The birth of a third party in American politics

[morteduzionism]

Moderates to blame for GOP losses, conservative leader says

It's hard to see how conservatives and moderates are going to be able to coexist in the GOP. Personally, I think it's more accurate to say: social conservatives vs. everyone else in the GOP

The Democrats/DNC should start doing everything in their power to attract moderate Republicans which would effectively kill the GOP as a viable national party.

Let all those religious fundamentalists and others who insist on legislating morality and inserting the government into the private lives of citizens have the "GOP."

Show moderate Republicans that they can have a voice in the Democratic party and the GOP will be relegated to city mayors and small town sheriffs.

Religious fundamentalists trying to take over a party/country!? Isn't this the type of thing the US govt sends in the military to prevent?

[Oldgamer]

Morte, there will never be a viable third-party in American politics. The system is stacked too well against it.

Note that every major party in American history has simply replaced a previous major party (except for the original parties). One example of this is the Whig Party, which was replaced by the Republican Party (Lincoln was a whig for most of his adult life).

However, conservatives and moderates do not co-exist in the GOP. Either one group is in the ascendancy, or another. No one hates a conservative more than a liberal Republican, and vice-versa.

[morteduzionism]

Morte, there will never be a viable third-party in American politics. The system is stacked too well against it.

Note that every major party in American history has simply replaced a previous major party (except for the original parties). One example of this is the Whig Party, which was replaced by the Republican Party (Lincoln was a whig for most of his adult life).

However, conservatives and moderates do not co-exist in the GOP. Either one group is in the ascendancy, or another. No one hates a conservative more than a liberal Republican, and vice-versa.

Well this in-fighting between social conservatives and moderates isn't going to be a good situation for the Republican party to think about winning a national election...any time soon.

From many of the...
Are the old conservatives (fiscal, small govt, defense, pro-business) considered "moderates" now? While the social conservatives (define marriage and anti-choice) are now the "conservatives?"

The point I was making is that mostly what I hear is a call for the GOP to go back to it's old roots (small govt, etc) and leave the cultural issues to individuals.

The article I linked indicates that social conservatives want to reassert themselves and regain the power they had under W.

Somethings going to have to give, right?

Either moderate Republicans will become Democrats or Libertarians (or some variation)...

Or...

Social conservative Republicans will become...something.

I just think that overbearing intrusive message which comes with social conservatism isn't going to fly in the upcoming years...making it difficult to win a "national" election.

Like I implied they'll get mayorships and sheriff positions but...I can't see much more than that.

[Archaalen]

So why do they remain in the same party? Are both parts of the GOP really that afraid of the Democrats?
I think that a lot more would get done if moderates from BOTH parties broke away and formed their own Centrist party. That way, the more radical elements of both parties would be sidelined, and more would actually get done in Washington.

[MaximiIian]

So why do they remain in the same party?

They wouldn't have a shot at power otherwise, basically. Two-party system being what it is and all.
It's better than the full multiparty systems in other countries, though- they work so hard to get coalitions that nothing really ever gets done.

[Dagon]

I wonder why other major parties were established in the USA? European countries normaly have a mixture of a conservative party, a social democratic party, a green party and a liberal party plus some on the right and left wings. This seems to be quite normal in Europe (expect GB). Since the USA does have a lot of different thinking people it seems quite strange that the "british" party system is used.

Could somebody explain this to me, since i believe it would actually be good for the US to have more parties to choose from.

[wilting]

@ Dagon

The US and UK both use First Past the Post Electoral Systems, which leads to a smaller number of parties. Candidates are elected by a 'winner takes all' system where voting for a smaller party probably means throwing away your vote, so people gravitate towards larger parties that they feel the closest to.

Most European States use Proportional Representation Electoral Systems, which lead to a higher number of parties. Candidates are elected in proportion to the votes that their party receives, so a small party can get candidates elected, and voters do not fear wasting their vote by supporting them.

A pure two party system like in the US isn't very representative of the real political views of the population, but on the other hand a system with way too many parties can lead to chaos. On the whole, a somewhat Proportional System is probably best, but different things suit different societies and different circumstances for different reasons.

And yes, the US won't have a third party without institutional reform, which of course the existing two parties won't facilitate.

[The King Of Peasants]

It's hard to see how conservatives and moderates are going to be able to coexist in the GOP. Personally, I think it's more accurate to say: social conservatives vs. everyone else in the GOP

The Democrats/DNC should start doing everything in their power to attract moderate Republicans which would effectively kill the GOP as a viable national party.

Let all those religious fundamentalists and others who insist on legislating morality and inserting the government into the private lives of citizens have the "GOP."

Show moderate Republicans that they can have a voice in the Democratic party and the GOP will be relegated to city mayors and small town sheriffs.

Religious fundamentalists trying to take over a party/country!? Isn't this the type of thing the US govt sends in the military to prevent?

So you want to make a one party system Mort?
There you go demonizing the social conservatives but I guess on this forum that is an easy target. For those against abortion it isn't legislating morality but saving future citizens.

On the topic a multi-party system would be good but it will take a lot of help from both sides which is unlikely.

[morteduzionism]

So you want to make a one party system Mort?

I have no idea how you inferred that from my post. I clearly suggested to leave the GOP to the zealots and fundamentalists of the right wing. They want it. They can have it.

Moderate Republicans and other rational thinking people will be Democrats or whatever other party they form.

My only point is that moderate Republicans should divorce themselves from the social conservatives of the party...and that Democrats should try to win them [moderate Republicans] over...

There you go demonizing the social conservatives but I guess on this forum that is an easy target.

Not just that. Their views and actions show them to be a soft target. Furthermore, in my personal opinion they are a threat to the US.

For those against abortion it isn't legislating morality but saving future citizens.

Isn't "saving future citizens" a moral issue? Regardless, the nano-second you try to impose your ideals on someone else you're guilty of legislating morality. If you don't agree with abortion here's a simple solution: don't get one

You don't want other people imposing their will on you yet it's precisely what you do in return...

[The King Of Peasants]

What your basically saying make the democrats the only real party... you do know that right?

Not just that. Their views and actions show them to be a soft target. Furthermore, in my personal opinion they are a threat to the US.

So does me being socially conservative make me a threat to our country?
Any time you start saying your political opposition are a threat to the country, you know your too far to the side and need to be more reasonable.

Isn't "saving future citizens" a moral issue? Regardless, the nano-second you try to impose your ideals on someone else you're guilty of legislating morality. If you don't agree with abortion here's a simple solution: don't get one

You don't want other people imposing their will on you yet it's precisely what you do in return..

My opinion is abortion is a wrong practice that shouldn't be legal in the first place. Its not an issue of ideals its human life(or if you like will be human life) They don't allow infanticide is that legislating morality?

[morteduzionism]

What your basically saying make the democrats the only real party... you do know that right?

Possibly on a national level, maybe. But the "Democratic" party would be so diverse (remember it'd include moderate Republicans, etc) could it really be called a single party?

If social conservatives want small pockets of totalitarianism where morality is legislated...let them have it. They can stay in "real America" and that way the rest of us know precisely which towns to avoid on our cross country road trips.

So does me being socially conservative make me a threat to our country?

IMO? Probably. A threat in the sense that the ideology adhered to by social conservatives, IMO, is diametrically opposed to what the USofA stands for: freedom

Telling people who they can marry. What they can/can't do with their body. Forcing a nation to live according to your narrow view of the world and according to your definitions of right/wrong/moral......sounds like a threat to the American way of life if I ever heard one.

Any time you start saying your political opposition are a threat to the country, you know your too far to the side and need to be more reasonable.

...there's a joke there somewhere...lol...a social conservative telling someone to be "more reasonable."

If social conservatives demonstrated a willingness or ability to play nice with others but until then...I think they want to take over the country and impose their rules on the nation whether we want them or not.

Like I said, that sounds like a threat to the American way of life to me.

My opinion is abortion is a wrong practice that shouldn't be legal in the first place. Its not an issue of ideals its human life(or if you like will be human life) They don't allow infanticide is that legislating morality?

So don't give money to any females in your family who might want one. What I don't understand is the hubris that convinces you that EVERYONE has to adhere to your opinion.

"Infanticide!?" If there's a god and (s)he wants to punish a mother for aborting a baby/human/fetus/whatever...let God do it! What business is it of yours? Do you believe your soul will be damned because someone you don't know sinned?

That's another reason moderates should divorce themselves from the Republican party. Let the zealots come together to create their own utopias. The "real America." Places where abortion is banned or no Dr. would perform the practice based on spiritual reasons. A place where Peter doesn't like Paul (in other words no openly gay anything).

I'm thinking something like the Amish. Except with electricity.

[The King Of Peasants]

Wow how observant you noticed that was my opinion... Even if it isn't outlawed I think every attempt should be made by both sides to eliminate it over time. As quickly making it illegal will just mean people will get back ally abortions which are far more dangerous. So we need to eliminate it by not having groups advocate it(for politics) properly educating kids on it and expanding other options.

If social conservatives want small pockets of totalitarianism where morality is legislated...let them have it. They can stay in "real America" and that way the rest of us know precisely which towns to avoid on our cross country road trips.

Look I think killing babies is wrong if that makes me totalitarian so be it!

Possibly on a national level, maybe. But the "Democratic" party would be so diverse (remember it'd include moderate Republicans, etc) could it really be called a single party?

It wouldn't have to be a single party but a system with one legitimate party is a one party system like our country is a two party one even though there are many small parties.

there's a joke there somewhere...lol...a social conservative telling someone to be "more reasonable

...So basically because I am socially conservative I am unreasonable?

[Kiljan Arslan]

Well if a third part is formned I'm all for it I think it should be called Bull Moose.

[Hunter Makoy]

Well if a third part is formned I'm all for it I think it should be called Bull Moose.

knowing u that wouldn't suprise me, and a good choice that would be in the vein of TR, however, a more appropriate title would be the Undecideds, since thats wat they really r. during an election they mainly just sit around and ponder which party they are gonna vote for, and then pick one.

part of the reasoning is that they voted in waves for Democrats? how is that evidence of a third party? they just voted for one of the existing parties. obviously at this point in time the dems fit wat they wanted in large part.

[Viking Prince]

Third parties are patheric attempts at government. In Colorado, the Libertarian Party is congradulating politicians for getting 5% of the vote. And it is not as if they were running in all races either. Take a look:

Dear Colorado Libertarians,
Election day is FINALLY behind us.
How did we do?
Well, we did OUTSTANDING!!!

These are the preliminary results:

• Presidential Race:
  
  Bob Barr and Wayne Root got 9,398 votes in Colorado (with 92% reporting)
• U.S. Congressional District 1:
  
  Martin Buchanan ran against Diana DeGette and pulled over 11,276 votes for 4.2%.
  This is GREAT NEWS for the Denver LP members. Awesome Job Martin!
• State House 25:
  
  Jack Woehr brought in 1,850 votes which is 4% in a three way race.
  Congrats Jack (I know it was not the same as running against Tancredo)!
• State Senate 28:
  
  Ken Wyble, who ran a low key campaign & helped Jim with his,
  garnered 2,188 votes for 5% in another three way race.
• State House 42:
  
  Jim Frye walked away with 1,132 votes for 7% in a three way race.
  We usually don't break 2%. WAY TO GO JIM!!!
• Boulder County Commissioners:
  
  Our Boulder boys did the best by percentage. In a deeply Democratic county,
  
  they pulled off amazing results, all of which were three way races:
  
  • Bo Shaffer: 9.62%
  • Randy Luallin: 7.72%
  • Ralph Shnelvar: 7.64%

All in all we had a very successful year. We averaged 5 percent in each of the races we ran (excluding president of course). This shows us that Colorado is starting to see the Libertarian perspective and to make that leap of casting a vote. We need to "keep on keepin' on" more than ever now. With 10,950 registered Libertarians, a new state headquarters, 8 strong counties, and 4 counties on the horizon, this is going to be a busy two years.

Remember to donate to your local county organization as well as join the 1776 club for the state party. We need more money and more volunteers in order to make that 5 percent a 10. Also, if you helped on a campaign, or liked watching one of the above candidates do their stuff and would like to try it yourself, please contact the Campaigns Director at:

campaignsdirector@lpcolorado.org so that he can get you started on the path to election.
I cannot thank all of our wonderful candidates enough. You all did a great job and the party has advanced due to your efforts. That goes for everyone who worked on a campaign too. We are really seeing some good solid candidates and campaigns coming together. Let's keep that trend going.

[Legionem Insanis]

Moderates to blame for GOP losses, conservative leader says

It's hard to see how conservatives and moderates are going to be able to coexist in the GOP. Personally, I think it's more accurate to say: social conservatives vs. everyone else in the GOP

The Democrats/DNC should start doing everything in their power to attract moderate Republicans which would effectively kill the GOP as a viable national party.

Let all those religious fundamentalists and others who insist on legislating morality and inserting the government into the private lives of citizens have the "GOP."

Show moderate Republicans that they can have a voice in the Democratic party and the GOP will be relegated to city mayors and small town sheriffs.

Religious fundamentalists trying to take over a party/country!? Isn't this the type of thing the US govt sends in the military to prevent?

They ruined it for me. I voted for Dems in the mid-terms because I was fed up with the Republicans. This election I was hoping McCain would be a moderate enough Republican to balance things out and then he goes off and picks Palin. I didnt agree with him about staying in Iraq 100 years either.

[Admiral Piett]

As it stands now, somewhere between 10 - 20% of the American population, maybe more goes almost entirely unrepresented because of the two party system. We have a two-party system mainly because of our winner-takes-all voting method. I am a part of that percentage. I cannot agree with either party on a long list of issues while both have their advantages. I guess you could consider me a fiscal conservative but social liberal. I guess that puts me in the moderate category.

I guarantee you that the Republican and Democratic Party would lose a lot of their grip of power on American politics if we began using a preferential voting system. I have only voted in election so far. I voted for Barack Obama. Guess where he was on my list of preferred candidates? Probably number 5. Number 1 being Ron Paul, number 2 being Mike Gravel, then Kucinich, etc.

[The King Of Peasants]

As it stands now, somewhere between 10 - 20% of the American population, maybe more goes almost entirely unrepresented because of the two party system. We have a two-party system mainly because of our winner-takes-all voting method. I am a part of that percentage. I cannot agree with either party on a long list of issues while both have their advantages. I guess you could consider me a fiscal conservative but social liberal. I guess that puts me in the moderate category.

I guarantee you that the Republican and Democratic Party would lose a lot of their grip of power on American politics if we began using a preferential voting system. I have only voted in election so far. I voted for Barack Obama. Guess where he was on my list of preferred candidates? Probably number 5. Number 1 being Ron Paul, number 2 being Mike Gravel, then Kucinich, etc.

That is terribly false 3rd parties take in like 1-2 percent in an average election 15-20 is absurd most 3rd parties are too radical one way or another to gain legitimacy or a large base.

[Mikelus Trento]

Personally, I don't see the Repubs being able to shed the evnagelical right, and predict there will be a viable third party by the next Presidential cycle.

I'm just not sure whether this new party will be the old Repubs cutting off the extreme right, or the right inheriting the name and the new party choosing a different name.

[wilting]

That is terribly false 3rd parties take in like 1-2 percent in an average election 15-20 is absurd most 3rd parties are too radical one way or another to gain legitimacy or a large base.

Lets' be clear here; people generally don't vote for third parties, even if that party is their 'preferred' party, because they perceive it to be a waste of their vote. Voter turnout is a poor measure of real political views in a first past the post electoral system.

The number of parties in political system is NOT a result of the diversity or lack thereof of political views; it is a result of self-interested behavior by voters and those with political aspirations. They largely choose the only games in town.

If the US was a parliamentary democracy with a proportional representation electoral system, it would have 3.5 or more effective parties.

This is basic political science.