Could a Viable Third Party Emerge in the U.S.?

[Crewleader]

charles hugh smith

September 1, 2009

Japan's recent election boosted a new party into national power by a landslide. Could that happen in the U.S.?

Japan's voting public recently tossed out the sclerotic, entrenched Powers That Be (the Liberal Democratic Party, LDP) in favor of the upstart Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). Given the lock on power maintained by the LDP, Japan was essentially a one-party state for the past five decades. Other than a brief dalliance with another party in 1993 (and only in the Upper House of the Diet), the Japanese public continued empowering the same old party hacks and the same old alliances of rural constituencies, the construction industry, global exporters, zombie banks/ insurers and government ministries.

And the public's reward was economic stagnation and devolution for the past 20 years. Japan is an extremely conservative, traditional culture--don't let the wild youth fashions fool you. Patience and forebearance are national virtues, and it took two decades of malfeasance, corruption, incompetence and abject failure to wear through the public's conservative bias for the status quo.

After all, hadn't the LDP alliance delivered decades of growth that had become the envy of the global economy? Hadn't Japan, with only 125 million citizens, become the second largest economy in the world?

But like political Elites everywhere, perhaps the LDP was delighted to take credit for a trend which had little enough to do with their leadership abilities and everything to do with Japan's cultural capital: a reverence for education, an obsession with quality, an appetite for hard work and a keen awareness of Japan's modest natural resources.

http://www.oftwominds.com/blog.html

[napi21]

1. I can't see it happening. There's way too much $$ behind the 2 party's

that currently hold 90%+ og all the power.

However, if the radical right wing keeps gaining power in the Pub Party, after enough years of losing elections, I suppose that $$ could change supprt,

[DebbieCDC]

2. I wish but I don't think so. The 2-party only system is too ingrained in the US psyche

Maybe in another 20 years.

[Crewleader]

3. we may with the many

Consumer advocates--middle-class citizens of all ages who are tired of being lied to and manipulated, tired of being ripped off, etc.

[glinda]

4. I hate to think of the Repubs getting back into power any time soon. In fact, I

would like to see them basically so weak that a third Party could emerge without taking down the Dems.

[endless october]

5. i hope a lot of "third" parties form and take root.

if that were the case now, single payer would be on the table.

[stevedeshazer]

6. I wish I could say 'yes' but I doubt it.

Japan hasn't exactly been a model of multiparty rule. I doubt the US will be such a shining example either, despite each nation's voters having made a big swing to the left.

And that's a good thing. Japan is a very important ally.

But I don't see the connection between what happened in Japan and third parties in the US.

We already have a whole bunch of minor parties, the most visible I suppose being the Libertarians and the Green Party, but they have never had as much as 5% of the vote.

The Constitution Party nuts make a lot of noise around here, but they could host a convention in a double-wide phone booth.

But, hey, I voted for John Anderson, so what do I know?

Good to see you, Crewleader

:)

[Crewleader]

7. Good to see you too stevedeshazer

The only way is to vote the bums out. And hope the newly elected don't forget who put them there.
There's a lot of anger for those we voted for, not protecting or representing, we the people.

[HawkerHurricane]

8. Yes, but no

With our system, you really don't get a third party. What can (and has happened) is one of the major parties can disintegrate and a new party emerge from the ashes of the old.

What I would like to see is for the Republicans to disintergrate, and a new party appear to the LEFT of the Democratic Party (and the miracle part: The Democrats not moving right, but staying where they are).

[eridani]

9. Japan has a parliamentary system. We don't.

Third parties here mostly refuse to do such elementary things as get registered voter databases from the county auditor to build lists of supporters.

[elocs]

10. I wouldn't count out Republicans yet. I think they will scratch and claw their way back

as Democrats stumble around with their majorities apparently undisciplined and unorganized enough to be able to accomplish their goals. I'm not sure they could even do it with 2/3 majorities. I could see third parties on both extremes pulling enough votes from the Democrats and Republicans to impact elections without being able to win outright themselves.

[TexasProgresive]

11. The odds are against it

If a 3rd party begins to emerge one of the 2 big parties will decrease. If the 3rd party continues to grow one of the big 2 will disappear. Thus went the Federalists and the Whigs.

[Spike from MN]

12. Third party?

Hell, I'd settle for a viable second party. The two wings of the corporate party don't quite do it for me.

[clixtox]

19. Of course there are differences between the Dems and the Rethugs...

otherwise they couldn't fool anybody!

[Yupster]

13. The problem is the electoral college

They almost require two parties. Otherwise a far right party can win 90 % of the electoral votes with 38 % of the popular vote because the three left parties split their vote.

The best example of this was Lincoln's election where he easily won the electoral vote with 40 % of the vote because the Democratic Party ran two candidates, either of whom would have beaten Lincoln were the other not in the race.

So as long as we have an electoral college it will be difficult for a third party to take root unless it quickly replaces the second party like the Republicans did to the Whigs.

[Warpy]

14. If history replays, it will

We have a Hamiltonian party in steep decline, the devils it made the deals with now taking it over. It will continue to sputter on for a while, completely marginalized, but the party is over as it was for the Federalist Party and Whigs before it.

History has shown that the new party that splinters off are the slightly more progressive Democrats, disgusted with the increasing stodginess of the party generated by the influx of displaced Hamiltonians. The new progressive party will enjoy limited success for a few years before being taken over by Hamiltonians and the whole cycle will have begin again.

Hamiltonian parties in this country are successful only when they remain small. Progressive parties tend to poop out and become disinterested once their major reforms have been achieved, willingly turning over the grind of running the party to the Hamiltonians.

This has already happened twice in the country's history. Once might be a fluke but twice is the beginning of a pattern and thrice will confirm it.

[IrateCitizen]

17. I like this historical perspective. It's a microview of what Habermas wrote about.

What arise as challenges to the accepted order eventually solidify, and they become rigid and ideological rather than flexible and based on rational-critical debate. Just as it was on a grand scale with the bourgeois challenge to the feudal order and ascendancy, it is also in the realm of political parties. Just look at how much the Republicans solidified from the time of Lincoln until they became the party of big business by the 1870s. Ditto for the reformist impulse of the New Deal fading away by the end of WWII among the Democrats.

[bhikkhu]

15. No

The mathematical models of election systems don't work in a way that allows any kind of stable 3-party system to develop from a 2-party system.

I know that's easy to say but difficult to understand (even if you do "get" the math involved). In any case, it would be far more probable and profitable to the efforts of anyone wishing for another voice in the system to hijack the faltering place of an existing party.

[showpan]

16. like how the neocons

hijacked the Republican party....lol...do we even have a two party system, or is it all just the cooperate party? And who would have enough money to buy it? Another cooperation no doubt or maybe China....lol

[IrateCitizen]

21. The neocons hijacked the Republican Party mainly through outside crises

Namely, their false hyping of the Soviet threat during the 1970s and their hyping of the Islamist threat during the 1990s and especially after 9/11.

[truedelphi]

18. Error - you can only rec topics started in past 24hours

Interesting read and thank you for psoting this.

[jtull83550]

20. I doubt it

[stevebreeze]

22. in a word no...there are many things that dictate against a real third party

first the media will not tolerate it. The only time they give any credence to third parties is when they think it will tip the scales as a spoiler for one of the main parties, think Nader in 2000.

First past the post elections is a big problem. This means that unsuccessful third parties only insure the election the worst option. Again 2000 Gore won a majority of the vote but would have had an unquestionable majority if we include the more progressive Nader votes with the centrist Gore, as opposed to right wing hack Bush.

Rules to participate in elections is in many place stacked decidedly against third parties. I will speak only of IL rules since that is were I am most acquainted with. To get on the ballot here as Dem or GOP for State Representative, you need 500 valid signatures. Since some signatures may be challenged you in effect must have at minimum two time the required number or 1000. To get on the ballot as a third party the minimum required is about 2500 so in actuality you need 5000 or more then 5 times as many signatures for the same office.

This is NOT democratic in any way shape or form. We should to have a fair system do away with them. Oh and by the way, I am Chairperson of my local township Democratic party.