On the Birth of New US Political Parties

Tuur said:

A check and memory makes it depressing. It seems that successful formation of political parties in the US depends on splintering from an existing party, and even then it's not successful. There's Theodore Roosevelts Bull Moose Party, then the Dixiecrats. Ross Perot's party was practically a flash--in-the-pan event, and I remember someone recruiting for another start-up party in or around 1992 that was not Perot's and which turned out to be out-there and not in a good way (no, I can't recall the name of the party). The latter tried to build a base on the local and state levels but failed.

It seems that successful party formation depends on existing infrastructure, though. That makes sense since any start-up party is going up against established political machines.

Not very encouraging.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the American Solidarity Party was founded in 2011, and only managed to garner a few votes (40,000) in 2020.

There is sadly no room for a third party or a new party.

Source: About — American Solidarity Party

Tuur said:

A check and memory makes it depressing. It seems that successful formation of political parties in the US depends on splintering from an existing party, and even then it's not successful. There's Theodore Roosevelts Bull Moose Party, then the Dixiecrats. Ross Perot's party was practically a flash--in-the-pan event, and I remember someone recruiting for another start-up party in or around 1992 that was not Perot's and which turned out to be out-there and not in a good way (no, I can't recall the name of the party). The latter tried to build a base on the local and state levels but failed.

It seems that successful party formation depends on existing infrastructure, though. That makes sense since any start-up party is going up against established political machines.

Not very encouraging.

Click to expand...

It’s all so uphill. Not very encouraging indeed.

I’ve seen political parties work from precinct and district and even state levels. I worked on a brief unsuccessful congressional campaign. I worked to get an independent presidential on a state ballot and we succeeded. It’s all hard work and most of it is long term commitment.

We have four months to the election. The big guys are on the ballots already. The ASP is on the ballot in only a few states. So it’s probably down to write in ballots in most states. Very uphill.

But the uphilliest thing of all is people getting over the thought that they HAVE TO vote for either the Democrats or the Republicans because that’s the way it is. Then there is the money. When it’s all told each party will blow well over a billion dollars on this, hundreds of millions in many states. Your vote is bought and paid for don’t forget.

So what to do? The easy path is just to vote for the second worst candidate and be done with it. Harder is to let someone know of your plans to vote for another party and be told “Oh you’re just throwing away your vote”.

The ridiculously hard thing would be to get ten thousand campaign workers together to talk to people night and day and convince them to write in a candidate. We should be able to win with 34% of the vote. AND I saw it happen. Well regarded Norm Coleman, a former Democrat now Republican and mayor of St. Paul was running for governor of Minnesota against Skip Humphrey, whose only real asset was his father’s last name. It would be a close race with Skip Humphrey favored to win. But then Jesse The Body Ventura joined the race. He showed up at debates and worked hard and when the votes were counted he won and Skip Humphrey came in third. Now Ventura was not at all my guy, but even though a bit crazy he was not that bad a governor. Just to say that yes, things like this are indeed possible.

Tuur said:

A check and memory makes it depressing. It seems that successful formation of political parties in the US depends on splintering from an existing party, and even then it's not successful. There's Theodore Roosevelts Bull Moose Party, then the Dixiecrats. Ross Perot's party was practically a flash--in-the-pan event, and I remember someone recruiting for another start-up party in or around 1992 that was not Perot's and which turned out to be out-there and not in a good way (no, I can't recall the name of the party). The latter tried to build a base on the local and state levels but failed.

It seems that successful party formation depends on existing infrastructure, though. That makes sense since any start-up party is going up against established political machines.

Not very encouraging.

Click to expand...

The last time a new political party was truly successful was the creation of the Republican Party in the mid 1800's; and the election of Lincoln to the presidency. Of course this, in part, led to the American Civil War as the South feared the new Republican party, and Lincoln, were going to take away their "right" to own slaves. The success of the Republican party is almost certainly, at least in part, due to the downfall of the Whigs. That, and other factors, created the conditions in which a new party could arise successfully. Though the situation of political parties from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until the Civil War was also very different in general; and the level of establishment the two major parties have had in the last 150 years is much more than the 70 years between the Constitution and the Civil War.

I think it's probably about time for the two parties to be retired; we don't just need a good third party, we need a plurality of parties offering competing policy and choices for American voters. In order to get that, however, we'd have to not only retire the current two major parties in some capacity, but we'd have to drastically restructure the way we do elections top to bottom all over this country, on the federal, state, and local levels.

-CryptoLutheran

Tuur said:

A check and memory makes it depressing. It seems that successful formation of political parties in the US depends on splintering from an existing party, and even then it's not successful. There's Theodore Roosevelts Bull Moose Party, then the Dixiecrats. Ross Perot's party was practically a flash--in-the-pan event, and I remember someone recruiting for another start-up party in or around 1992 that was not Perot's and which turned out to be out-there and not in a good way (no, I can't recall the name of the party). The latter tried to build a base on the local and state levels but failed.

It seems that successful party formation depends on existing infrastructure, though. That makes sense since any start-up party is going up against established political machines.

Not very encouraging.

Click to expand...

Tuur, I am curious, are you in a 3ird party?

Your complaint is very true in the USA where the Congressional system is in place. Third party candidates are no more than spoilers. The reason that 3ird party politics does not work in the USA involves our congressional system. We are not parliamentary. Let me explain.

In Parliamentary countries, after an election, their political parties must join together to form coalitions so that they can have a majority and rule. In the USA, our political parties are already coalitions. We choose a faction within a political party during our 1st election called "primaries." The primary loosers have to choose to form a coalition around the primary winners.

Each party can have a wide variety within its coalition. The Democratic party has far left individuals like Bernie Sanders and more moderate individuals such as Joe Manchin (went independent 2 months ago). The Republicans have "a coalition of conservatives, right-libertarians, populists, and centrists." (quote in blue taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)"

In your OP, you are right. Third parties never stand a chance. They only serve a spoilers. Third parties are usually way to narrow to form coalitions and so are relegated to be a very distant 3ird place.

Tuur (the OP author), I think you might be looking at Parliamentary style politics. In Parliamentary politics you get more choices of political parties, but the Parliamentary parties are far more narrow on issues and are more like a faction within one of the major parties of the USA.

I would say that there are two major differences between the Congressional system and the Parliamentary system. First, you vote for a political party in the parliamentary system (and not a person). Second is the question of when the coalition occurs. USA Congressional politics have political parties that already have pre-existing coalitions. In the primaries we choose the personality that will represent the coalition. In Parliamentary politics, the parties form coalitions sometime after the first election. My point is that coalitions are formed in different ways in the Congressional and Parliamentary systems. However, in the end, coalitions must be formed with either democratic system, just at different times in an election cycle.

I watched the recent elections in France. In the first Franch election, the far right (anti-emigration party) won the election. Coalitions reacted to this win and shuffled their coalitions. The far left withdrew, and they voted for the moderate/left party. That coalition won the next election about 1 week later. In the end, after negotiations, repeated elections, and shuffling, Macron's smaller center party seems to have won. Macron's smaller centrist party had to negociate on their issues to form coalitions to win.

Nevertheless, I feel your pain. I too have chosen not to join either major political party in the USA because they include coalitions that include people who differ from me in world view. Well, that is the nature of coalition political parties. To be a part of a 3ird party might be self defeating, because I do not get to vote in primaries and have my say in either coalition. So I have to ask myself the question, do I wish to be a part in choosing the leader of a coalition, or do I want a political party that accurately reflects my world view. That is a tough choice.

At the end of your OP you say, "its not very encouraging." I completely understand that. While the USA rarely reflects my world view, I love the USA for its liberty. I get to think what I want, say what I feel like, and I truely do care about my country. If I desire to not be a part of one of the two political coalitions, that is my perogative. If I choose, I can refuse to vote. I get to turn my long warted nose up at all political parties inlcuding 3ird parties if I want. My ultimate loyality is to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the master of the universe, Jesus Christ. But until he returns, I do thank God for placing me in America and I will pray for my country and its leaders, Democratic or Republican.

Don Maurer said:

In Parliamentary countries, after an election, their political parties must join together to form coalitions so that they can have a majority and rule. In the USA, our political parties are already coalitions. We choose a faction within a political party during our 1st election called "primaries." The primary loosers have to choose to form a coalition around the primary winners.

Click to expand...

I don't know about other parliamentary countries, but here in the UK, a coalition is formed only when the result of an election leads to a result where the winning party does not have a substantial majority of the seats in Parliament. For instance, there is no need for a coalition here at present because the Labour party won a substantial majority. The last coalition was in 2010, and the one before that was in 1945, so it's not a regular thing.

David Lamb said:

I don't know about other parliamentary countries, but here in the UK, a coalition is formed only when the result of an election leads to a result where the winning party does not have a substantial majority of the seats in Parliament. For instance, there is no need for a coalition here at present because the Labour party won a substantial majority. The last coalition was in 2010, and the one before that was in 1945, so it's not a regular thing.

Click to expand...

OK, no insult intended, but I am not as familiar with UK politics. I hope its OK to ask questions. In France, the conservatives won the first election, and then they had a 2nd election one week later as a run off, and the conservatives lost. Is that the way politics works in the UK also, or did Labour win on the first vote?

Don Maurer said:

OK, no insult intended, but I am not as familiar with UK politics. I hope its OK to ask questions. In France, the conservatives won the first election, and then they had a 2nd election one week later as a run off, and the conservatives lost. Is that the way politics works in the UK also, or did Labour win on the first vote?

Click to expand...

Thanks. Let me reassure you that I didn't find your post insulting in any way. To answer your question, here in the UK an election involves just one vote. In the recent election, the Labour Party won the most votes, and they form the government. Candidates from other parties (and independent candidates) who won the vote in their constituencies (so Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, etc) form the Opposition.

Yeah, I find myself between parties at the moment.

I would say that I am a paleo-libertarian, but hesitant to embrace the label since a lot of them seem too cozy with anti-Semites.

9Rock9 said:

Yeah, I find myself between parties at the moment.

I would say that I am a paleo-libertarian, but hesitant to embrace the label since a lot of them seem too cozy with anti-Semites.

Click to expand...

I guess the Libertarian bug has never bitten me, paleo or otherwise. My tendencies go back to the old Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party which then merged with the Minnesota Democrats to form a party that had no exact corollary outside of Minnesota. Think Hubert Humphrey. Except for the name it is extinct even in Minnesota.

I am trying on the American Solidarity Party for size. The fit seems OK for me. But they really do need to launch and it looks like they may be stuck at 1% this year if they're lucky. So we get Biden ... woops ... Kamala or The Donald. What a lousy outcome to look forward to with better than 75% not really liking either candidate all that much. It SHOULD be a landslide for a third party candidate but it won't even be in double digits.