What would a Lieberman win mean for the two-party system?

[jobycom]

I'm curious about this Lieberman thing. Here we have a strong candidate who can win as an independent, but who disagrees with the liberal/progressive arm of the Dem Party. Since it is usually this arm which backs the idea of a third party and condemns the two party system, it would seem logical for them to have some sympathy for him, but since he's not a liberal according to this branch of the party, all I keep hearing is how everyone has to back the party, everyone has to throw their support behind the primary winner. Anyone who disagrees is not a true liberal.

So my questions are these: If you have been calling for a death to the two party system, do you like the idea of Lieberman running even if you want to see him defeated? And would you call for Democrats to vote for Lamont or to vote their "conscience" in this race instead of voting party lines, knowing a lot of Dems would vote for Lieberman if not for party loyalty? Would you like a strong third-party if it formed in the middle and pushed the Dems to the left? And for those who have been calling for party loyalty over a vote of "conscience," has this changed your ideas of a third party? Were you ever behind a multi-party system in the first place? Has this race changed anyone's views on the whole two-party system, is what I'm basically asking.

I have no ulterior motive here, none of these are meant to be leading questions, I have no ready-made argument waiting to knock down any positions anyone makes. I've never understood this push for a multi-party system, and this race shows me exactly why, but I want to know how others see it. For full disclosure, I am in Texas, so I wouldn't vote in CT anyway, but if I could I would vote for Lamont and I hope he wins, even though I think Lieberman's sins were exagerated and don't fully trust what I've seen of Lamont or some of his supporters. Not that I trust Lieberman, either. I don't say that to start a debate about Lamont, but only because I don't want anyone to think I'm hiding anything.

[LincolnMcGrath]

1. Your way off track by sentence # 3.

Joe disagrees with the overwhelming majority of democrats. 79% Nationally were glad to see him go.

[jobycom]

2. Which is a total evasion of my entire post, but thanks for playing.

nt

[larrysh]

4. If he is successful, mioght be the start of a viable third party.....

Might tempt moderates from both parties to form a single party that plays solely to middle class Americans (the so-called "silent majority").
There are enough freak=ohs, on both the left and right, to run against
that a single party made up of previously moderate dems and repubs that the center might sit up and take notice....

[LincolnMcGrath]

10. So you admit your frame was incorrect now?

[jobycom]

15. I admit you didn't read my post, and didn't respond to it. Thanks for

playing along.

[Tesha]

3. It would mean that all those folks who claim "third parties never win"

It would mean that all those folks who claim
"third parties could never win in our political
system" are proven to be full of shit.

(As if Bernie Sanders hasn't already proven that.)

Tesha

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. That 0.0000000001% winning percentage is hardly proof of anything.

[jobycom]

9. It would be proof that if people wanted third party candidates

they would indeed vote for them. Which would undermine the argument that third party candidates can't win, and strengthen the argument that we have a two party system because that's what the voters want.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. That argument is statistically incorrect

Out of the 435 elections that take place every two years for the House of Representatives, only one third party candidate is elected. That is exactly 0.22% of all House elections, and if you replaced Bernie Sanders with any other candidate, that percentage drops to zero. Therefore, the only statistical conclusion one could come to is that the people of Vermont like Bernie Sanders, but not necessarily a third-party candidate. Furthermore, the other 99.78% of House elections further prove that the chances of a third party candidate actually winning office are nearly astronomical.

I can only assume you are using the word "proof" in its loosest possible definition.

[jobycom]

14. No, it would be proof.

If people wanted third party or independent candidates, they would vote for them. The fact that statistically they rarely do just increases the proof, it doesn't diminish it. If Lieberman wins, it shows that there is nothing but the attitude of voters preventing more third party candidates from winning.

[fishwax]

18. nothing but the attitude of voters

and the fact that very few third party candidates have 18 years experience in the senate, three previous successful runs for statewide office, or the fame incurred as the vice presidential candidate for a major political party (to say nothing of having had various party stalwarts singing their praises just a few months before the election). And let us not forget the fundraising powers of a major party for several months of the campaign (and the financial pull that comes with the qualifications outlined in the first sentence). I really don't think a lieberman win would prove that there is nothing more than the attitude of voters preventing more third party candidates from winning. A lieberman win would be indicative of the potential of third parties in the same way that donald trump's mid 90's resurgence is evidence of the potential of people dealing with bankruptcy--as long as one has access to all the tools of the system and the advantages it provides to only a select few, then one has every chance to succeed.

[marions ghost]

23. first of all

show me that we have a true two-party system right now.

We need for the majority of Americans to feel they are represented by their government. Right now we don't have that. Why should I feel that --as a member of a (only slightly) minority party --that NONE of the things I care about have been addressed in the last several years by the government?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. It wouldn't mean anything.

I personally loathe the two party system, but that's the reality we face. There's exactly one scenario that would threaten the system, and here it is (brace yourselves for this one):

John McCain running as an Independent/Third Party candidate.

If McCain ran as a 3rd Partier, there would be great potential for no one candidate obtaining more than 270 electoral votes. Democrats and Republicans alike would wind up abandoning their party to vote for him, and one could easily see him winning a number of "purple" and red-leaning states. Granted, I think the results would be much different today, but let's use 2004 for an example.

If McCain ran 3rd party in 2004, there's a strong chance he'd wind up taking Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, Iowa, Ohio, and Michigan. I'm guessing he'd win a few more too, but we'll just leave it at that for now (the numbers work out tidier this way). That'd drop Bush to 234, drop Kerry to 234, and give McCain 70. Now, that clearly wouldn't be enough to give him the election, or even serious consideration, however, what it would do is send the election to the House of Representatives, where a very serious discussion would be forced to take place.

The Members of the House would each cast their vote for President and it would be a simple winner-take-all. The dilemma would be this: does a Congressman stay loyal to his/her party or do they stay loyal to their constituents and vote the way they did?

This would obviously not be such an easy choice for lot of them to make, and I gather they'd wind up with just enough for Bush to win anyway, but it's easy to see how serious the implications would be if a serious third party candidate wound up running.

[Avalux]

7. But he's not really a third party candidate.

So I would consider your intial premise doesn't hold water. Lieberman, although running as an independent is getting full support and $$ from the GOP - they won't even endorse their own candidate in CT. I am sure Repug voters in CT will be instructed to vote for Lieberman, which they probalby will do as good little sheeple.

Lieberman is a Republican.

[jobycom]

8. He's pro-life, he won't get much overt Republican support

Unless he's changed that, and then he'll lose moderate support.

I don't agree with this post, really. You're basically saying he's not a third party candidate because mostly Republicans will support him. Obviously his votes would come from one or the other party, since most voters will belong to one or the other party. By definition he is a third party candidate.

[quiet.american]

11. Questions on your questions

You've described Lieberman as a strong candidate - given he is an 18-yr. incumbent who couldn't win his party's primary, essentially garnering a vote of no-confidence, why does he appear to you to be a strong candidate?

As far as I know, liberal/progressive Democrats (read: mainstream), have not been calling for the death of the two-party system. That's the territory of the REPUBLICANS, who are doing their best to install a one-party state, and even stated that their goal was to consolidate power for the next 100 years solely into Republican hands.

In regard to your statement: "all I keep hearing is how everyone has to back the party, everyone has to throw their support behind the primary winner. Anyone who disagrees is not a true liberal" -- there's a difference between being a true liberal and being a true Democrat. Howard Dean gave the best reminder of what party loyalty means over the weekend. When he lost the presidential primary to John Kerry, he immediately threw his support behind Kerry, and vociferously denounced any talk of his supporters forming a third party. Why? So as not to fracture the Democratic vote going into the elections. Joe Lieberman's disingenuousness in stating he is running as an Independent for the sake of the Democratic Party defies logic. His reasoning becomes even more disingenuous when he states he is running as an Independent Democrat when there is no such party.

If a lot of Dems would vote for Lieberman if not for party loyalty, they would have done it in the primary. And what to make of Lieberman being the first Dem candidate I've heard of that the viciously partisan GOP is rushing to endorse over their own candidate in the race? That says it all as far as I'm concerned as to which side of the aisle Lieberman feels most at home in.

To answer your basic question, it definitely hasn't changed my mind on the two-party system. Why fracture the Democratic Party now when poll after poll shows that the public is ready for a return to common sense by putting Democrats back in control of Congress.

[Imagevision]

12. It would mean Joe would continue being Bush/Roves mole

[cascadiance]

16. I think it then brings out the "Corporate Party" into the open...

The Corporate Party already has the Republicans as it's main branch, and many of the DLC Democrats as it's other. Now they have an independent candidate in Joe Lieberman who's looking for a name (DON'T name him an "Independent Democrat").

Perhaps the Democrats vs. Republicans in the future will more be out in the open as the Corporatist Party vs. the People's Party. Some would call the former party another name that begins with an "F", but I think for the moment this is a more accurate description.

[jobycom]

17. This isn't what I was hoping to learn

I was hoping for a good discussion of two-party versus a multi-party system based on a real-life example. I guess everyone's so worked up about Lieberman that I won't get that. Although that does answer my question, I guess.

[cascadiance]

19. Perhaps exposing the "corporatists" will bring BACK our two party system..

Where if we can isolate who's in it, and flush them out, we can vote for an alternative to the Corporatists and bring back a more healthy two party system that's been replaced recently (though not openly) with one party corporatist party rule. Though if a third party like the Greens can do a better job than both corporatist infested parties in some places (like the Senate campaign this year for California!), then they can be the one that be a part of that "second party" coalition. I'm voting for Todd Chretien of the Greens. No way that DiFi gets my vote without firing Angela Bradstreet immediately! That will be my anti-corporatist party vote in November.

Lieberman will be the first to go down in this battle of renewal.

[NNN0LHI]

20. Lieberman IS the defacto Republican candidate in this race

That other stooge who is running with an R behind his name was just keeping Losermans seat warm for him if he lost the primary.

The Dems aren't going to let this snake caucus with them or hold any conference seats if he wins.

Lieberman will officially turn Republican after the election if he wins.

Don

[Boojatta]

21. The idea of breaking out of a two-party system is the idea of new ideas.

Was Lieberman previously falling in line with the commands of some party leader? Did he suddenly find his voice and speak out courageously at the risk of losing his position in the Democratic Party?

A two party system brings all the "advantages" of the logical fallacy known as "false dilemma" to the political process.

Lieberman is not bringing anything new to the table. He is not providing a new option. If there have been important ideas we need someone to articulate, then he is not the one who is articulating them.

Lieberman is a third-party candidate in the same sense that two people, each of whom has been wearing the same pair of underwear every day for two weeks, will be changing their underwear if they swap underwear with each other.

Now, perhaps I'm wrong about all of that, but that's my suspicion.

[loyalsister]

22. Good questions

Unfortunately, the responses to your questions have to be informed by the unfortunate twist where Lieberman took his marbles and went to play in a corner by himself.

I do think your questions have value, though.

I haven't been calling for the death of the 2 party system. I do think 3rd parties have value. I think that primaries are a valuable way to "keep the party in line," and I find it insulting that someone would use that system to their advantage and then disregard it's standard goal when they lose.

I think people should vote their preference, but I hope they will choose Lamont (personal bias).

I am not sure where the middle is anymore, so it is hard for me to say if I would like a party formed from the middle.

Your questions have a great deal of value. I hope that someone will be asking them.

If nothing else it's a way for those of us who are on the left and watching to be pleased with either a Lamont or Lieberman win.

Overall, I think that Liebermans candidacy as an Independent would have more meaning in regards to 3rd parties if he had made the switch before running in and losing the primary.

If he had run as an Independent from the beginning it would have still more meaning.

In the end, the talking heads will make up their own meaning about it.

"A person has to leave the Democratic party to vote their conscience."

"A person can't belong to any party and still keep a conscience."

etc.

It will be interesting.
I hope that someone will follow your lead.

[BuyingThyme]

24. Joe Party?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. The more choices the better.

It would save a lot of wear and tear on the nose.

“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.” - Thomas Jefferson