The weekend is over….and I know the people along the Eastern Coast are happy as Hell…..now we return to the world of cowards, liars and pundits…..politics will be up and running…….so onward and upward!
Remember the media whore…Nader and his 3rd party run? Some could argue that he assisted in the Bush years…….or how about Buchanan or Anderson or Perot or Wallace or yada, yada…….there is always another party besides the horrible two…..we just do not hear about them as much…..and that is the fault of the media….that do NOT want a third party….they are happy to promote the two party system….any more than that and they will have to re-tool their rhetoric……
This election cycle….we have a Dem president and a whole array of whack jobs that are trying desperately to win the GOP nomination……and we have not heard from the usual suspects that seem to always try to nose their way into the political stage….you know, parties like Libertarian, Reform, Green on and on……but could this election cycle be different?
This time around we have the possibility of a real lunatic becoming the nominee of the GOP…..if that happens could we see a sane person try to peel off and run as 3rd party? A sane person……say Huntsman…..I am not a big supporter but he does speak like he has at least half a brain which is twice as much as the rest of the field…..
But what could be the straw that breaks the 2 party back? According to Matthew Dowd of the National Journal…….
I have created the scenario for an opening for a third-party run. So what are the likely outcomes if that happens (and as each day passes, it becomes increasingly possible that an independent could run) in the general election?
1. Based on the allocation of votes around the country; the Electoral College, which makes third-party success very hard; and the history of failed third-party candidacies, it is unlikely that an independent could actually be elected president. The deck is just stacked in favor of the two major parties, and the inherent electoral structure makes it incredibly difficult for anyone else to win.
2. The third-party candidate draws a large minority percentage of the vote, but doesn’t win any states (and thus, electoral votes). This scenario likely would reelect Obama, who then would just need 38 percent of the vote nationally to succeed. He could win enough states with a vote percentage in the 40’s to gather a majority of electoral votes. The Republican base would be below this threshold; and without enough votes to back the GOP nominee to kick Obama out of office because of the third-party siphon effect, Republicans would watch as a president without a majority of the votes gets reelected. This has happened a number of times in American political history.
3. The third-party candidate is able to win enough states (and hence electoral votes), to actually block both major-party candidates from winning the required 270 electoral votes. The election would then be thrown into the House of Representatives, which — when looking at how the voting works — would likely elects the Republican candidate. Why? Because each state is given one vote in this eventuality, and the congressional delegation from each state gets to decide how that one vote is cast. So Alaska gets the same power as California! Today, Republicans almost always win more states in national elections, and they will likely hold a majority of the delegations state-by-state in a new Congress. (At present, they hold the majority in 33 delegations.)
Dowd has some good thoughts about the possibility of a third party or even an independent…..but how successful do YOU think it would be?
Thoughts?
This is an interesting take on the issue. I’d never thought of it before but the deck is definitely stacked against a third party candidate. I lived most of my life in the US but now live in NZ where they have an interesting, and I think vastly preferable system which is designed to empower small parties. There is a Parliament with a single house–no senate and HoR. There are a fixed number of seats in parliament and more seats than there are electoral districts. Each party, and there are two major parties, six important and about 12 that don’t matter, has a list of members ranked 1 through X.
On election day, we cast two votes, one for the person you want as your MP and another for the party you like. The person you vote for doesn’t have to be with the same party you vote for. Every individual who wins their electorate gets a seat in parliament and each party gets allocated a number of seats based on the number of votes the party gets. If a party has more seats than the number of their people who actually get elected, the seats are filled by people on the list. The leader of the majority party becomes the prime minister and forms the government.
The reason I like this system is because it prevents extremism because the loonies can vote for the fringe parties who aren’t big enough to have a voice but it also gives a voice to minority views because the major parties almost never get enough of a majority to rule so they need to form coalitions with minor parties. Right now we have the bizarre situation where the National party (comparable to the Republicans) are running the government but don’t have a clear majority. So they are in coalition with the Maori party which represents the indigenous people here and are one of the most liberal parties. The other coalition partner is ACT which is farther right than the Republicans. So as I say, all voices get heard but the end result is more centrist and therefore limited damage can be done.
The biggest criticism of the system is that there are unelected “representatives” in the house. For example, none of the Green party candidates have ever been elected in their own right but the Green party gets enough votes to give them some seats in parliament. Once again, the benefit is that they are there to raise hell about important issues and get them on the table but there is a reality check on any extremes.
Morning Thomas….personal opinion….I prefer the parliamentary form….at least other voices can be heard…..I have been doing a bunch of research on this for a book and I like what I hear so far……it is the EU that I am having a problem with….but that is another post (I am sure)……we Americans have no real reps in Congress….we have paid corporate shills that rule our country….
I thought the Tea Party was the third party. But I guess they are just hiding out with the Republicans for now.
Hansi….they seem to be the extreme right wing of the GOP…….but I would not rule them out as a third party if they do not get their way in established party.
Dowd worked for Bush43 and both of Ahnolds campaigns. Why he switched from D to R I dunno but perhaps they pay better.
In any case, his thoughts on this issue only serve to worry me as it’s another way to circumvent the system. A system I hate btw. I think I favor Thomas’ system, but would have to ponder it some more.
I want a strong third party..but what if it’s the extreme right? Since I consider myself a Socialist, I obviously would want to see a strong extreme left party since I believe it’s the folks in the middle that got us into this mess, because they are uninformed and vote based on stupid personal parameters. 😉
Morning Dusty…..remember Huffington use to be a conserv also……I think these people just go where they think they can be more recognizable or have more attention lavished on them…..
Sorry to say…..but the only way we could actually get a real third party is with a change in election system, not too many politicians want that….
Check out my next post…the Con Job…..