RealClearPolitics.com: Economy Is Weak, Voters Are Angry -- Time for Third Party?

[deejaydana]

Link to Article:

http://tinyurl.com/y9cl8fa

Will I get the 'tin foil hat' title for posting this piece ? Seriously though, I think the "constant fight = no results" formula both parties are involved in with each other is doing wonders to push more and more people to become independents (or at least consider it more seriously than in recent years). So my question is: who is that candidate? Can a legit third party contender arise to at least shine a light on how gridlocked Washington D.C. has become? What say you ESers from across the board's political spectrum?

"Americans are worried," he said, "about a pending national fiscal nightmare that could doom the U.S. economy to slow growth and second-rate status.

"They instinctively sense we may be becoming like Britain after the Second World War, quickly fading in relevance, our currency losing credibility, our industrial and entrepreneurial edge dulled, our people deeply frustrated."

For one thing, he said, for unemployment to fall from 10.2 percent to 5 percent, the economy would have to produce 250,000 jobs a month for the next five years, whereas the average monthly job growth rate over the past 20 years has been 90,000.

"Reducing unemployment to where it was before the [current] crisis may be impossible," he said. "So get ready for an American work force full of long-term anxiety - and anger."

Smick, once chief of staff to the late Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) and a 1996 presidential campaign adviser to Democratic Sen. Bill Bradley (N.J.), added that the barely recovering economy is burdened by "a 300-pound backpack of personal and public debt."

"Within a decade," he said, "the U.S. will be borrowing $722 billion a year just to pay interest" on the national debt.

"We're about to enter a fiscal trap, chasing our tail just to pay off our creditors. That's the experience of Third World regimes. Their currencies lose all credibility. They suffer from high and crushing interest rates, ending up as wards of the International Monetary Fund."

Smick is an expert on all this. He's made a fortune as an international trader and he wrote a best-selling book, "The World Is Curved," on the dangers of the unregulated world financial system.

Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama ("George W. Obama") have made matters worse, he said.

"Both proposed huge new entitlements with no way of paying for them. Both are at a loss at understanding the means of creating new private sector employment opportunities. ...

[Larry]

IMO, the only thing that the two Parties are guaranteed to unite on, is blocking the possibility of any third Party whatsoever. They've literally been trying to make it illegal for decades.

(And the "if my candidate loses, I wasted my vote" effect guarantees that they'll never get any noticeable votes, anyway.)

Only way I could see a third Party even getting a seat in Congress would be if the idea I've posted about for proportional representation were to pass. (And I think that would take a miracle.)

[Thiebear]

Bob Barr FTW

[mjah]

(And the "if my candidate loses, I wasted my vote" effect guarantees that they'll never get any noticeable votes, anyway.)

Yet they never quite get to "if my candidate loses my state, I wasted my vote" -- which you'd think should be a logical extension of their point of view, given the way the Electoral College works.

Maybe I presume too much knowledge of the EC in the electorate. But "losing = wasting" didn't deter some people in MA from voting McCain, nor some people in AL from voting Obama.

[Ellis]

I hate that people think voting is about winning. It's not completely about that.

It's about standing up for what you believe in and choosing the candidate that best represents you as an individual. And in some cases if economic/political climate is really challenging, voting for the well being of your state, county or city is more important than yourself.

IMO, far too many people vote out of hatred for the opposition. I've grown tired of how the 2 dominant political parties divide people up. I don't think most young people know what they really believe in. In my 20's I knew what I stood against more than what I stood for.

In the last 4 years I've spent far more time researching alternative candidates rather than listening to the candidates of the dem's or republicans. There are elements of each party that I like but I've never completely liked any one candidate. But I'm just tired of being lied to. I'm tired of all the attack ads each party clearly pays for and claims "oh that wasn't us... that was uh... some really passionate group that believes in our candidate." STFU, everyone knows it was you!

I'm on an e-mailing list for 4 political parties... Dem's, Republican's, Green's and Libertarian's... just so I know what's going on in each party. Every email from Dem's and Republicans is written with an attitude of "oh my God!! Look what so-and-so from the other party is doing!! Lies!! Scary stuff!!! ...please donate $5." The Green party is the most disorganized party. I know they mean well and feel strongly about their issues but they suck at being moderate. Libertarian Party I've only recently signed up for and I can't quite gauge them just yet. The general attitude I seem to understand from them so far is "wow, look at the Dem's and Republicans go at it. So ignorant. Thank God we're not involved in that." But I think they would be involved if they had a chance to.

You can definitely feel like a lot of people are starting to grow tired of the bs. For the first time in DECADES, our country is facing some really bad challenges and the two dominant political parties are trying to make a typical political game out of it.

And ya know... those same tired political games are really starting to piss me off much more than usual. We have a crisis on our hands. The dollar is tanking hardcore, 1/5 of the nation is unemployed, foreclosures are at unprecedented levels, commercial realestate hasn't even tanked yet... what else could possibly go wrong? (knock on wood)

[Ignatius J.]

Yet they never quite get to "if my candidate loses my state, I wasted my vote" -- which you'd think should be a logical extension of their point of view, given the way the Electoral College works.

Maybe I presume too much knowledge of the EC in the electorate. But "losing = wasting" didn't deter some people in MA from voting McCain, nor some people in AL from voting Obama.

logical conclusion: the lack of a third party has very little to do with the hesitancy to vote for someone who will definitely lose.

I'm not going to claim that there is a simple answer for the dominance of the two party system, but I think that you have to start by acknowledging that plurality voting tends to lead to two party systems in democracies across the globe, not just in ours. Parties position themselves on issues to capture voters. If voters positions on issues were to move far enough away from the platforms of the two parties, one or the other party would move to fill the vacuum and the one most likely to move would be the one most likely to experience a net gain from in votes from the shifted position.

That is not to say that every stance on a given issue is represented between the two parties. But, for stances on issues outside the platforms of the two major parties, there aren't enough voters who determine their votes based on those issues. For example, marijuana legalization is not being pushed by either party because there are relatively few voters for whom a pro marijuana legalization stance is a positive deciding factor in their vote. (and there are a large number of voters for whom such a stance is a negative)

I think the fact of the matter is that there is no silent majority that wishes there was a third party. You might wish there was a party more like you but if there were really a ubiquity of platform stances unrepresented by the two major parties, I think a third party would have come out by now. And furthermore it's clear why this should never happen. Political parties are dynamic and always on the lookout for more votes and are only too happy to shift their positions to enlarge their coalitions. (present republican party excluded ) It's just the nature of the game.

[Larry]

Yet they never quite get to "if my candidate loses my state, I wasted my vote" -- which you'd think should be a logical extension of their point of view, given the way the Electoral College works.

Maybe I presume too much knowledge of the EC in the electorate. But "losing = wasting" didn't deter some people in MA from voting McCain, nor some people in AL from voting Obama.

Actually, the best response to the "I don't want to waste my vote" excuse was a fable:

Tom and Dick both decided that the candidate who best fit their views was third-party Candidate Z.

Tom observes that Z doesn't stand a chance. So he looks around, and decided that Major Party Candidate Y is The Lesser Evil.

Tom votes for Candidate Y, who he really doesn't like that much. Candidate Y wins by 200,000 votes.

Dick votes for the Candidate Z, the candidate who he most agrees with. Candidate Z gets 0.5% of the vote.

Tom voted for a candidate he doesn't like, who won. For the next four years, Tom knows that he helped to give that candidate his authority. Dick voted for a candidate he supports, who lost.

Which voter wasted his vote?

[cjcdaman]

Sure, as long as that party is fiscally conservative and socially moderate.

[Braxford]

I am national chairman of a centrist/moderate minor party active in all 50 states. There are many minor parties out there, some with very good organization and plans. More competition in the political field will lead to more positive results in government. The key is ballot access. The Reps and Dems are the ones who write the ballot access laws in each state. Some states it is very easy, in other states it is virtually impossible to get a new party on the ballot or to even run as an unaffiliated candidate. Until this changes there will never be a serious challenge by any minor party. There are some big things on the horizon though. A vote for an independent candidate is not a wasted vote. Minor parties play a crucial role in bringing new ideas and influencing the debate. Many ballot access requirements are based off of voting in the last election. If support an indpendent or minor party candidate but don't vote for them in many cases that will hurt the chances of that party being on the ballot the next go around.

This will take time, many, many years for a minor party or parties to be serious competition to the Dems and Reps. unless a group or someone with massive amounts of money to build an organization that will survive withouth them was to step up. Perot could have done this with the Reform Party but ultimately he did not allow the party to grow"bigger and beyond him". For anyone interested in the organization I am involved in or just want more info PM me. I don't want to list it for fear of getting banned for promoting. Ultimately though it is up to us, the American people to demand change, we have to get active and demand more choices and fairer ballot access laws.

[Braxford]

For those concerned about wasting a vote on a minor party canididate or independent google Instant Runoff Voting and take a look. You will find some good info.

[Vicious]

The problem with third parties is they go way off to the extremes. They are losers.

If a third party was right down the middle, things would be different.

[deejaydana]

I am national chairman of a centrist/moderate minor party active in all 50 states. There are many minor parties out there, some with very good organization and plans. More competition in the political field will lead to more positive results in government. The key is ballot access. The Reps and Dems are the ones who write the ballot access laws in each state. Some states it is very easy, in other states it is virtually impossible to get a new party on the ballot or to even run as an unaffiliated candidate. Until this changes there will never be a serious challenge by any minor party. There are some big things on the horizon though. A vote for an independent candidate is not a wasted vote. Minor parties play a crucial role in bringing new ideas and influencing the debate. Many ballot access requirements are based off of voting in the last election. If support an indpendent or minor party candidate but don't vote for them in many cases that will hurt the chances of that party being on the ballot the next go around.

This will take time, many, many years for a minor party or parties to be serious competition to the Dems and Reps. unless a group or someone with massive amounts of money to build an organization that will survive withouth them was to step up. Perot could have done this with the Reform Party but ultimately he did not allow the party to grow"bigger and beyond him". For anyone interested in the organization I am involved in or just want more info PM me. I don't want to list it for fear of getting banned for promoting. Ultimately though it is up to us, the American people to demand change, we have to get active and demand more choices and fairer ballot access laws.

Solid post. I'd love to see some of the obvious discontent out there about the 2 parties channeled into some serious movement towards reform and eventually, some legit third party candidates.

[Larry]

Observing that this whole "it's tough to get on the ballots in some states" thing is only a problem if your Third Party is running for President.

IMO, what the third parties ought to be doing is to try to win a seat or two in Congress.

I still think that the whole "winner take all" nature of our elections would make it really tough. Never mind the whole thing of gerrymandered districts and the incredible advantage that incumbents have.

But it seems to me that, to focus exclusively on Dollars, for example, a million dollars has got to go further in a Congressional District than it does for a Presidential candidate. Maybe pick a district that's been gerrymandered to fit a particular Party, but that Party's candidate just got caught in a men's room or something.

My personal Rise of a Third Party fantasy involves a state like Florida passing a proportional representation law. Now, in order for, say, the Libertarians to win a seat in Congress, they don't have to win a plurality of some gerrymandered district. All they have to do is win 3-4% of the Florida vote, statewide. (If they win 7-8% of the vote, then they get two seats.)

To me, that's the only way you'll ever see more than two Parties in American politics. The nature of the "winner take all" election system guarantees it.

[mjah]

Tom voted for a candidate he doesn't like, who won. For the next four years, Tom knows that he helped to give that candidate his authority. Dick voted for a candidate he supports, who lost.

Which voter wasted his vote?

IMO, neither. Maybe that's exactly your point: each used his vote as he saw fit, which is all you can do.

[alexey]

I understand that many people, myself included, are viewing Obama as the answer to this.

Third party would be great, but in my view at this point the way to get something done is to have Dems get their act together.

[Larry]

I understand that many people, myself included, are viewing Obama as the answer to this.

Third party would be great, but in my view at this point the way to get something done is to have Dems get their act together.

1) I think that's a bit like waiting for the Skins to return to glory.

2) And, frankly, I'm not certain that I want them to "get their act together". I've tended to vote Democrat, lately, and probably the primary reason I've done so is because the GOP has become so damnably efficient at achieving their goals. I prefer the Party that's inefficient.

[Koolblue13]

The problem with third parties is they go way off to the extremes. They are losers.

If a third party was right down the middle, things would be different.

This is a pretty amusing post. Wouldn't McCain have fitted this then?

Fiscal con, social lib FTW.

[88Comrade2000]

Bob Barr FTW

I voted the guy last year.

The only way a third party would have a shot is if an independent candidate wins the presidency and then forms a new party.

I don't really seeing a third party having much success in the midterm elections. It would have to take someone who isn't a republican or democrat winning the presidency in 2012. If things are still bad or worse then, I predict anarchy.