Why 3rd parties can't and won't win the WH.

[Mr.Vicchio]

In America there are the two main parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. This system holds onto it's own power through money, sheer size of the parties involved and by virtue of being in power, can rig the game in their favor, but that has little to do with why a 3rd party candidate will never win the White House.


It comes down to power, no not the power of the two parties, but the power of the 3rd party Candidate. You see, let's say Mack from the New Party runs for office, he has a good platform, it has appeal, and he's a good guy that people like.

He will still lose.

This isn't because of vote rigging, or because of nefarious constructs of power in the halls of Washington, but rather simple voter intelligence. Electing Mack might appeal to voters in terms of "sending a message" but when they get into the voting booth, reality sets in.

Mack would have no power. Both parties would fight to undermine Mack, for several reasons, the least of which is their own power as a party. Siding with Mack would undermine their own base, their own power and leave both parties vulnerable. Little would be accomplished and people know this.

The real route to national power is to start at the "grass roots" level, and build a strong national party that starts getting people into high offices and build a power base from which to actually enact change that can be carried out in Washington, and that the voting public can support.


Until a 3rd party reaches that point, it's just not gonna happen. Both the GOP and DNC are imperfect, but they have a coalition of power and that's one reason for example I support the GOP.

[tman_ndsu08]

I'm still waiting to see if the "Free State Project" has any effect.

[bishop]

yes, 3rd parties are sorely lacking in grassroots support - just as they must constantly clear huge hurdles imposed upon them by the establishment. when people who lean third party, like ron paul, go on tv - the get assaulted by the establishment media.

if there's one thing that the two major parties have, it's coalition of corruption. they all believe in the same things - big government, deficit spending and imperialism. they also like to divide and conquer the voting population by inserting fringe issues into their campaigns, while spending little time truly debating vastly more important issues.

republicans still talk about how they're the party of limited government, and there are enough fools out there who actually believe them. democrats are the party that supposedly fights for the little guy, yet they gouge the middle class and send their jobs overseas.

[Osborn F Enready]

If we authorize taxation for representation, the only answer is for us to remove public/corporate PRIVATE financing of elections, and invoke a tax-dollar paid for election and campaign fund, with strict rules written in about doling that money to the canidates who meet "ballot requirements" equally, regardless of party.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for two parties to represent 300,000,000 people, in any measure that resembles NEAR adequate.

To claim any different is absurd.

We hold elections so the peoples voice can be heard, and their "campaigning" is only to get out their message to the people, and to DEBATE challengers.

The debates are a joke, and the two major parties do all they can in coercion with major media to ISOLATE the debates to only the two major parties, since they operate on the same playbook, and address only the same talking points, to which they can recite pre-written, regurgitated answers, and have NO valid questions presented by opponents who can competently challenge them. (since no third parties are allowed to debate, no fear of a challenge from the two "major party" canidates, who are owned lock stock and barrel by corporate lobbyists, and special intrests.)

[brien]

Third parties face tremendous disadvantages in national and state elections today. They are discriminated against by the media and are framed as outcast "kooks." The elcetorate has no idea who they are unless they have gobs of their own money to spend on their own campaigns, as did Perot and Forbes.

Remove the money requirement from elections and we would get a fair and balanced view of all candidates with which we could decide who best represents our interests in the halls of government.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready If we authorize taxation for representation, the only answer is for us to remove public/corporate PRIVATE financing of elections, and invoke a tax-dollar paid for election and campaign fund, with strict rules written in about doling that money to the canidates who meet "ballot requirements" equally, regardless of party.

Strict campaign finance reform sounds great. I support it. Too bad Ron Paul and most American libertarians do not:

Ron Paul: "... Congress has no authority under Article I of the Constitution to regulate campaigns at all. Article II authorizes only the regulation of elections, not campaigns, because our Founders knew Congress might pass campaign laws that protect incumbency."

"Campaign Finance Reform" Muzzles Political Dissent

Rep. Paul apparantly doesn't support any constitutional amendments either. I guess he'll just have to wait for the two major parties to voluntarily reject political fundraising and let the third parties catch up. It's gonna be a long wait.

[Osborn F Enready]

I have no doubt Paul doesn't support TAX based campaigns.

I never said he did.

That doesn't mean he isn't the least harmful canidate running to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Liberty and equality of the individual.

I am one of few Libertarians who would view a tax based approach as reasonable, but I have my reasoning.

Some libs agree, some don't.

Paul is still hands down the least harmful canidate in the running for President, and that alone stands proven by his voting record compared to ANY of the others.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Paul is still hands down the least harmful canidate in the running for President, and that alone stands proven by his voting record compared to ANY of the others.

I disagree, but it doesn't really matter. As people have said on this thread, third parties need money to compete. I'm sure the anti-campaign spending reform candidate from Texas will scrape up some dollars on the internet. Best of luck.

[GHook93]

Part of the problem is the next largest party is the Libertarians. Who are extremists that support a system as crazy as communism (but just on the other side of the spectrum).

[Osborn F Enready]

Yea, damn extremists who demand individual rights..... law, justice....

how dare they.....

how rebellious, and revolutionary....

(in the 1770's anyway)

[The Decider]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Yea, damn extremists who demand individual rights..... law, justice.... how dare they..... how rebellious, and revolutionary.... (in the 1770's anyway)

Send this comment to Ron Paul. It might persuade a few more wealthy donors to open up their wallets. Lord knows the Texas Republican Party won't--"Freedom of Speech" for campaign finances is one Libertarian argument that fat cat party fundraisers just LOVE.

[Osborn F Enready]

I am not trying to convince honest canidates to become corrupt to win.

I would rather aim to fix the system, to attract honest canidates.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I would rather aim to fix the system, to attract honest canidates.

I agree. But unfortunately for campaign finance reform advocates like you and I, Ron Paul, and most Libertarians, do not. Without a somewhat equal money playing field, the Libertarians will be out of contention for the foreseeable future. Unless some populist like Ron Perot takes another crack at the presidential race--minus all the crazy behavior.

[Mr.Vicchio]

McCain Feingold won't last too much longer, it's obvious even to the most partisan what garabage and anti-free speech that bill was.

[Osborn F Enready]

The Decider said: I agree. But unfortunately for campaign finance reform advocates like you and I, Ron Paul, and most Libertarians, do not. Without a somewhat equal money playing field, the Libertarians will be out of contention for the foreseeable future. Unless some populist like Ron Perot takes another crack at the presidential race--minus all the crazy behavior.

I would tend to agree, but I would also add the other variable I see open, which is that Americans by majority are forced to vote by conscience rather than traditional methods, due to the unprecedented bad choices being provided by our current flock of failures from the major parties.

I think it should be kind of flattering it takes these incumbent parties millions of dollars to fool the public into thinking their previous record of lying and doing the opposite of what they say, is somehow gone, and they are somehow now valid canidates who should be given trust and respect as "having our best intrests" as their focus.

The Bi-Partisan Monopoly is to easy to expose anymore, which is why it is taking millions of dollars of hush money, favors and backroom agreements to keep the scham going.

I would like to think the Bush/Cheney mistake was a last, desperate grasp for empire in sea of changing public attitude, but the media today is quite powerful to the largely uninformed.

Its a bumpy road ahead, regardless of the tactics and players. Now more than ever I hope the people recognize the need to curtail the power of government, based on the plays going on now for unitary executive power, congressional oversight abuse, and outright ignorance or complicity, and un-constitutional law creation and adoption, without prior reading and debate worthy of the event.

Time will tell.

[nm420]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Until a 3rd party reaches that point, it's just not gonna happen. Both the GOP and DNC are imperfect, but they have a coalition of power and that's one reason for example I support the GOP.

Yeah, but I'd just as soon "waste" my vote on a third party candidate than waste it on one of the two clowns offered up by the establishment parties. Hell, I'd sooner waste my vote by not casting it than give it to an unworthy candidate. I've allowed myself to be fooled into this fallacious "either/or" choice one too many times. I don't ask for perfection out of the candidates I vote for, but at the minimum they need a platform I can mostly agree with, regardless of how feasible that platform may be.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Yea, damn extremists who demand individual rights..... law, justice.... how dare they..... how rebellious, and revolutionary.... (in the 1770's anyway)

Demanding individual rights it one thing, taking it to an extreme is another.

[GHook93]

Quote by: The Decider Send this comment to Ron Paul. It might persuade a few more wealthy donors to open up their wallets. Lord knows the Texas Republican Party won't--"Freedom of Speech" for campaign finances is one Libertarian argument that fat cat party fundraisers just LOVE.

Ron Paul! LOL, did anyone see this guy on Bill Maher. What a nut-job. And he is the best representative of the Libertarian party.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio McCain Feingold won't last too much longer, it's obvious even to the most partisan what garabage and anti-free speech that bill was.

McCain didn't have a shot in hell from the beginning!

Upset conservative/Evangenicals a while ago. They won't vote for him.
His stance on the war turned off 3/4 of the population. Many independents won't vote for him.
His stance on immigration further turned off conservative.
His about face on abortion wasn't even close to believable.

[Osborn F Enready]

Ghook said: Demanding individual rights it one thing, taking it to an extreme is another.

How is the American National Libertarian Party extreme on individual rights?

Ghook said: Ron Paul! LOL, did anyone see this guy on Bill Maher. What a nut-job. And he is the best representative of the Libertarian party.

I didn't see him on Bill Maher, because I don't watch Bill Maher, usually.

Who said he was the BEST representative of the Libertarian Party?

Oh, YOU did, didn't you. I didn't see anyone else say that.