Talk:Third party (United States)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] This is America damn it!
There should be no references third parties in foreign counties. Look at the title "United States", get it? Third parties in the USA!216.174.52.242 11:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge Complete
So, since it's been on the board for almost a year now I figured nobody'd have a problem with me going through with the merge. Any feedback on the newly incorporated areas would be good. firehazard 06:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- You forgot to mention what merger and what newly incorporated areas. Korky Day 02:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Add a list
Under "Third Parties in the US" or "Current Third Parties" I'm thinking of adding in a list of known third parties in the US, it seems logical that they should already be there. Any objections?
firehazard 11:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- there seems to be a good-length list of minor political parties in a separate article, and is linked to in this article, so a copy of that list isn't neccessary. My bad. firehazard 04:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] dinopup edit
I added a lot to the article. If it weren't for first-past-the-post, we would be a multi-party system. Ballot access probs are real, but if we had proportional representation, there would be no wasted vote syndrome.
Also, not all parliamentary systems use PR. Britain, Canada, India, are all FPTP. Many presidential systems do use PR, Mexico and Brazil are examples.
---
I deleted the section about the electoral college and third parties. I don't think the electoral college hurts third parties any more than does our being a presidential system. If the president were elected by the popular vote, the election would still be first-past-the-post/winner-take-all and thus there would still be the "wasted vote" syndrome. People who currently vote for third parties in non-swing states would lose the freedom they now have to make a vote of conscience. Regional parties (like George Wallace's American Independents) would still be regional parties.
If e votes were allocated proportionally, like some people in Colorado wanted to do, small third parties would still face some dimensions of the spoiler dilemma. Take an e vote away from the major party closer to your beliefs, help elect the candidate you most oppose. If the 12th amendment's majority requirement were kept in place, we would see more elections decided by the House. (I suppose a large third party candidate could win a plurality of the electoral college if it won a lot of second place votes though)
If we had a presidential election that used runoffs, like in France, perhaps you would see third parties gain a higher profile. dinopup
_________________________________________________________________________ It is misleading (in the extreme IMHO) to say that the Libertarian Party "won" an electoral vote in 1972. It received one because a supposedly-Republican elector was "faithless" and not because it carried a state or even part of a state, which it has never come close to doing.
Rlquall 18:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] National Parties in Canada
While it is true that there are strong differences in which parties are the most popular in Canada by region, it is a little strong to say that there are no national parties. All of the three national parties (Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat) currently represented in the House of Commons ran candidates in the last election in essentially every riding {district), as did the Green Party of Canada even though it has never had any seats in Commons. Of the parties with significant electoral strength, only the Bloc Quebecquois has only regional strength and no attempt to run a national campaign, and that is of course by design.
There are U.S. states where one of the two big parties is quite weak relative to the other, but that doesn't mean that neither party is truly national.
[edit] George Wallace
George Wallace is often portrayed as a long-time independent or third party candidate and office holder, but this is not really true. Of his four presidential bids, only 1968 was as the nominee of a third party, the American Independent Party, which was essentially of his own making, although he did "acquire" a couple of preexisting state right-wing parties and rename and merge them, largely for the purposes of ballot access. In his other three presidential races (1964, 1972, 1976) he ran in the Democratic primaries; this is of course what he was doing when he was shot in 1972. Also, all five of his races for governor of Alabama (the unsuccessful one in 1958 and the winning ones in 1962, 1970, 1974, and 1982) were all in the Democratic Party. So I have removed him as an example of a third-party winner who then found a major party to identify with – he essentially already always had one.
Rlquall 03:58, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] More fixes needed
In the quote from Engles in the second paragraph of the article two things are needed. One is a source for the quote, either in the body or as a footnote. It would make the citation much stronger. Secondly, it needs work as it doesn't make sense as currently represented. Could the word "note" actually be "not"? I don't really know this as I am unfamiliar with the quote. I am refraining from now from making the change andhoping someone who is knowledgeable and familiar with the work cited will do so. Rlquall 00:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I changed "note" to "not." The Engels quotation came from the Seymour Martin Lipset book "Continental Divide," I made that clearer.
Thanks. There's a lot more to discuss here. To go back over a century, isn't interesting that the Democrats won in 1892 despite the presence on the ballot in many states of the Populists, but in 1896, when they used electoral fusion largely to co-opt the Populists, they lost, and lost the next four elections as well, not winning again at the Presidential level until 1912 (when a third party split the Republicans).
Another thing might involve the recent decline of influence of third parties at the national level in the U.S. Nader seemed on the verge of perhaps having a "movement" going with around 3% of the 2000 vote. Obviously he influenced the outcome in a way that he presumably wouldn't have liked; it seems very unlikely that GWB wins Florida without him (of course, the same arguement could have been made with regard to Pat Buchanan's presence on the infamous "butterfly ballot".) However, Nader seems to have dissipated any real influence that he may have had. He and the Green Party nominee combined totalled less than 1% in 2004; the influence of both seems to be at a low ebb. Conversely, the real future of a potentially influential third party in the U.S. in the near future would seem to be on the right; if a more centrist Republican like John McCain or Rudy Giuliani is the 2008 nominee, much of the "Religious Right" will "walk" from the Republican party but it remains to be seen if they will start a new third party, join an existing-but-tiny party in accord with many of their views already like the Constitution Party, or simply go back to what many of them did previously, which is not voting at all. I'm not trying to make this into a message board, but just to discuss what things that aren't in the article belong in it, if consensus is there are such. Rlquall 17:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Third parties are like bees, they sting once and then they die. If a moderate won the Republican nomination there could be a religious right third party challenge, but those voters would return to the GOP in the next presidential election, like what happened to the Dixiecrats and the Democrats between 1948 and 1952.
- I personally do not think that the article should have any conjecture in it. It is not becoming of an encyclopedia to speculate on what would happen if McCain won the nomination. There are many analogous examples from history that could be used instead of guesses about the future. One time extremists bolted their party was in 1948, but they rejoined their original party 4 yrs later. Sometimes extremists join the other party, e.g. TR's progressives joined the Wilson coalition in 1916; Wallace's Independents joined Nixon's coalition in 1972.
- "Conversely, the real future of a potentially influential third party in the U.S. in the near future would seem to be on the right"
- Jesse Ventura says that the only place for a viable, enduring third party in the US today is the center. I think he's correct that you can't build a third party that's to the right of the Republicans and left of the Democrats, but I think he's overly optimistic about third party chances in the center.
- PS If you are interested in reforming our electoral system (PR, IRV) you should check out the Center for Voting and Democracy, www.fairvote.org. Note, they call PR "full representation."User:dinopup
[edit] Let's consider a better quote source (than the Pa. state legislator)
The quote from the state legislator is probably not as interesting as would be one or more passages from U.S. Supreme Court opinions outlining the history of third parties in the U.S. influencing the political dialogue and eventually seeing their ideas become public policy.
For example, see what Justice Black wrote in Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 39 (1968):
- In our political life, third parties are often important channels through which political dissent is aired: "All political ideas cannot and should not be channeled into the programs of our two major parties. History has amply proved the virtue of political activity by minority, dissident groups, which innumerable times have been in the vanguard of democratic thought and whose programs were ultimately accepted. . . . The absence of such voices would be a symptom of grave illness in our society." Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 -251 (opinion of WARREN, C. J.).
-
- Anything wrong with using both quotes? I think that it might add validity and weight to the article to have mention of support for the concept of third-party movements from both the judicial branch and the legislative, from a politician who is obstensibly a member of one of the two major parties. Rlquall 17:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Third Party Lists
It seems that there sould be some objective criteria for the listings under "notable elections" or "notable candidates." For instance, under 1980, mention is made of Ed Clark's 1% showing, which is hardly notable (unless compared to other Libertarian candidates). Many third party candidates who are not listed anywhere have done better. Similarly, under "notable candidates" Millard Fillmore is missing, though he received a better showing than most of those who are listed. Any ideas or suggestions? meyerlondon 21:39, 10 January
[edit] Lincoln?
I don't know, I suppose that in the end it can be a matter of perspective, but I am not sure how valid the claim that Lincoln was elected as a third party President is.
The Whig Party was replaced by the GOP around 1854, following Winfield Scott's failed candidacy, and the deaths of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster in 1852. So, the GOP was already the second party in 1856, and hence in 1860: when Lincoln was elected.
Any thoughts?
- I think you raise a valid point. I've always thought of the Republicans as not really a third party so much as a new party which emerged due to a restructuring of the existing parties. That being said, there is probably an argument for them being a third party in 1856, when it was unclear, between the GOP and the Know Nothings, who would emerge as the primary opponent of the Democrats, but by 1860, with the Know Nothings having disintegrated, that Republicans became the primary opposition party, and thus, one of the major parties.meyerlondon 01:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3rd parties: is it a waste of your vote?
Is a third party really necessary? Does anyone ever wins against Republican or Democrates?
- (I removed the accidental box from the unsigned questions above.)
- There are two questions there, and I don't think they're directly linked, though the placement implies they are. First, what's "necessary?" Third parties tend to serve as a sort of social experiment, highlighting some issue or possibly giving expression to a focused viewpoint. The major parties often adopt some version of a third party's position, though usually quite some time later. So they can serve a political function, even if at times critics believe the third party is "taking away" from the support of one of the major parties.
- Second, whether a third party wins at the polls against the GOP or the Democrats -- yes, from time to time. Jesse Ventura isn't the only state governor not to run as a candidate of a major party. And third party candidates also win in smaller offices -- mayoralities, state legislators, city councils, that sort of thing.
- —OtherDave 20:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Title change
The title of this article should be Third parties in the United States. 216.174.52.78 22:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Things still needed
I left the tag, although IMO this page is not much more informal in tone than many others and far better than some. This still needs mention of the Free Soil Party and Van Buren in 1848; James G. Birney and the Liberty Party, and some more about Know Nothings (the first right-wing, anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant party to use this title in the 1850s) to come up to speed in the historical arena. Rlquall 18:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The existence of this article is proof of partisan bias
I know you USAmericans grew up with the term "third parties", so it seems sensible to you. Just like calling African-Americans the N word seemed perfectly sensible to Whites in the 1950s Deep South. But I am going to challenge your life-long assumptions. As the N word is an ignorant, hateful corruption of the Spanish word for black, "third parties" is an ignorant, innumerate, partisan term. Innumerate means you can't count. If 10 people run a race, how many can come in third? One, unless there's a tie, which is not the case in the politics we are discussing.
In Canada, we don't use the term, not even in the singular ("third party") for the party coming in third in an election. Why not? Because the term, even in the singular, is a USA custom which is part of the insidious myth that voting for anyone besides a Democrat or a Republican is hopeless and stupid, if not evil.
Therefore, Wikipedia is legitimising that partisan propaganda by having this article at all, and others like it. In other words, linguistically, by using the term, Wikipedia is favouring the 2 largest parties. I know it seems to you that you are merely acknowledging reality, but that's not true from a more objective, world view.
For instance, decades ago you had only 3 nation-wide television networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC. When other networks came along, such as PBS and FOX, did you call them "fourth networks" trying to challenge the big 3? Sounds silly, doesn't it? Just like you using the term "third party" sounds silly to people in countries without 2-party systems. Which is the first party? Second? Fourth? Why single out the third as something special? Because the duopoly (the "monopoly" of the 2 largest parties) wants to stigmatise its biggest threat(s). Wikipedia's use of categories like "major parties" and "third parties" and "minor parties" is part of the ghettoisation of threats to the Establishment.
We editors should just list the parties without such categories based on size. There are legitimate categories we can use, like national parties and regional parties; like current parties and defunct parties. Those are useful, neutral categories. But basing the categories on size or success merely contributes to partisan efforts of the duopoly to smear their competitors. The reader should see the large and small parties all in the same articles and lists, for easy comparison, not have to look up "Third parties" in a separate article, feeling like we're slipping into the "adult" section of the video store for "guilty pleasure". Korky Day 03:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
