiple party system like Israel creates a great deal of Chaos, it would seem to make sense that the US as a 'Beacon of Democracy' should be able to have more than just the two parties you have.

We do have more than just two parties, the others are just completely irrelevant. They're made more irrelevant thanks to our Presidential system, but in the end a system with a FPTP system of voting will still typically be a two-party state whether it be a true one like the United States or a de-facto one like Canada.

 

[Canadian Rider]

Interesting discussion.

Query - if a Candidate for President came along who was outside of the two parties that exist now but had both money and Charisma would he be able to run and get elected despite not having an existing party base to draw upon?

 

[hippie_hunter]

Interesting discussion.

Query - if a Candidate for President came along who was outside of the two parties that exist now but had both money and Charisma would he be able to run and get elected despite not having an existing party base to draw upon?

Would he or she be able to run? Yes. Would he or she be able to make an impact? Absolutely, we've seen this plenty of times with Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, George Wallace in 1968, the mess that was the 1860 elections that led up to the Civil War, etc. But actually get elected? No.

The only way we're going to see someone who isn't a Republican or Democrat win is if something major completely shocks the status-quo like the 1860 election which led to the Civil War or how the War of 1812 doomed the Federalist Party. And chances are that the rise of a new party or candidate would spell the end of one of the two major parties for that new party to take its place.

 

[Canadian Rider]

Would he or she be able to run? Yes. Would he or she be able to make an impact? Absolutely, we've seen this plenty of times with Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, George Wallace in 1968, the mess that was the 1860 elections that led up to the Civil War, etc. But actually get elected? No.

The only way we're going to see someone who isn't a Republican or Democrat win is if something major completely shocks the status-quo like the 1860 election which led to the Civil War or how the War of 1812 doomed the Federalist Party. And chances are that the rise of a new party or candidate would spell the end of one of the two major parties for that new party to take its place.

So essentially you are saying that America can ever only have 2 parties? That if a new party arises it is at the expense of one of the others?
Does that make it a good system or a bad one then?

 

[hippie_hunter]

So essentially you are saying that America can ever only have 2 parties?

We do have more than two parties. Hell, I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012. The thing is that the United States is most likely going to continually have two viable parties at a time. It has always been this way ever since the nation was founded between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans.

That if a new party arises it is at the expense of one of the others?

Yes. Very much so. But this is not just an American thing. Take a look at Scotland where the rise of the SNP came at the expense of Labour. Or in Canada where the rise of the NDP came at the expense of the Liberals. Or the most recent Alberta elections where the collapse in the Progressive Conservatives saw the rise of Wildrose.

Does that make it a good system or a bad one then?

Depends on how you like your voting. If you see it in the viewpoint of having a limited choice in party selection, then yes it's a bad one. But if you're someone who prefers to vote for a candidate as opposed to a party or if you're someone who prefers to vote for your executive as opposed to the majority party winning the executive, then it's a good one.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Republicans remember Ross Perot helping Clinton get elected and Democrats remember Gore losing because of Ralph Nader. No one wants to repeat those "mistakes".

We're stuck with a two-party system.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Republicans remember Ross Perot helping Clinton get elected and Democrats remember Gore losing because of Ralph Nader. No one wants to repeat those "mistakes".

We're stuck with a two-party system.

I would go even further than that. Whenever a third party tends to get influence in an election, one of the two major parties will typically absorb the platform of that party in order to effectively counter and blunt their growth. A reason why we're not going to see the Libertarian Party become a major party is because the Republican Party is supposed to be the party of small government. A reason why we're not going to see the Green Party grow is because the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for environmentalism, gay rights, etc.

Theodore Roosevelt's and Robert La Follette's Progressive Parties, George Wallace's American Independent Party/Strom Thurmond's States' Rights Democratic Party, the Populist Party, etc. were all absorbed by one of the two major parties when certain issues became prominent in American politics. The only party I can think of that didn't get absorbed would be Eugene V. Debs' Socialist Party, but the Red Scares took care of that.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

We do have more than two parties.

I don't think he meant that literally

 

[Canadian Rider]

I would go even further than that. Whenever a third party tends to get influence in an election, one of the two major parties will typically absorb the platform of that party in order to effectively counter and blunt their growth. A reason why we're not going to see the Libertarian Party become a major party is because the Republican Party is supposed to be the party of small government. A reason why we're not going to see the Green Party grow is because the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for environmentalism, gay rights, etc.

Theodore Roosevelt's and Robert La Follette's Progressive Parties, George Wallace's American Independent Party/Strom Thurmond's States' Rights Democratic Party, the Populist Party, etc. were all absorbed by one of the two major parties when certain issues became prominent in American politics. The only party I can think of that didn't get absorbed would be Eugene V. Debs' Socialist Party, but the Red Scares took care of that.

Very informative. Thanks for the discussion.