Talk:Third Parties

From dKosopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

--Tunesmith 22:31, 10 May 2004 (PDT) I'm not sure how to integrate this yet, but I don't agree that Third Parties are always doomed. I believe Third Party *Presidential Candidates* are always doomed due to the structure of the Electoral College... (but then again, even there, Ross Perot was leading both Clinton and Bush before the '92 conventions.)

The point is to separate presidential elections from the other ones, though. If Condorcet voting were allowed on a state level for all races except the presidential race, then over time, the Senate and the House could both easily have multiple-party representation.

--wegerje 13:51, 12 May 2004 (PDT) I would love to see a debate about the doomedness of third-party efforts. The reason I raise the idea is to begin to highlight the need for electoral reform (Condorcet et. al.) I see that as the only way out of the Doomedness.

I do agree with the sentiment, though - we have to come out hitting hard on this one - too many people advocate third party presidential candidates without putting the right thought into it.

Glibfidget 20:45, 29 May 2004 (PDT) Disagree:

This entry is not scholarly, and doesn't even feign neutrality. Does this serve as the progressive definition of "third party" or is it "one liberal's opinions on the futility of third parties"?

Remember, this should be a resource, not a soapbox.

-wegerje 21:04, 29 May 2004 (PDT) Agree and Disagree

I am a strong third party supporter and not much of a liberal. The article as written is purposely not "scholarly" and not meant to even feign neutrality. My goal here is to frame the issue in a way that highlights the critical need for electoral reform. Many people come to third parties from and for the idealism they enjoin. The last thing we want is for them to lose interest in the "third party movement" because they come to realize the "doomedness" of third party efforts. The way to do that I believe, is to focus on the solution to the "doomedness", electoral reform.

A scholarly take on "third parties" can not do that. I am not opposing a scholarly approach in addition to what has been written so far, but for "our" purposes it must, I believe, take a back seat to the "enlightening" approach.

Remember, this should be a soapbox and a resource.

Glibfidget 21:21, 29 May 2004 (PDT)Maybe I'm misunderstanding the purpose of this thing, then. To me, a basic third party write-up would be brief statement about third parties, brief history of their role in contemporary American politics (including Perot, Nader, etc), brief outlook on the future for them (admittedly, grim), and that's it. If you want to push for electoral reform, this doesn't strike me as the place to do it.

-wegerje 04:01, 30 May 2004 (PDT) I hear you. Here then is my take on the " purpose of this thing." In many other cases I would agree that the approach you have outlined is the "correct" one to take. But because "this thing" is both and advocacy tool as well as an educational tool there will be opportunities for advocacy that should not be missed simply because they me be "outside" of the "educational" relm. I believe that "Third parties" is such a case.

Therefore, I believe, we (those of us who may have different takes on a particular subject) should accomodate each others advocacy issues at the start (the most important part of an article) and then after that "introduction" (which could be formalised with the word "introduction" or not) we could provide the "educational" part of the article.

To these ends I am placing the "controversial" notice at the head of this article until we have full time to hash out some of these issues here. (I will be away from a computer at times over the next several days).

end wegerje.


Third Parties are doomed because the power is in the hands of those who want the system to stay the same; the only chance for third parties are those who have candidates that can finance their own campaigns, and compete monetarily with the Democrats or Republicans. However, you may see Republicans helping out leftist parties in hopes of drawing votes from Democrats and vice versa, as it might be a good strategic move in close races.

Third Parties are doomed because the power is in the hands of those who want the system to stay the same; the only chance for third parties are those who have candidates that can finance their own campaigns, and compete monetarily with the Democrats or Republicans. However, you may see Republicans helping out leftist parties in hopes of drawing votes from Democrats and vice versa, as it might be a good strategic move in close races.

Third Parties

--AlexT 16:44, 30 May 2004 (PDT)

Third Parties are doomed because the power is in the hands of those who want the system to stay the same; the only chance for third parties are those who have candidates that can finance their own campaigns, and compete monetarily with the Democrats or Republicans. However, you may see Republicans helping out leftist parties in hopes of drawing votes from Democrats and vice versa, as it might be a good strategic move in close races.

Which is a great point used in arguments in support of Instant Runoff Voting. Chadlupkes 12:48, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

So Maybe I need to take this debate elsewhere

But I don't think so. In order to get where we need to be we must be a little more accommodating of the TwoParty. But it will take a third party to get the job done. What is needed is a different slant on what a successful third party would be. It seems to me that a party that operates ONLY in the House of Representatives is in order. The House of Representatives is the Constitutional seat of power in the United States. The rest of the government is Constitutionally less powerful. So the will of the people can be enacted through the House even if the (P)resident is not in agreement. That "power of the purse" is one hellova hammer.

So it seems to me that we can create fertile ground for third parties by expanding our democracy; by expanding the membership of the House of Representatives. This seems a catch 22, or a chicken egg sort of thing, but perhaps not. What if our "third party" had but one aggressive plank in its platform and that plank was to do all it can to double the membership of the House. The party otherwise is committed only to prosecuting representatives for not doing what the constituency of the representative directs the representative to do. The oath taken by any member of this new party is to assist the party in honestly informing the people as to what is going on in their government and then to actively solicit the will of the people and do as directed. And any representative that is a member of this party is bound by oath (legally if possible) to vote on any legislation in the House as directed by his constituents. The representative will caucus with this "third party" or with one of the current parties as may be decided by the parties and the constituents.

Personal tools