My opinon is they will get no where, no matter the platform, unless they are "legitimized" by the press. The press isn't going to touch them unless there is "buzz", i.e. people are already talking. So it is kind of catch-22.

The obvious way out of it is the internet. If a third party with a moderate message hit the Internet the way Howard Dean did in the last election, they might get a few pundits dealing with them on 24 hour news. Once you get the beloved pundits, like O'Reilly or other equivalents, talking, and maybe getting approving nods, then I think you'll get the big news outlets talking.

your message isn't really important until you can get it out there. Frankly extremist nuts get more press than most third parties, and everyone hates their message. I think a Dean-style Internet salvo starting a year or more before the next election (or heck, now...) is the only way to break in.

If Hillary really does run, it would be the best shot ever for a third party. All the Dems that want to vote for someone else but can't vote for a Republican would be ripe for the picking, along with left-leaning Republicans that feel their party has leaned to far right...

Baker,

I believe you're right, as well. My main argument, though, is that the third parties need to start thinking about '06, and not '08 -- the former is a more crucial election for us.

There are many "fringe" Libertarian minded (and Green) candidates with enough populist appeal to get the needed press (if, for instance, Nader buried the hatchet with the Greens and ran for a CA house seat -- there are districts in which he would stand a fair chance of winning). But, yes, the way to get populist appeal beyond those "fringe" candidates is through the internet. Nice addition to my "list"

I dunno. I think people can more readily imagine a third-party executive branch. Even when candidates win seats in the Legislature, they are almost instantly forgotten. Then they shift to party schmoozing their way up the ladder. That's impossible for third parties, since the back-slapping heirarchy isn' t there. to move up in.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for ya, but I'm afraid that the Legislative branch is going to be soundly 2 party. Third party representitives barely get a nod from the press. Jesse Ventura, though, got amazing coverage by winning a governer's race.

That was kind of my point. A Presidential win is the only way, I think, you'll get the press saying "What do you think the (whoever) party will be up to next year?" Once you have that, I think about anything is possible.

I think the reason that the midterms might be the best way is it is the psychological equivalent of a "sucker punch": Far fewer voters and a better chance to gain a majority, plus a sizable showing can go a long way to getting the attention of the national media (the local media is easier to access).

The Senate seats are the harder goal; it takes more money and they draw more national attention (in addition, only a third of them are up for reelection). With the House seats, however, a well coordinated national effort could feasibly obtain enough House seats to gain notice (in addition, all are up for reelection). But it would take a nationally coordinated effort. Even if a third party did wrest control of the House, but fail in the Senate, the "Big Two" would still need to court their votes for a majority.

That's the beauty of the legislative structure: theoretically, a cohesive, well organized minority can gain significant political control.

There are some great suggestions here. Another one would be to work to change the "wasted vote" fears in many American voters.

If everyone who ever said, "I like that (place your third party of choice here) candidate, but I wouldn't want to waste my vote" would just vote their conscience then we would have a viable third party.

My question to that (lack of) logic is, how is voting Libertarian or Constitutionalist anymore a wasted vote than voting Democrat in Utah or Republican Washington DC? Voters in stronghold states of either party often feel more inneffective in the overall system, because they don't see their vote meaning much. On the other hand, in states like Wisconsin almost everyone feels their vote is very important because the margins are so slim.

Third parties need to court those who feel disaffected by the two party system in general. Focusing on those who feel disaffected by the dynamics of their state would help to gain members, gain local election wins, and maybe even get enough backing to make the press take notice.

Gideon, You know you and I have our disagreements but this was a fabulous article. No matter what your political beliefs the only thing to fear from third (or even fourth) party building is loss of power, and fearing loss of power is never the right way to run anything. I really liked and emphasize step 4, btw. Here's to hopes of a diverse American politics in future!

I will believe the hype about 3rd parties coming on if they win any election. You are talking about them being a force when right now they have no strength in congress or any statehouse offices. The only major candidate from a 3rd party to win an election was Jesse Ventura. That's one and he's not there anymore.

The party of 2006 !!!!!



Link

BR>
IG

There are some great suggestions here. Another one would be to work to change the "wasted vote" fears in many American voters.

Hence, IRV - Instant Runoff Voting http://www.fairvote.com/irv/index.html Link

I don't think anyone wants to see a ballot like the Iraqi election containing a ton of parties and candidates, but the more 3rd parties are allowed some spotlight, the more we can balance out the two party political monopoly in our country.

My suggestion is to allow a Wildcard spot in the debates by any party that can post a single % in the polls. There are three debates so every party that posts 1% would be entered into a lottery for the three debates. This would create a much more honest debate and much more interesting debate being that most parties have nothing to lose and would pose questions that otherwise would be glossed over or unasked altogether. Not only would a Wildcard spot bring more people to the table, it would make the electoral process more exciting and entertaining.

Thank you for this article.
-Suspeckted

Not only would a Wildcard spot bring more people to the table, it would make the electoral process more exciting and entertaining.

Did you know that Marilyn Chambers ran for VP for the Personal Choice Party?

Link

IG

My suggestion is to allow a Wildcard spot in the debates by any party that can post a single % in the polls.

Yes, that would be a good idea. At least better than seeing presidential candidates being arrested at "presidential" debates.

There's already a third party running in 06: The Democrats. They looked really bad for a first party, what losing in every possible way in 04. But as a third party, they rock! They make the Bull Moose party seem like the Greenback Labor Party. Zing!

Yes, that would be a good idea. At least better than seeing presidential candidates being arrested at "presidential" debates.

Amen!

Did you know that Marilyn Chambers ran for VP for the Personal Choice Party?

Forgive me, but what does this have to do with my wildcard idea? Are you saying this person would be a good wildcard candidate?

-suspeckted

Reply #13 By: Suspeckted - 1/28/2005 10:17:46 AM Yes, that would be a good idea. At least better than seeing presidential candidates being arrested at "presidential" debates. Amen! Did you know that Marilyn Chambers ran for VP for the Personal Choice Party? Forgive me, but what does this have to do with my wildcard idea? Are you saying this person would be a good wildcard candidate?

Do you even know who she is?

Great article Gideon. To the people who say that 3rd party candidates are a wasted vote I'd point to Ross Perot. His main policy platform was fighting the deficit and had Bush 1.0 been more effective in dealing with it he maybe wouldn't have run. He shaped the agenda of the Clinton administration and should get credit for leading the fight to slay the deficit.

A good Canadian example is the Marijuana party: they polled only half a percent nationally- near 10% in some BC ridings - but that's enough votes to swing an election. After the Liberals were elected they introduced a bill to decriminalize marijuana, which a clear majority of Canadians favour. In Quebec Le Bloc Pot (I am not making this up) got more votes than the well established NDP party.

The unfortunate reality of 3rd party candidates I think is that they suck votes from the party they are most close to ideologically. I think Perot took more votes from Bush 1.0 than Clinton, ditto Badarnik vis. Bush 2.0/Kerry. If the Democrats want to win the next election I think the smartest thing they could do is have Sugar Daddy Soros throw a serious whack of cash at the Libertarian party. Sneaky, yes, but that's politics.

David St. Hubbins