Frank StaheliAre Third Parties Viable?
Traditionally in America there have been two major political parties. More recently some third parties have become larger and stronger. Is there any benefit to having more than two parties? Are there detriments? I have my opinion, but I wonder what you think.
Salt Lake City radio talk show host Bob Lonsberry recently made some fun of a gentleman who called in wishing that his third party would get more shrift in the media. National talk show host Michael Medved reviles third parties every chance he gets. He refers to the Libertarian party as the “Losertarians”.
In Utah this year (and perhaps in other states) the Constitution Party had a pretty good showing. In one state legislative race, the Constitution Party challenger garnered 30% of the vote against the Republican incumbent. Jim Noorlander of the Constitution party came in third place (with 11%) in the race against Republican Chris Cannon, but he was only 15 percentage points behind Democrat Christian Burridge.
I may occasionally be accused of throwing away my vote, but I thought I used it pretty wisely this time around by voting for Constitution party candidates.
Do third parties add benefit to the political process in America? I think–at least in the case of the Constitution Party–they do. What’s your opinion?
November 24th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Third party candidate Ralph Nader cost Gore the election in 2000 and gave us George Bush on a silver platter. I blame Nader and those who voted for him for the unimaginable mess that we find ourselves in today.
November 24th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
That’s a familiar whine, “Ralph Nader cost Gore the election.” But it dodges the main issue– why was the vote so close in 2000 and 2004? If the Dems had the courage to really connect with the majority of Americans who agree with them on so many issues, the Green Party wouldn’t be needed.
November 24th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
God help us, they had better be.
November 24th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Familiar whine, perhaps, but entirely true. Had Nader not run, then Gore would have been elected. Supporters of Ralph Nader knew very well in 2000 that a vote for Nader might just as well be a vote for Bush, and yet they voted for Nader just the same.
Nader and his supporters have Iraqi blood on their hands!
November 24th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
I agree with Richard’s train of thought. It depends on how you look at it.
From Nader’s point of view, the democrat party didn’t really connect, which is why Nader felt he had to provide an alternative.
Personally, I felt that Bush and Gore represented two speeding cars headed toward a cliff. One may have been outpacing the other, but both would steer the country over the precipice in their own good time.
I didn’t vote for either of them.
November 24th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
You can’t really have more than two parties unless you go to a parliamentary form of gov’t, which brings with it a bunch of other problems.
The founding father debated this form of gov’t in great depth and thus invented the two party system. It would be very very difficult to switch now, thus, it is my guess, 3rd party candidates will only ever reflect the sentiment of the people, but never have power.
What the hell was wrong with Christian Burridge?
November 24th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Good then, then at least one of the current parties deserves to die off,….
so much the better for we of the 3rd way, to take their place.
November 24th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Yes, Andy, at least one of the current parties needs to die off, or, at the very least, be sent to pasture, or perhaps some of its leaders to the Hague. We all know which party that would be, too. Don’t we? So… that would lead to some very interesting discussions about the future between the Dems and the Greens. I, for one, am very much looking forward to these debates.
November 24th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
And most likely, it will be the entire collection of third parties now existing that ultimately die off, cause they’re just Dem wannabes for the most part.
November 24th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
If they wanna be Dems, then they ought to be Dems. Which brings us back to something written up-thread. Greens, voting for Nader, sort of inadvertantly gifted us with the Bush / Cheney et al fiasco. I seem to recall a great deal of snubbing of the Green actors before the 2000 election and felt that negativity was very inapropriate on the part of the Dem establishment. A little acceptance at that time would have made a world of difference today. Since it’s not realistic to assume that the Repubs are going away it would be better if the next ‘big’ party was more open to the people of the Green party at least. Share credit for ideas and certain foresight. what harm could there be in that?
November 25th, 2006 at 9:56 am
There are no greens in this Country worth mentioning, fire up the V-8, hitch the boat to the trailer and let’s go to Powell!
The reality I see, is social agenda democrats going the way of the dodo, along with neo cons,… they are the flip side of each other, looking for changes that are not going to come from the American people. sidenote:If the killing was going well for us in iraq there would be no complaints, from anyone. Right now the complainers are all people who sanctioned the affair, so they have no credibility.
The 3rd way would be the populist way.Freezing the social agenda, ending the war, minding our own business, securing our borders, ridding ourselves of entangling alliances, limiting federal spending and of course, rapping out the big V-8 every free moment we get.
In Utah opening roadless areas to snowmobiles and dirt bikes, exploitation of valuable resources on public lands, manufacture of a much needed toxic waste dump to increase Utahs’ revenue, so it can quit being a no load state.
Improvement of I-15, so Utah can be the superhighway for illegal aliens and Nafta based economy so as to render the corridor a shell for corporate avarice.
The implementation of doctrinaire theology as a modus operandi for Utah government, all this seems more likely for you guys.
A new winter sport based on global warming, where Utahs’ water resources can be cooned for snowmaking and other vital activities that may pass with the oncoming warmth, that mean so very little, to so many.
The implementation of smoke generators for the Beehive, so as to keep the worker bees calm, whilst their honey is stolen from them. I guess the coal burners will suffice for that.
So come now! It is a new day, one rife with possibilities for enhancing corporate greed, the bauble hangs so shiny and availiable, damn those that wish to preserve it.
Grow dixie into a dryed up megalopolis, with spanish tile extending from canyon wall to canyon wall. Ah, blessed is the god that hath given us the world and everything in it for our ends, and as the world is upon its end, there is no reason to be concerned of the consequence, as the faithful shall be lifted off into heaven, while the sinning unfavored get to rot in the excrement of gods people.
Lo, what a glorious sight such a day will bring! Our lord glow upon us, like the the new nuclear storage facility, radiating their love upon the remaining faithless.
November 25th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Let’s give vouchers to the third parties, using money from the voucher groups like Parents for Choice (to use your money to pay for their choices) in Education. They have enough money to spread around I think. Give third party and Democratic candidates money so that we will have more “choice” in our elections. Since the voucher special interest groups are all about having “choice” and have plenty of dough already, they should be able to see the wisdom in contributing.