The MORE loyal oppostion - Third Parties

Considering the disappointing nature of the Democratic Party in the US, Labour in the UK, and (pardon my ignorance) whatever us poor pragmatic lefties settle for in other countries, what are the prospects for viable 'third parties' ?

In the US, the Greens have done a good job of staying nationally viable despite a very hostile political climate; but the US political system makes it very difficult to move past that start. Libertarians, Socialists, and Perotistas have had the same problem.

Are you happy with your traditional parties (we hope not!)? If not, what are the prospects? What needs to be done to open up the system in the US? What are the pitfalls?

I think it's in part a matter of counterpropaganda. There's a lot of noise about a vote for a third party being "wasted". But add up all those potential votes from people who are currently disgusted by the system. If they all went and voted -- for anyone other than R+D -- then the two-party system would collapse overnight.

Should there be a "vote your conscience" movement?

mmm. I went through a phase where I did 'vote my conscience', roughly 1988-2000.
(yes, you can blame Bush on me, if you feel like it; I voted for Nader).

I think people have a legitimate concern about 'wasting their vote'; candidates MUST occasionally win (something!), or what's the point?

The 'something' COULD be a proportional share of government. That's how European parliaments do it.

It is tricky.

One thing that occurs to me is that it may not always be necessary for a third party to actually be a potential party of government in order to further their aims. The Greens in the UK have never been near to forming a government, but only a fool would discount the influence they`ve had.

Similarly, J B Priestley`s Common Wealth Party is little more than a foot note to British political history, but I`ve heard it said that parts of their manifesto soon turned up among Labour`s policies !

In the US, third party candidates should not run candidates for President, unless truly viable. Non-viable candidates only draw votes away from somewhat like-minded people who CAN win a national election. (Gee thanks, Mr. Nader...)

On the other hand, a third party could be influential in the Congress, where they could vote with like-minded people to achieve some of their goals. For example, Senator Lieberman votes with Democrats on most issues, but with Republicans on the Iraq war.

Third parties have governed, however fleetingly, in a handful of states, though, haven't they? e.g., Minnesota's former Governor (Ventura?).

Edit: As example of what minority party can achieve, Canadian Tommy Douglas, while leader of the federal New Democratic Party (NDP), with backing from the Progressive Conservatives, was able to pressure the federal Liberals to introduce such policies as the Canada Health Act. Named the "Greatest Canadian." (Wikipedia)

>5 margd: (Gee thanks, Mr. Nader..)

I don't feel that bad; Gore won handily in Oregon without me. Anyway, I considered this more of a 'protest' vote than a matter of conscience.

Even if they don't have a chance, you have to admit that the Pres. campaign is a big media draw: if only we could get third party candidates into the debates, we'd be doing well.

John Anderson back in (1980?) was also a bit of a spoiler, but he certainly moved things around a bit. Perot certainly split the Right to Clinton's benefit. We could hope that the same thing happens in '08 with the center-right and fundie-right.

Giving the Fundies their own party (like the 'Constitutional' Party attempted a few years ago) could be good or bad, but I think they could be marginalized since they've never shown much talent for following the rules...

>5 margd: Yeah, and another possible is to leverage local victories...the key is to get a lot of media coverage somehow; otherwise you get written off as a fluke.

Jesse Ventura is an inspiration, of course, but it doesn't seem that he was very effective.

Arnie, Governator of California, is also an interesting case even as an R. I think if a Center Left national party was formed, both he and Clinton (and Lieberman, yuch!) could be recruited into it. There are a hell of a lot of national politicians that really don't FIT anywhere.

Is THAT possible? Can a Center Left party become viable in that way? Or would their platform be even less coherent than the Dems?

While it's true that the electoral system in the US erects nearly insurmountable barriers to third party participation, I think it's still important for third parties to run candidates at every level, not least to raise the issue of those barriers themselves and promote reforms such as instant runoff voting or proportional representation that could help address some of these systematic problems.

I like the idea of a third party from the middle middle. There would be both centrist conservatives and centrist progressive/liberals. These groups would be dedicated to creating legislation or party goals that they could get behind as a party. This would require learning the other guys position, comparing it with yours and working out the differences. Being from the center no ones position should be too far in any direction to cause insurmountable problems.

I expect a party of that sort to be a winning party almost from the beginning.

>9 geneg: 'Being from the center no ones position should be too far in any direction to cause insurmountable problems.'

A nice fantasy that might be.... a nice mathematical anology for what I mean:

the average of 2 and 8 are 5;
the average of 4 and 6 are also 5;

Now, imagine a politician (such as Lieberman) holding positions on issues that seem to represent a pretty conservative bent (rabid support for the Iraq war), and at the same time a somewhat progressive social agenda. Where does he fit? Would he be more trouble than he was worth? What about the issues the Fundie Right has stirred up, that has EVERY politician scrambling?

Perhaps we should DEFINE what a Centrist platform would look like, and decide whether any existing or prospective politician would want to join?

#8

Daschaich`s point is interesting (and loosely similar to an earlier one of mine).

One cautionary note though. Left wing groups in the UK have tended to `parachute` into particular constituencies when an election is imminent, present a manifesto, then sit back and wonder why they got no votes. I imagine that is what happened with the SPGB in Scotland recently.

It is important to do the ground work first, I think.

I`m surprised you`re talking about the need for a centre party. Do you regard the Democrats as left-wing ?

`Scuse any typos, I don`t have my glasses on.

11> no, we regard the Democrats as severely dysfunctional. Ha-ha but serious.

Don't know if my fellows agree, but in my view the last two Presidential elections blew up because:

1) The Dem. party couldn't articulate a clear agenda that avoided paranoid backlash from the far Right (which flames were skillfully fanned by right-wing talk radio, Fox News, etc.).

2) Neither candidate was able to capitalize on their clear advantages in competence; Bush couldn't win an elocution contest with a baboon.

3) Both candidates failed to counter obvious lies and distortions about their positions on issues, their personal character, etc. etc. in spite of the fact that they knew these things were coming (particularly Kerry).

4) The Dems gave up too early in their attempts to get to the bottom of the '00 Florida results (and the role the Supreme Court played that situation); they have done little since to reform the (severely broken) election system, which is actually 50 separate systems.

5) In general, the DNC has done little to counter the Fundie Right / Neocon agenda at least since Bill Clinton took office: thus the continuing ill repute of the word 'liberal' among other things.

"I belong to no organized party, I am a Democrat". quote often attributed to Will Rogers.

wyrdchao, it's not a matter of the average political position, but a mater of the mean. In your analogy above rather than take the average of two numbers which may actually yield a non-centrist position, the center is found by taking the mean.

If opposition to continuing the Iraq war defines a Democrat, then Joe Lieberman is not the only Democrat excluded by that definition.

I can envision a centrist political party as one taking a good chunk, if not swallowing whole hog the libertarian social program, while modifying their economic program to fall more in line with managing markets in ways that encourage participation at all levels, reduce the potential for fraud, limit the ability of monopolies or collusive tactics among businesses, and so forth.

The tax code needs to be re-jiggered to something resembling the Clinton Tax Code, although I would be willing to see a flat tax based on total assets less total liabilities rather than income.

Another item on this agenda could be an overhaul of the laws governing corporations, they are not human beings. The laws should be based on reality, call a spade a spade.

A voluntary single payer healthcare system, in which only those who participate in the front end, by a payroll tax or other means of paying the government a flat rate based again on total assets less total liabilities, are covered. No other subsidy for health care need apply. Two ways to go, get coverage by participating in the system through taxes or go to any doctor and pay whatever the going rate is. If you have the money or desire, use a pay as you go approach with the same doctors, hospitals, services, etc you would get with the single payer system. If you are very wealthy, pay as you go may be less expensive for you than joining. This gives the consumer not only choice of doctors and facilities, but payment methods to boot.

Maintain a foreign policy more in the Clinton mold as well. As that great progressive Teddy Roosevelt said, walk softly and carry a big stick. Treat all countries with honor, justice, and respect. Make it a policy to talk to everyone, not necessarily at the highest levels, but it is a shame that we do not have direct communication with Iran and Cuba. When the time comes and they change, which they will, we will be without influence.

I'm sure others out there can think of other centrist positions that don't smack of Robin Hood.

I'd thought I'd join just to make a couple comments on this. The two major party candidates when theat is decided will be more concerned about reaching the middle--more apolitical voter and maybe siphoning off as many of their oppositional parties supporters as possible. They're far less concerned with the concerns of people they already believe are firmly in their camp. It's interesting perusing Dailykos for example--seeing some 30,000 votes in last months poll and seeing these kinds of percentages 35% Edwards--26% Obama 8% Clinton!!!!!! 7% Kucinich etc etc.--and yet this week a CNN poll has Clinton at 46% Obama 23% and Edwards 15%. (These numbers are all from memory but I think they're about right). The people at Kos are more like aparatchiks for the Dems but the party itself takes them for granted. Makes me wonder anyway just who is appealing to who or what. I am another unrepentant Nader voter by the way. I don't agree at all that third party candidates shouldn't run if they are not 'viable'. It's not Ralph's fault or problem that people might like him better but too many of them pull the lever for someone else--a lesser evil in their minds more often than not--just because they don't think he has a chance of winning. Why is it that something like instant runoff voting is of almost no interest to the leaders of both the Democratic and Republican parties? Are they afraid that people will start voting for those they really like best? Why is it that both parties depend so much on corporate donors? Wouldn't we better off if election campaigns were financed only by public donors? Truthfully though much more sympathetic to the Democratic party--I was pleased to see the likes of Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders elected to the Senate in 2006--I see it distancing itself exponentially from its own base from one election to the next.

14> Sorry for the poor analogy, and thanks for the long list. Clinton really did have a lot of good stuff perking along, even if the Monica/Whitewater-struck media couldn't see it.

I'm just worried that an 'average' centrist party would have so little in common that they wouldn't be able to keep together a long-term platform, and a 'mean' one would include too few members.

#14, Geneg--

Balance budget?

Protect pensions in bankruptcy proceedings?

Put Social Security in black? (If Canada and GM can fix their pension systems with careful investment of contributions, surely US can, too.)

Reduce carbon footprint, e.g., car mileage?

Invest strategically in infrastructure (grid, water, flood control, transportation) and education?

Establish independent commission to recommend Congressional districts?

Pass National Aquatic Invasive Species Act or similar comprehensive exotics legislation?
(Er, guess you can tell that one's dear to my heart!)

Those are certainly issues worth talking about, although from my own personal pov I'd rather spend money on getting America off the grid, than on. I do understand we need the grid now, but a gridless future would render us less vulnerable to attack and other failures and if we were off the grid, that means we would each be creating our own juice.

17>Pass National Aquatic Invasive Species Act or similar comprehensive exotics legislation?

One very interesting idea in Kim Stanley Robinson's Green Mars was that of a third branch of the judiciary: An environmental court.

Any citizen or corporate body could sue the government on behalf of shared 'natural infrastructure'; this also assumes that there is a body of constitutionalized environmental law that the other branches of government can modify and defend.

Re third parties, Rick Mercer's piece on an electoral reform referendum in Ontario is a hoot!

Click "Mercer: Electoral Reform" at
http://www.cbc.ca/mercerreport/

Edit per CBC News, Oct 11, 2007:
Ontario voters have rejected a proposed electoral reform that would have seen some provincial legislators chosen based on a party's share of the popular vote, results showed Thursday.

The system was the subject of Ontario's first referendum in 83 years during the provincial election on Wednesday. However, Ontarians headed to the polls amid criticism and confusion over how officials spread the word about the mixed member proportional (MMP) plan.

On Thursday afternoon, with 99.8 per cent of polls counted, the proposal had the support of 36.85 per cent of the vote. Meanwhile, 63.15 per cent of voters cast their ballots in favour of the existing first-past-the-post (FPTP) system.

...

As I stated elsewhere, although third parties in Parliamentary Systems only need a few adherents to gain representation, in the US third parties seldom run viable candidates for the legislature, they mostly surface in Presidential elections where the deck deals an Ace high straight flush in Spades to the two parties, eliminating the ability of the third party to gain any traction. All a third party can do is siphon votes from one or the other of the two major parties. One could quite accurately say Ross Perot elected Bill Clinton and Ralph Nader elected BushCo.

I personally, would like to see a new party in America. It has to be created from the ground up and must appeal to enough of the electorate to effectively replace one of the two current parties as the Republicans did the Whig's in the mid-nineteenth century. In the US the Presidential election process eliminates the possibility of third parties electing President's without broad appeal to the entire electorate.

While I feel a certain despair over the Republicanization of the Democratic party and outright disgust over much of what I have seen of the Republicans over the past thirteen years, I like it the way it is. The Electoral College needs it's electors selected based on congressional district and Senatorial selection, but it should not be replaced by a total popular vote.

In my previous note I unintentionally assumed everyone knew why the Electoral College prevents third parties from electing Presidents. Let me try to give our non-US friends a brief tutorial on the Electoral college and it's role in electing President's.

There are a minimum of three elections needed to elect a president. Primaries, where parties select a candidate (or that's the hope), the general election in which the US elects, by state, the slate of electors which will make up the Electoral College (even most Americans think this is THE election and think they are voting for the presidential candidate). Finally, at a time and place specified by Congress, the Electoral College meets to cast their ballots and elect a President.

Each state puts up a slate of electors equal to one per congressional district plus one for each Senator. There are 535 electors.

Slates of electors are selected by the parties that put them forward and are quite often major players in that party, big donors, politicians, people with vested interest in ensuring their party elects the president.

When the votes from the general election are counted, the slate of electors that gets the most votes, wins. If a candidate gains one more vote than the slate in second place, that slate of electors is sent to the Electoral College. Depending on the state, this can be a significant number of electors. For example California has 53 congressional districts plus two senators for a total of 55 electoral votes. Delaware and Rhode Island each have one congressional district and two senators for a total of three apiece. This makes California a major player in Presidential politics.

Now, to use California and three political parties with slate of electors on the ballot, the assignment of those 55 electors would go this way.

1,000,002 R votes
1,000,001 D votes
1,000,000 I votes

The entire slate (55 electors) will go to the R party. None for either of the other two parties.

When the Electoral College meets, the electors can cast their votes as they chose, They are not bound to the party that puts them forward, but they are ALWAYS chosen from the party elite so crossovers are rare as hen's teeth. In the two hundred years of this process one can count on the fingers of one hand the number of electors who crossed over.

This election of 535 voters is counted and certified by Congress and we have a President-elect.

That is how president's are elected in this country. I hope this is helpful and not too confusing.

And occasionally the Electoral College elects a President, who did not win the popular vote.

In a parliamentary system, two minority parties can be asked (say, by the Queen or her rep) to form a government. Was the Electoral College originally intended to choose a president, for example in a three-way tie? In the beginning, when president and vice-president could be from different parties?

I don't know for sure that it was, but it came along as a result of the party system that developed under Jefferson and Hamilton. One of its effects is to keep the President and Vice-President together. Electors I believe vote for President and Vice-President together with one vote.

I had hoped that my little example of California and Rhode Island/Delaware would go some way to showing how and why national majorities don't count as much as state majorities, an absolute stroke of genius of Federalism.

Initially, the House of Representatives elected the President. The person with the most votes won, the person with the second most votes became VP. This system was practically guaranteed to split the President and VP. The Framers wanted desperately to avoid the factionalism that came from political parties, but obviously they did not succeed. It has always been a Federal rather than a National office. They switched to the Electoral College I believe after Jefferson was elected VP to John Adams.

FYI, govt site on Electoral College has small blurb on attempts to revise the electoral College and the role of third parties--you piqued my curiousity:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#whyelectoral...

What proposals have been made to change the Electoral College system?

Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as "archaic" and "ambiguous" and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981.

Opinions on the viability of the Electoral College system may be affected by attitudes toward third parties. Third parties have not fared well in the Electoral College system. Candidates with regional appeal such as Governor Thurmond in 1948 and Governor Wallace in 1968 won blocs of electoral votes in the South, which may have affected the outcome, but did not come close to seriously challenging the major party winner. The last third party or splinter party candidate to make a strong showing was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (Progressive, also known as the Bull Moose Party). He finished a distant second in electoral and popular votes (taking 88 of the 266 electoral votes needed to win). Although Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote nationwide in 1992, he did not win any electoral votes since he was not particularly strong in any one or several states. Any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the popular vote has a good chance of winning in the Electoral College, but there are no guarantees.

I would like to see electors elected by congressional district based on the outcome of the congressional election. If an R is elected then the R's name the elector for that district. For Senators the party represented by the senator or senator elect would select the elector representing that senatorial position.

Except for votes based on the Senators this would be essentially the way we started except the President and the VP would be from the same party.

I am totally opposed to the abolition of the Electoral College. It is, like the Supreme Court, a means of preventing strong passions from making a mistake in the election of a President. It requires broad support for the candidate across all regions of the country. Unfortunately it is not perfect, but it is far better than popular election of Presidents. With popular elections as few as a half a dozen states could conceivably elect a president.

At the end of the Constitutional Convention when Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government they had created his response was (rumored to be) a republic if you can keep it. They INTENTIONALLY avoided a democracy. Their great genius was understanding that electorates are subject to faction and can be emotionally manipulated to the detriment of themselves and the country, so where they could they built stumbling blocks to prevent these things from having lasting effect.

To go to direct election of presidents would be a slap in the face to wisdom.

It's interesting to note the people most interested in popular elections are the ones who lost the last election. The election in 2000 was the third time in 200 years we elected a minority President.

IF we were to change to the system you recommend, EVERY state would have to do it that way.

In Californian there is a movement to split JUST the electoral college votes from California, which would effectively hand the election over to the Republicans, so the thinking goes. They can win just enough electoral votes in other states to have the surplus votes in California push them over the edge.

But if California were to do that, my guess is that other states would soon follow.

Of course this would not affect my state at all. We only have one representive. Geneg, rather than split by legistatative districts, can you imagine a system where we can actually split our three votes? I am not sure how many states just have one district..Wyoming for sure. If it were one vote per district, that would tilt the election slightly toward the right, because ALL our votes would go into one pot. But then, how much does two or three votes matter?

You are right about what California wants to do and the Constitution does not presume to tell the states how to apportion their electors. Any change to the method of selecting electors must be done nationwide and at the same time. I guess the Republicans are afraid they can't win in an honest election. Legal does not equal honest.