Which Third Party is worth it?

[Albion]

My guess: its been around too long with little success. Its not new or interesting or novel anymore. (This is a problem all third parties will face. If they don't get near-instant success, kinda like Obama and then Trump did as individuals, people will lose interest and go back to whats familiar.)

Not even the left outside of the Greens want to support or talk about them. Maybe Jill Stein a couple years ago was the last time they got press but i think she soon said something "problematic" and was tossed aside and forgotten.

That could be. The Libertarian Party has been at work for almost half a century and it has taken that long to become even somewhat accepted as part of the political landscape. The Greens have been around much less long and they have seemed to be gaining ground and publicity.

As for the recent surge of interest in Socialism within one of the major parties...well, that could blunt the need for such as a Green Party. But the Greens exist in Europe where Socialism is much more established and all it would take here is for some big setback for the Socialists in our major party (Biden getting the presidential nomination, for instance) for the more impatient elements to seek another party. So I guess I see it possible of going either way.

 

[jayem]

I've voted Libertarian at times. I voted for Ed Clark for Pres. in 1980. I didn't care for either Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan. I've also voted Libertarian in several state elections.

I'd like to see a party that's socially moderate-liberal, but fiscally conservative. Something like the old northeastern Republican wing. This would be Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javitz, Jim Jeffords, Olympia Snowe, Margaret Chase Smith, and Bill Weld. And some others, like Sens. Chuck Percy and Mark Hatfield. I think it's fair to say Pres. Eisenhower was in this category. This was the Republican Party that passed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. And voted for Title X. (A Richard Nixon initiative which provided federal money for birth control. It's where Planned Parenthood gets funding. Can you imagine a Republican doing this today?) This was when it really was the Grand Old Party.

BTW: Republicans were the original social progressives. It was largely the brainchild of Teddy Roosevelt. When the party wouldn't go for his ideas, he left and formed the Progressive party, AKA the Bull Moose party. Teddy's positions were amazingly advanced for his time. He supported women's suffrage, regulation of big business (he was the "Trust Buster",) collective bargaining rights, and a worker's compensation system. He favored strict campaign finance laws, prohibition of gerrymandering, and allowing national referendums to recall elected officials, and overturn federal court rulings. He was the preeminent environmentalist of his day. And he foresaw the need for a national health insurance program. All of this was in 1912! TR wasn't quite ready to end racial segregation in public accommodations. But on most issues, the man was decades ahead of his time.

There still is a Bull Moose Party. Still progressive, and working for Teddy's vision.

Progressive Bull Moose Party Platform

 

[Albion]

I've voted Libertarian at times. I voted for Ed Clark for Pres. in 1980. I didn't care for either Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan. I've also voted Libertarian in several state elections.

I'd like to see a party that's socially moderate-liberal, but fiscally conservative. Something like the old northeastern Republican wing. This would be Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javitz, Jim Jeffords, Olympia Snowe, Margaret Chase Smith, and Bill Weld. And some others, like Sens. Chuck Percy and Mark Hatfield. I think it's fair to say Pres. Eisenhower was in this category. This was the Republican Party that passed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. And voted for Title X. (A Richard Nixon initiative which provided federal money for birth control. It's where Planned Parenthood gets funding. Can you imagine a Republican doing this today?) This was when it really was the Grand Old Party.

I understand, but so were the Democrats pretty moderate in those days, too. The steady movement of that party towards the Left has made the Republican Party resist, resulting in a much sharper division between the two.

There still is a Bull Moose Party. Still progressive, and working for Teddy's vision.

BTW: Republicans were the original social progressives. It was largely the brainchild of Teddy Roosevelt. When the party wouldn't go for his ideas, he left and formed the Progressive party, AKA the Bull Moose party. Teddy's positions were amazingly advanced for his time. He supported women's suffrage, regulation of big business (he was the "Trust Buster",) collective bargaining rights, and a worker's compensation system. He favored strict campaign finance laws, prohibition of gerrymandering, and allowing national referendums to recall elected officials, and overturn federal court rulings. He was the preeminent environmentalist of his day. And he foresaw the need for a national health insurance program. All of this was in 1912! TR wasn't quite ready to end racial segregation in public accommodations. But on most issues, the man was decades ahead of his time.

There still is a Bull Moose Party. Still progressive, and working for Teddy's vision.

Progressive Bull Moose Party Platform

Interesting. I had not heard of this newer party.

 

[jayem]

Another thing I like about TR. Our last President with a mustache. And a pretty cool one at that.

 

[Albion]

A quick survey of the party's platform makes it look like its partly stuff that the Left wants and partly what the Right wants. Will that tend to hurt the party's prospects?A reader might say that its more of a grab bag of ideas than a consistent approach. (?)

 

[Speedwell]

A quick survey of the party's platform makes it look like its partly stuff that the Left wants and partly what the Right wants. Will that tend to hurt the party's prospects?A reader might say that its more of a grab bag of ideas than a consistent approach. (?)

What the Right wants? I could not figure out where they stand on the Right's two main issues, abortion and LGBT.

 

[Albion]

EDIT: Ugh, nevermind, I dont want to defend the bull moose party.

Sorry. I wasn't looking for any particular response, whether a defense or something else. I was just wondering out loud. My main thing from the start was about the prospects of any party that might get named , whether or not we like their views.

 

[Albion]

Understood. And what you're saying is along the lines of my reaction. People, I think, are more likely to avoid a party that endorses something they absolutely are against than embrace it because of the points of agreement.

So if this party has both...it is most likely not going to do well. In fact, the listed points in that platform are pretty voluminous for a minor party, so they are taking a chance right there.

 

[Speedwell]

I looked on their platform and saw they support forced gender quotas for businesses. Pass. It's probably the only thing they promote that would actually get implemented too.

Well, that and "protect womens health education" which is code for "more abortion."

Not necessarily, but a clearer statement on the two most important issues for the Right--abortion and LGBT--would be welcome.

 

[jayem]

Understood. And what you're saying is along the lines of my reaction. People, I think, are more likely to avoid a party that endorses something they absolutely are against than embrace it because of the points of agreement.

That's true. It's a function of the rise of political "bases." Which IMO, is the worst disease affecting American politics. Both Democrats and Republicans are driven by their loudest, most dogmatic and unyielding fringes. It's a toxic group-think that drives the parties apart. Elected officials--above all else--become deathly afraid of alienating their "base." So compromise is nearly impossible. And little, or nothing of substance gets done.

It's such a sad state of affairs. I don't believe these zealots are where most of the American people are. I strongly doubt that the liberal and conservative bases combined are more than 1/3 of the voters at most. They're the strident tails that wag the dogs. Their corrosive influence somehow has to be overcome. But 3rd parties won't do it.

 

[Tanj]

You will never get a 3rd party in a 2-party system as anything other than an anomalous short lived bump. The Tea Party is a good example of this. The system needs to be fundamentally changed first.
New Zealand is an example of this happening. They went from FPP to MMP via a referendum.

Electoral system of New Zealand - Wikipedia

 

[Goonie]

Monster Raving Loony Party, sadly CF does no list it under uk political parties.

 

[Albion]

You will never get a 3rd party in a 2-party system as anything other than an anomalous short lived bump.

That could be, but why is it a 2-party system? It wasn't set up that way. The reason is that the 2 have passed all sorts of laws keeping it just between them.

The Tea Party is a good example of this.

The Tea Party isn't a political party, so no.

 

[Arcangl86]

I think a large part of the issue with third party's as well is the focus. Both the Greens and Libertarians focus almost exclusively on the presidency, which imo is why they fail. They forget that all politics is fundamentally local. It's hard to convince unaligned people to vote for you when nobody knows what you stand for.

 

[Albion]

I don't think that's true of the Libertarians, but it probably is of the Greens. There are two reasons that explain it, to the extent that it is true. One is the lack of candidates. It takes a hundred or more credible candidates to fill out a ballot in the average state; and the other reason is that the media pay very little attention to third party candidates at the local level, so it probably looks as though the party is operating mainly at the state-wide or presidential level.

 

[rambot]

I'm just sitting here imagining a time when every citizen could vote just for the candidates whose values alone with theirs.