Active Users:1064 Time:14/09/2025 01:24:49 AM
The odds are very long. Legolas Send a noteboard - 20/11/2011 07:15:54 PM
American politics has not needed a third party badly enough to actually form it. If and when the two-party system fails utterly (and it might, conceivably, do so in the near future) a third party will arise on its own. Given the present circumstances, a third party would probably be a moderate party that favors a liberal social agenda, fiscal conservatism, doesn't fear government but doesn't love it or trust it particularly, and tends to realism in foreign policy.

Of course, the Canadian elections this year were proof that it CAN happen - but we should probably still give it an election or two before concluding the NDP has definitively claimed its spot among the big two. And last year's British elections were an indication of the opposite - the Lib Dems were scoring rather well in the polls all throughout the campaign, then when it came down to it they even lost votes and seats. Britain has had more than two parties for centuries, and in all that time, only once did the third party usurp the spot of the second - and that was only after part of said second party had defected to their main rivals to put those in power for a generation. Coalition governments haven't been much more frequent, except during wartime. Being the third party in a FPTP voting system is very, very hard. Especially in FPTP voting systems that have features that just take for granted there will only ever be two parties, like the US House and Senate do.

A third party candidate winning the presidency is not inconceivable - a number of people have come relatively close, and some independents have won governor races - but a genuine nation-wide party with representations in the House, Senate and state/local legislatures is an entirely different story.
Third parties have failed in America because one of the two major parties has usually corrected course to seize the moderate middle in any election, and it has worked just fine for over a hundred years. If, as some are saying, the parties are too polarized to move back to the middle, then a third party will arise, but it is likely that it will just absorb the party that lost out the most from its formation.

Yes. If it ever happens.
However, it wouldn't be that hard to create a new party. There are enough rich people in the US who would favor the platform set out above that you could quickly find moderate candidates (and even sitting legislators) to break ranks with their former party and join the third party movement.

Defection of sitting legislators on a large scale is pretty much the only way I can see it happening, frankly.
Reply to message
An Open Letter to Police Officers Across America - 20/11/2011 03:27:46 AM 1414 Views
Stupid, Stupid, Stupid. - 20/11/2011 03:59:42 AM 893 Views
I am forced to agree. - 20/11/2011 04:37:07 AM 728 Views
You're right, but stuff like what just happened at UC Davis makes my blood boil - 20/11/2011 05:52:11 AM 712 Views
As such things go, that does not seem too bad to me. - 20/11/2011 06:14:54 AM 893 Views
You do know that they initiated violence at Kent State, right? - 20/11/2011 02:45:57 PM 696 Views
You really do make this too easy. - 21/11/2011 10:28:31 PM 943 Views
hear hear *NM* - 20/11/2011 04:47:12 AM 322 Views
Agreed. - 20/11/2011 06:28:18 AM 836 Views
I agree with everything you said in this post. *NM* - 20/11/2011 07:53:07 AM 297 Views
a little late for that - 21/11/2011 01:54:34 PM 655 Views
What the fuck are you on? I need to get some of that. *NM* - 20/11/2011 04:56:00 AM 338 Views
I'm going to start a counter protest with "Bring back the Pinkertons" signs... - 20/11/2011 05:19:19 AM 679 Views
*NM* - 20/11/2011 05:49:35 AM 404 Views
I seen some guys holding signs saying "occupy a desk" *NM* - 21/11/2011 01:55:38 PM 348 Views
One of the most poorly written pieces of shit I've read in a long time. *NM* - 20/11/2011 06:30:29 AM 390 Views
"unarmed and peaceful protestors" - 20/11/2011 01:15:47 PM 725 Views
armed and violent? really? *NM* - 21/11/2011 05:31:44 PM 319 Views
Declaring people "enemy combatants" means they get to treat you as such too. - 20/11/2011 01:55:51 PM 689 Views
Don't cloud the propaganda with logic, Tim! - 20/11/2011 04:16:05 PM 733 Views
That's the problem with a two-party system: it's practically impossible to form a new party. *NM* - 20/11/2011 05:42:39 PM 299 Views
I think that's completely wrong. - 20/11/2011 06:10:15 PM 764 Views
The odds are very long. - 20/11/2011 07:15:54 PM 837 Views
And implicit in my statement above is the following addendum - 20/11/2011 06:14:40 PM 859 Views
I agree with that. However, many seem to think that means it's OK to beat them up. - 20/11/2011 06:21:05 PM 728 Views
Only if they resist arrest, and then the force must be proportionate. *NM* - 20/11/2011 09:52:39 PM 315 Views
If they resist a lawful arrest, sure. *NM* - 21/11/2011 11:11:11 AM 312 Views
they are breaking the law so it is lawful to arrest them *NM* - 21/11/2011 10:46:18 PM 309 Views
In what way? - 22/11/2011 09:12:01 AM 699 Views
Resisting arrest. Duh. *NM* - 22/11/2011 10:11:04 AM 316 Views
You are not allowed to just block sidewalks and camp wherever you want - 22/11/2011 01:54:42 PM 684 Views
In that case I quite agree. - 22/11/2011 02:08:02 PM 648 Views
Its still okay to beat communists up though right? *NM* - 21/11/2011 11:27:14 AM 304 Views
(OWS isn't anti-capitalism) - 20/11/2011 06:39:37 PM 641 Views
You've posted this, but you don't seem inclined to defend it, one might ask what the point was? - 21/11/2011 05:16:13 PM 644 Views
He'd post, but this is what happened. - 22/11/2011 03:55:43 AM 605 Views
I'm actually calling for them to start using lethal force. *NM* - 22/11/2011 03:46:24 AM 350 Views

Reply to Message