Would a legitimate THIRD PARTY help the Democrats (& Republicans)?

[Dawgs]

I've been thinking a lot lately about the discourse in Washington and what could actually change politics and policy. I've thought of how Democrats could get the message across with facts, and how that might actually change some minds; only to come to the conclusion that Americans are too ignorant and self-absorbed to listen.

And then Jon Stewart decided to have a rally in Washington for the reasonable 70% of America that is not interested in politics, but results. He describes them as the 'too busy to pay attention' moderate. I think he's right, sort of. Yes, most of the country is 'too busy', uninterested, and non-political to know that the country is falling apart because of Republican rule, but that doesn't mean they are moderate on the issues.

I think most people are all over the map politically, but that doesn't mean they are down the middle. Polls show that they are actually more to the left when asked about specific issues. They support gay rights. They don't support war. They support single-payer health care. They support improving Social Security.

So, would a third party, for those that are sick of 'politics as usual', actually work? I'm not talking about a far left party (progressive, green) or a far right party (tea party, constitution, libertarian), but a party for the reasonable middle. The coffee party fits this definition but the name and timing make it look like the anti-tea party; which, to me, is a non-starter.

My questions for fellow DUers is 1) would it take off if someone non-political "celebrity" suggested it? 2) would it actually change policy if 10-20 Senators were elected from this party? and 3) would it help both parties by eliminating the ideological arguments and bickering?

I personally think it would move our country even more to the left. Without the two-party system, DADT would end, wars would be harder to start, and things like public option/single payer and climate change legislation would be easier to pass. I also think that the Republicans would be forced to compromise with the other parties to get any support at all.

It would also force the media to talk about three parties; instead of splitting the country down the middle. It would no longer be us versus them.

What do you think, should we wait for the older white republican to die off, or should we look at an idea like this?

Please be nice, as I'm not necessarily sold on this idea; just want your opinion.

:hi:

[cowcommander]

1. Will never happen, that's what both established parties fear the most

They've always worked together to destroy any credible third party threat. :(

[w8liftinglady]

2. the only way it may help Dems in my neck of the woods is if the Tea Party separates...

away from the middle-of-the-road Republicans.many of the Middle-of-the-roads are leaning towards voting for Democrats in texas elections....fingers crossed!

[KharmaTrain]

3. Definte: Legitimate

The concept of a "reasonable middle" is a joke. Who determines what that "middle" is. Is it pandering to large corporations but not taking as much of their money? Is it keeping tax cuts for the rich cause Michael Bloomberg says so?

Third parties tend to gravitate around one issue or personalities and tries to do it from the top down. No sooner does the election pass then the party either vanishes or is coopted by one group or another.

The concept of high Broderism is both laughable and lacking of any true political conviction as it attempts to avoid the major problems and issues in its zeal for "bipartisanship". Those elected, unless they somehow find a way to elect 150 plus congresscritters and 35 plus Senators, they will be outplayed and out maneuvered by the existing system.

Lastly, the media, with no regulation, is a power among itself. It'd welcome a third party cause that would mean more money thrown at campaign ads. It's not forced to be fair or give anyone access...they're the gatekeepers and whatever agenda they want to present they will.

[MadHound]

4. No, it wouldn't help either of the current established parties,

But it would certainly help the people of this country.

[independent_voter]

5. Both parties crushed Ross Perot's reform party in the early 1990s

Perot isnt a perfect guy, but he was dead right about debt and globalism/free trade

we are living his prediction

[alc]

6. it doesn't need to elect party members

Lots of elections are won by around 5% or less. If a 3rd party could deliver 3% to which ever major party listens to them, that's a 6% swing. If that party could reliably deliver in 10 senate districts they could have a significant influence on legislation. They may turn some senate votes, and would be as important as lobbyists in wring legislation. The most important thing to senators is re-election, so they will listen if you have the 3% that voted for them last time but is willing to vote against next time.

I don't see a 3rd party electing a senator and only the rare congressman. I think the best place to use this would be a sub-party of Democrats (vs 3rd party) in the primaries but primaries aren't so close so you would need more than 3%.

[Dr.Phool]

7. All a third party would do is steal votes from Charlie Crist.

[Courtesy Flush]

8. 34% of the vote will put someone in office

I picture three parties that consist of one on either extreme, and one moderate. Guess who will win every time. Not the moderate. The extremists. Unfortunately, moderate politics don't get people fired up and motivated to vote.

I know it's not playing out like that in real life. We're now looking at Left, Right, and Extreme Right.

[Romulox]

9. Unlikely that voters would be equally split between the three.

In parliamentarian systems, parties seek alliances with like minded parties. Something similar might happen here, too, though "coalition" governments aren't really possible here.

[Gaedel]

10. US history

Third-party movements in the US have either been personality driven (TR, LaFollette, Wallace,Anderson, Perot) or ideological (greenback, free silver, prohibition). The personality driven ones have tended to be "top down" with no roots and have tended to disappear along with their personality. The ideological parties have either remained irrelevant or, if they attract enough of a following, get co-opted by a major party (the Democratic Party absorbing the Free Silver movement in 1896-1900).

[saras]

11. If...

If we had a system that tolerated proportional representation, a third party would work well - look at the countries that do so. Unfortunately, the Republicrats have worked for generations to engineer a two-party system. The 'spoiler effect' is a result of our specific laws and regulations, not a 'natural' consequence of multi-party politics.

We (America) consistently implement 'winner-take-all' election systems. This produces the spoiler effect. Local politics, which in many cases are still somewhat proportional, are commonly attacked for producing 'divisiveness' i.e. demonstrating that people often DO have political interests in subtle conflict with each other, necessitating alliances and such. Instead, the Republicrat machine suggests that local representatives should be voted on by the entire city, which usually results in the complete suppression of any representatives who have any values other than the corporate view.

There have been lots of proposals advanced on how to make our system more representative, on many levels, but the Democrats and Republicans at the top generally agree that either one of them is vastly better than someone who represents people more than the party - that is, most Democratic officials (not necessarily voters) would much rather see a Republican in office than a third party, and equally so for the Republicans.

So, to have a functional third party, we need to either change election laws so that voting for them pushes the whole in the desired direction, or wait until the two parties are utterly indistinguishable. We're getting there, but as long as there are fascists passing themselves off as Republicans, we won't get there until fascism or some modernized form thereof is completely implemented, at which point we may as well call off voting entirely.

Look at the crap spewed on Ralph Nader, and people who voted for him. If those votes had been counted towards the voters' second choice, Bush might have been defeated, or have been forced to use even more obvious forms of cheating to take office.

[Enrique]

12. a reasonable middle would be to the left of both current parties n/t

[Skidmore]

13. If ya'll want a third party, go form one.

Just don't hang around pissing and moaning bout the two party system. Either work to improve it or form a third party. I'm just so sick of the griping in this party and the refusal to do anything constructive. At some point, the left and the right are going to have to realize that they share the experience of living in America. Either we find a way to work with each one another for the betterment of all or we collectively drive the nation into the proverbial pit, which is what I see happening now. No one wants to budge and everyone wants it there way or not at all.

[blindpig]

14. If it were 'legitimate' it would be compromised and useless.

As legitimacy is decided by the dominant section of society anything they approve will be harmless to their interests.

What we should seek is the legitimacy that comes of demonstrable power. Put some millions in the street, shut it all down, then we can use the polls from a position of uncompromised power.

Fuck the celebrities, well meaning fools and suckfish, this has gotta come from the ground up.

[Romulox]

15. It's legal to bribe our government; it doesn't really matter what party they represent. nt