Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
View Poll Results: Can a 3rd party actually win enough elections to make a difference in Washington?
My first foray into pole-dom..... Have at it, gang!!
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
It would seem very unlikely. Throughout 230 years of various types of conflict, we've never elected a 3rd party candidate to President and succeeded in electing only a sparse few 3rd partyers to Congress at any one time.
I find this sad as I think our society would benefit from more than two choices, but I find it extremely unlikely that it will....ever.
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
Third party candidates like Perot and Nader have definitely made a big impact in elections by taking votes away from the major parties. But will they ever get enough votes to actually win? Don't see it happening anytime soon.
Third party candidates like Perot and Nader have definitely made a big impact in elections by taking votes away from the major parties. But will they ever get enough votes to actually win? Don't see it happening anytime soon.
The problem is that the only notable third party candidates have been on the political fringes, and neurotic to boot. I think if a third party's platform was socially liberal and fiscally conservative (actually conservative, not W's "compassionate" brand) and moderately hawkish on foreign policy, it'd have a chance. But it's going to take somebody with political traction like Guiliani or McCain or maybe Joe Biden to abandon his own party, and obviously that's taking a monumental personal risk.
Yes, but it would take a viable (moderate) candidate from either Republican or Democrat side to break from the constraints of the narrowly foucused parties to really get the ball rolling.
The problem is that the two parties will and have done anything they can to keep the 3rd party candidates out of the debates, through challenges and stupid rules like the (I think) 2% rule.
Unless 3rd party can be part of the debate, then it is doomed to failure. Plus the 3rd party candidate would have to be so squeaky clean that he/she would make Widex look like mud.
Both Republicans and Democrates would be spending so much $$ and time digging up dirt and it is hard enough when you have 1 party doing it.
I assume the term viable to mean electable. With that being the definition and national election, i.e. - Presidency, being the objective my response is no. No time in the forseeable future will this nation elect a third party candidate.
As has been suggested by other posters, the difficulty facing a third party candidate, aside from devising a platform different enough to be significant, is the efforts of the two existing power to minimize their existance.
However, I believe that a third party that has an impact upon national politics is, and has been a reality recently. River mentioned Nader and Perot, not only do their candidacies impact the voting outcome (ok, moreso Perot than Nader) but they also impact the scope and slant of political debate. The two major parties have to adjust their campaigns and platforms to deal with the influence of the substantial third party candidates. This will continue to be the greatest accomplishment of third party.
Personally, I have begun to more seriously consider third party candidates and will continue to do so.
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
why does every other civilized country have more than 2?
__________________
"Seachicken - it's what's for dinner" - me (until the 'Hawks sweep the Cards)
Every man has at least a bit of womanizer in him.
Check out Dephinger and Stoutpounder on our respective MySpace pages.
however, to me a 3rd party is viable, if they can influence ideas ... i think they are gaining steam in this, but to expand further they will need access to debates and gain a platform where they can compare and contrast their ideas without coming off as a fring lunatic
Well in the past we have mostly had two parties. Though not the the same two parties.
Prior to the civil war parties would come and go. Some would rise up and others would disappear.
Given the environment since that time and considering the power that the two main parties have to make it difficult for alternate parties to get a foot hold it is not very likely.
The only real hope is that people get upset enough with "politics as usual" and we actually do form an independent majority as has been discussed on this board.
Too many people still have a loyality to this or that party. For these people the otherside is evil or just bad. This attitude tends to make people overlook the shortcomings of their own party.
I will say possible but extremely unlikely.
__________________
“votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense.” ~H. L. Mencken
Linear Mode
