First, I'd like to say that I was really impressed with the great discussion from last week's post. As stated in that post, the purpose wasn't to scare anyone about your future as an American adult (quickly approaching!!), but hopefully to make you aware of the reality and to get your great minds to working - for I honestly believe that there is a solution (like many of you) and that solution will have to come from your generation....I hope, for your sake, your children's sake and the future of our country.
That brings me to this week's blog topic. Let me give you some information (or insight) before I pose the actual question.
For years, the American electorate has stated that they'd like to have a PRIMARY third party to select from; a party that could take on the "old guards of democracy," - the Democrats and the Republicans. Yet, we have to ponder on the question of rather or not that is a viable and even more importantly, a realistic option? The last time that the U.S. had a distinctive choice for a 3rd party was when a candidate ran in the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections - Ross Perot (oddly enough, this candidate warned about much of today's problems...). During those perspective elections he was able to obtain a combined 30 million votes!
Since then, U.S. voters have become since the rise of a number of 3rd political parties; some of them have been fairly moderate, some have been extreme and of course, others down right bizarre. As of 2012, the United States maintains five major political parties and a dozen other minor political parties (i.e., Modern Whig, Objectivists, Socialist Equality, etc.)
Yet, the question remains, would a 3rd PRIMARY party be electable? The Americans Elect (founded in 2011) has gained some traction since former Republican Louisiana governor and 2012 presidential candidate sought the party's nomination. The Libertarian Party is also gathering popularity due to Texas Congressman Ron Paul, and so has the Constitution Party.
Although millions of Americans are calling for an alternative to the established two-party system, it seems that the alternatives lack the resources, historical success and possibly the moderation that those stubborn elephants and donkeys have. Not only that, but with so much money and power the GOP and Democrats have, would a 3rd PRIMARY party have to become just as bad and powerful as the other two parties to survive?
Jesse Ventura, the former Minnesota Governor once stated:
"I believe the system is so corrupt, the two parties have corupted it so bad, that any third party, in which to be successful, will likewise have to corrupt itself. If you already have a two-headed monster, lwhy would you need three?"
Undoubtedly, there is a lot to consider when thinking about this topic. Look back at history when third parties have tried to rise up (Populists, Greenback, etc) and how the two primary parties have always swallowed them up.
Therefore, this week's topic question is:
Even though millions may believe that a third party is needed, is it really a violable solution? How would this effect our current election process? Make sure you defend your point-of-view!
As we have seen in history, third party candidates have never been successful in winning elections. However, they do drive away votes from the two major parties. In that case, they do have an impact on elections. For example, Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull-Moose Progressive party split votes in the Republican party and thus detracted votes from his rival William Taft. This was one factor that caused Taft to lose the election to Woodrow Wilson.
ReplyDeleteSo yes, third parties do have an impact on society, but I do not think that third parties can accomplish anything the Donkeys or Elephants can’t. I agree with the quote by Ventura; a third party that gains substantial power will lead to yet again, corruption. It is seen in numerous cases that power corrupts. What will be so different about another party? It is normal human nature to crave more power. Therefore, once a third party is given even a measly taste of control they will enter the dark side where the Repubs and Democrats call home. We need change, but a third party candidate will not accomplish that.
Yet, would not a 3rd MAJOR party at least provide the masses (the "We the People") with greater choices? Would or could it possibly at least strip some of the entrenched power that exist within the two existing major parties?.... just food for thought.....
Deletewrench...
DeleteIn response to Mr. Gehm: Yes, I do indeed think that a third party would give the masses more choices. But are three choices, despite the literally THOUSANDS of sides and opinions on modern issues, enough? Would it not be better for us to have a multitude of options, from a large multitude of parties?
DeleteWrench for thought...
DeleteMaya, I agree that in the beginning third parties could have a mjor impact on elections, swaying Democratic and Republican votes. In time, however, that third party would too be swayed to either the Democratic or Republican side, and eventually combine and be eliminated.
Mr. Gehm, I believe both are possibilities. The introduction of a third party would invigortate the humdrum two party system. This would lead to more votes cast and more passionate voters. In the process of providing a new choice for "the people," the third party would naturally strip some power from one of the two parties, for in the beginning the third party would receive a substantial number of votes.
Nick I totally disagree with your comment. Having "a large multitude" of parties would be very unstable for our country. Think of South American and European nations were there are constant power shifts. Our government would not operate steadily. Having too many parties would erupt into chaos.
Deleteinstead I think different Democrats and Republicans should incorporate new ideas into their individual campaigns. That would give the people more choice, and would steer away from cookie-cutter politics.
Mr. Gehm I just want to reply to your statement. I agree that "a 3rd MAJOR party at least provide the masses (the "We the People") with greater choices." The third political party will provide the voters a new perspective and opinions from the Democrats and Republicans but honestly do you believe it will take power from the Democrats and Republicans? I just think the two major political parties have such a larger group of support that it will never lose it to a third party. The third party will eventually die out because of what the two major political parties would do which is adopt the ideas of the third party into their own. Also the third party will never be able to campaign on a global scale as the Democrats and Republican thus not allowing them to appeal to voter and gain support.
DeleteI think that a third party would definitely open the eyes of Americans to different perspectives on the government. However, is not a violable solution at all. For over 200 years, the United States has been running on some sort of a two-party system. After so long, I do not think that Americans and the government also would be able to accept the existence of a third party. In addition, the strength of third parties when compared to Democrats and republicans are extremely minimal. I believe that even if a third party were to rise rapidly in power, it would be halted by either the Democrats or Republicans accepting some of their ideas. This phenomenon can be witnessed with the rise of the Populist Part in the late nineteenth century. Although, the party was augmenting rapidly, they soon lost their power after the democrats began to accept some of their ideologies. In the end however, the Populists did cause the nation to change. In addition, I sort of agree with Jesse Ventura. With the great amount of corruption present in the other two parties, I believe that if there was a third party, it would just become corrupt as well.
ReplyDeleteSo, since because it would not be easy, these third parties should just not try? Abu, look at this lockdown! Look at this party, Im this and im that crap. Is that what is best for America? Having to shut down our government because two parties can't agree? If you believe so, then so be it, but I could not disagree with how our government is operating any more than I do. More parties would atleast take away SOME of the power that the elephant and the donkey are misusing.
DeleteIt's not third parties shouldn't try, its just that the third parties wouldn't accomplish anything new. Even if they do rise in power, they would just be creating another party that would be stubborn and corrupt. It's not that they can't try, its that they shouldn't try at all!
DeleteWhen did I say third parties shouldn't try? Its just that no matter how hard they try they will never make it to the top. Sure they should try.. itll keep them busy. However, my argument is that they will never rise enough. They will never replace the majority parties.
DeleteI find it interesting how you said that Americans and the government would not be able to accept the existence of a third party. I believe a change in the two party system would have a strong start and rake in a lot of votes. America has changed dramatically in the last 200 years, with diverse and controversial viewpoints from voters and politicians alike. However, I do agree that their strength would quickly diminish when compelling with the authoritative Democrats and Republicans.
DeleteNick I also agree with Maya and Abu. Sure the third party can try, but will it ever reach the top? No. A third party would definitely add a new aspect to the government, however it is not a “violable” solution, because it cannot happen in real life. America has run on this system for a very long time and I don’t think that we are prepared for such massive change.
DeleteEveryone is stating on the idea that if a third party were to join the current system it would just become as corrupt as the other two. And why have another dragon head...Blah...Blah...Blah (It is a good point however I feel you don't elaborate on the argument enough.) Yes, most likely a rising third party will turn to corruption at the sight of power; but I feel that this party will have to look to some form of corruption to even get to that level of power. Now of course corruption is not a good thing and something we wish we didn’t have in politics however the third party brings greater values with its corruption. It will bring both a new choice for the people with their own ideologies on political issues which may be favored by society. It will also take away from the power of the other to which someone people feel is becoming too large. So stop bullying my view on the third party system because of corruption and leave out, what I feel, are advantages.
DeleteP.S. I have never been so sore/tired writing a blog in my life.
I still think a third party is futile! Even if you come up with a popular third-party presidential candidate, you're still not going to have anybody of any great significance running in that party for seats in Congress or the US Senate unless this movement happened to become the majority movement in the country, and that's definitely not what's happening. I truly don't believe that the American citizens are passionate enough about the issue to do something this grand. Most people couldn't care less about which party they are affiliated with, and I think this negative attitude will replicate in any form of party innovation at this point. Not enough support.
DeleteAbu: Okay listen, you aren't pulling what you do with Bishoy on me. You didn't say it word for word, but you gave a multitude of reasons as to why it wouldn't work, which is pretty much saying that it would be pointless to try, therefore they shouldn't. And why will they never rise to the top? Because you say so? Sorry, not good enough. No one thought that the rebels would win the American revolution(Well, look at that). No one terrorists could perpetrate a major attack on U.S. soil.(Well look at that) No one thought we'd see a black president for a long time(Well, look at that). Just because someone doesn't think it doesn't mean it can't, or won't, happen
DeleteMaya: Same thing as I said to Abu. Also, in the beginning of your comment you said that "It's not third parties shouldn't try," but then in the end of your statement you said "its that they shouldn't try at all!" That is a blatant contradiction.
Jen G: Viable* Also, once again, you saying it means absolutely nothing. Why can't it happen? Because the current system has been around for awhile? How about the revolution, slavery, us not having parties in the first place, and a more modern example, the new healthcare reform. All of those were established institutions/practices/policies, that were changed. This, "Because I say so," argument is unconvincing and irrelevant.
Jen J: You have said to me yourself that the only reason that Obama won is because he is black (I am not calling her racist by the way). You feel that this one attribute swayed a majority of people who voted to go with him right? And now you are going to say to me that a bunch of people won't change their votes because of something they like about the new candidate? If you say yes, then you are contradicting your opinion on Obama, which a few of us have heard you say.
I believe the rise of a third party could indeed be beneficial to the voters of our nation, and our nation as a whole. This is not because I believe that having three choices could be better than two, but because I believe that maybe the rise of a third could lead to the rise of a fourth, and a fifth, and a sixth, and all the way until majority parties are dead. Our forefathers, expressly George Washington, warned strongly against an establishment of a standing majority party system. This is because after some time the members of these parties develop stronger interest in, and stronger allegiance to, their respective parties, as opposed to our nation as a whole. Eliminating the immense powers given to these two parties, by splitting the people among three could very well eliminate the deadlock and party flag waiving we are experiencing today.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to Jesse Venturas statement, I agree insofar that our modern two party system has indeed corrupted our government immensely. I don't exactly disagree with him when he says that a third head on the monster wouldn't help, but I do think that third head would break the party stigma, and the new additions that would hopefully follow would no longer be known to him as heads, but as successful, representative parties.
Do you really think that third party will be able to make it? And if it does somehow, how will it solve anything? Adding another party to the fray means that their is going to be another group of people who only want their party to prosper, not what is best for the country. Their will just be more bickering in Washington and less stuff getting done.
DeleteBishoy, for the first time, I completely agree with you. there is no way a third party could rise in rank. Sure It could get stronger, but it will never be strong enough. And if it did get strong enough, it would most likely replace one of the two major parties. therefore it would not be a third party system either way. Also, there have been various events in history which show that a thrid party could get stronger, but never gain control. The populist party is an example of a rising third party. Howver it never became strong enough.
DeleteNick, as Mr. Gehm always says “history has the potential to repeat itself.” In the history of the United States, the government has never had a third party as strong as the other two. There is no potential for something like that to ever happen. Sure a third party would help the nation, but will something like that ever happen? Very Unlikely.
DeleteNick, I totally disagree with you. Having as many as SIX major political parties would be SO chaotic. I feel like having so many different groups in power, we would be giving a regime or dictator ship an opportunity to sneak its way to the top and take over,
DeleteNick, not only do i agree with you on your view of the addition of a third party; but i like how you went on to suggest the addition of major parties part three to even four or five and so on. Many people disregarded the idea that if a third were to come it doesn't mean a fourth cant. It would actually be easier for a fourth to emerge and even further separate the immense power held by the current major parties.
DeleteBishoy: With a multitude of parties, you won't have this current changing of hands with out government that is now happening every term or so. Each party would not have as much power, because the candidates constituents would be split among a multitude of parties instead of just two. This would encourage candidates to instead of just running on the laurels of their party, (which would be impossible because no party would have enough pull) to actually run on their policies and beliefs. Also, this lapse of power in a single party would cause parties who want to stay in power to have to more quickly adapt and present better, more timely candidates, because they would not be able to just get them in because they are either Repub. or Dem.
DeleteAbu: See my most recent comment on your post.
Jen G: First, you say history has a tendency of repeating itself. Good I agree. This helps my argument, because America has a tendency of surprising people, and changing radically, very quickly. (ex. Revolution, Slavery, becoming a World Power) Also you once again use the "Cause I said so," argument. See my comment on Abu's. Also, you saying very unlikely acknowledges the chance of it happening. I hate to beat a dead horse, but us winning the revolution was considered by the world, "Very Unlikely."
Maya: Maya, Maya, Maya. You are saying to me that reduced power in the parties, is more likely to create a dictator? So, you are saying, that a party having a MUCH less likely chance of being able to consecutively put presidents with the same beliefs in office, creates a greater chance of a dictatorship? You are entitled to your opinion is all I can think to say.
Justin: Thank you.
I don't think their will ever be a third party. Their is a reason that the majority parties are called "majority parties" and that is because no one else can oppose them. It is to late to make another party, and if another party is made, it will die like all other third parties (such as the populists). Most of the time third parties have radical views, or feel to passionate about a certain issue which draws away votes from their party. The only way another party is going to be introduced to American society is if the Republicans or Democrats die out.
ReplyDeleteCurrently this two party system holds to much power, and a third party would be great for solving some issues, but in reality a third party is not going to happen. Another issue with the two party system having to much power is that the Democrats and Republicans would not allow another party. If they don't "kill" it themselves, then the party will slowly merge into one of the two existing parties.
Now, this is what I think what could happen with a third party. We could have a third party, but not a temporary one. What if a third party was created, it helps solve issues in government, and then dies like every other third party. This way we could have multiple parties with varying view points, and not just three major parties. Because if we do have a major third party that ends up surviving (which I don't think it could), it could cause more deadlock in Washington and less things getting done.
To sum up my ideas, third parties could be beneficial if they are not in power to long, two party system is not good, a third party will never succeed although it could be beneficial.
I agree that majority parties are called that for a reason; they have a strong influence, making it hard for radical third parties to become a majority. Like I said, a third party would have a significant start, but quickly lose its authority. I suppose since the Demorates and Republicans are so powerful, they would feel territorial and claim the right to eliminate this added competition.
DeleteMy MAN BISH!! I am pleased to see that we share the same views for once. I love your argument "It is to late to make another party, and if another party is made, it will die like all other third parties (such as the populists)." Such a system has never occurred in the United States, and it never will. As you stated, it is too "late" for that to happen.
Deletei hate with bish and abu agree.
DeleteThey are not called majority because no one can oppose them. They are called majority, because they currently hold the MAJORITY of votes. At one point, a majority of people supported slavery. Things change dude.
DeleteI believe a third party would be able to operate in elections, but only for a short period of time. At first, there would be the three parties, each with their viewpoints and opinions. Voters would be excited about this new third option and standstils between the Democrats and Republicans would be broken. Eventually, however, the Democrats and/or Republicans would try to sway the votes of the third party, virtually blending and adopting likenesses from eachother. So the third party would have no significance, since their needs are meet and shared with one of the two primary parties (Democrats and Populists).
ReplyDeleteThird primary parties tend to only find regional popularity. Also, running a campaign as a third party would be insanely expensive. Democratic and Republican campaigns are very extravagent. This third party would add competition, thus motivating more people to cast their ballot; (in the beginning) it would be a fresh change to the old "one or the other."
So, I think a third party would be a nice change and an interesting added competition. After the novelty wore off, voters would get bored again or the third party would just collate with one of the existing two.
I do agree that third parties could not last for a long time, but I do not agree how their would be "competition" with a third party. The Democrats and Republicans are to powerful for their ever to be competition. If a third major party did appear, its life would be to short for it to do anything influential in the lives of Americans (other than taking votes away from the two parties). At the end a two party system wouldn't solve anything, it might make matters worse. Instead of two people arguing their would be three.
DeleteJames, I agree with you that third parties poses as competition to both the Democrats and Republicans. And to address Bishoy's commentary "If a third major party did appear, its life would be to short for it to do anything influential in the lives of Americans " As shown in history and exemplified by the Populists, even though they weren't strong enough to last, their idealism influenced the nation. Some of their political ideals were even incorporated to the government. Such as: direct election of senators (17th amendment) Thus, as little as their influence may be, they do impact the nation.
DeleteI agree with you on the fact that third parties will not survive for very long and that Democrats and Republcian have the upper hand in many things, but I don't agree or disagree with you that third partesi would be "competition" because honestly, competition is between those who have near capcity to fight againest others. And I don't think that third parties are relativley close to what the two major poltical parties are today. I believe that third parties are nothing compared to the major parties and they stand no chance.
DeleteIf history has the potential to repeat itself, then I believe your argument is valid when you state that the third party will eventually blend into one of the two parties, such as when the Populists got blended into the Democratic Party.
DeleteI do believe that a third party will be beneficial to the country. However, I do not believe that this event will ever occur. For an extremely long time, the nation has been run on a two party system and there is no way that the nation is willing to change now. Another major reason for this is the domination of the democrats and republicans in congress. There is no way that Congressmen could be found in an even ratio of three parties. In addition, if hypothetically we did have a third party, it is likely that the disagreements in government would greatly increase. Also, I agree with Jesse Ventura, that the plague 0f corruption would infect the third party. Another argument is that history shows that it is very unlikely for a third party to rise.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that third parties will contribute a good amount ot the country, and that the arising of thrid parties will never occur because basically as I said before third parties can be ran over by major poltical parties without a single thought put to it. Third parties= no money & major poltical parteis= lot of power and money
DeleteJen, regarding your statement about how there would be more disagreements, wouldn't that also mean that there would be more solutions with a third party? Their differing perspectives from the other two parties might actually help bring about solutions to some of the issues plaguing our nation.
Delete"the nation has been run on two party system and there is no way that the nation is willing to change now..." is kind of a huge statement to make. I mean, you aren't sure about the opinion of the other people in this nation regarding that. Also, I completely agree with Mel on this. Third parties epitomizes fresh perspectives. Thus, they could possibly contribute answers to certain issues of our nation
DeleteEstablishment of a third party would help the nation in a constructive way. It will give the people of this nation, more choices and more perspective to choose from rather than having only to choose between the Democrats and the Republicans. The sprouting of the roots of a third party would awaken both the Democrats and Republicans to the ideals of their own political doctrine and towards the best interest of the people, as this third party limns competition. Also, having a third political party would be beneficial in a way that it epitomizes a fresh perspective for the people. Third parties does play a role in the election process of the nation. For example the rise of the populist party posed as an opposition to both the Democrats and Republicans in the election of 1892. The Populist candidate, James Weaver had his share of votes (even though he lost by a multitude of votes) that split the concentration of votes between the Democrats and the Republicans . Even though, third parties weren't successful in winning elections, they do influence the political and social aspect of the nation. For example, the Populist party weren't successful in winning any elections however, their idealism influenced the promise of democracy and their goals as a party were later achieved, as it was championed by either a democrat or a republican. Point is, third parties serves as an eye opener to this two giant political parties and they do influence the nation to some extent
ReplyDeleteThe question is that is having a third party “really a violable solution?” The answer to this is no because this is highly unlikely to happen. Sure they would contribute a great amount to the nation. I completely agree that they would be beneficial to the nation. But this is something that is very unlikely to occur and therefore I do not believe it is “a violable solution.”
DeleteI believe that thrid parties can be a change for the country, and sure, they will do some good for the country , but will they last long is the question. I do not think so because in order to build and start off a campaign, you need lots and lost of money, which most third parties don't have, so they cannot fund for such activity. So, if they can't build a campaign, how will others know of them. They are not even compettion for the major two parties and can be easily wiped out within a matter of seconds.
DeleteI completely agree with your statement that "having a third political party would be beneficial in a way that it epitomizes a fresh perspective for the people." Doing so will definitely highlight and force the Democrats and Republicans to speak about issues they normally wouldn't, for fear of losing votes (such as legalizing marijuana, or gay marriage, for instance.) It would be easier to find out who believes in what, and then determine who would be right to put in office.
DeleteWhat do you mean by highly unlikely to happen? A third party rising up and perhaps influencing the political system of this nation? The populists already did it. Sure they weren't successful in their actions, they died down, but their influence is up and alive especially in the face of the 17th amendment. Also, lets say, a third party rises, their platform appeals to the people, they will most likely get supporters and with that they'll gain power. Also, if you're saying that democrats and republicans are powerful enough to hold their position ( which is true ), mind you nothing is permanent in this world.
DeleteI would have to agree that a third party is unlikely to happen. We have multiple third political parties in the US. However, our system is such that it's a winner take all election!! If a third party has enough of a following that it gets on the national radar then most likely one of the big two parties will incorporate some, most or all of their platform into their own. I really wouldn't project a third party making much of a rise due to this.
DeleteKarish, money doesn't always give you the edge. Most of the time money means power. Also as for your statement, " They are not even competition for the major two parties and can be easily wiped out within a matter of seconds." Let's say that their ideology appeals more to the people than the other two. What if their principles is for the best interest of the people. Then, they will most likely gain supporters just by their ideologies. And with that said, if this third party does appeal to the people, they are a competition.
Delete"The sprouting of the roots of a third party would awaken both the Democrats and Republicans to the ideals of their own political doctrine and towards the best interest of the people." This sounds amazing in writing, but no way in heck will this truly work. The only reactions a third party will elicit from the Democrats and Republicans is hatred toward the third party. The Democrats won't focus on their "political doctrine" but they will focus on the fastest way to get rid of the third party. The Democrats and Republicans will never focus on what is right for the people, but they will focus on what is best for them. A third party would make matters worse. As Ventura said, "If you already have a two-headed monster, why would you need three?"
ReplyDelete" The Democrats and Republican will never focus on what is right for the people, but they will focus on what is best for them" So, I believe the people of this nation knows what the Democrats and Republicans are after. They want power, they want what is best for their party and not for the people. So, lets say, a third party sprouts and this party champions the idealism that best appeal to the people, they would have tons of supporters. So, when they gain supporters, the democrats and republicans would see this and guess what, to be able to get those supporters back, these two parties need to amp their game and strategy to appeal to the best interest of the people and not their party .
DeleteBy the way this was a supposed to be a reply to your post, not an actual post itslef, I accidentally posted it here sorry.
DeleteYour whole theory relies on people supporting a third party, but the American people are dedicated to parties, not ideologies. A third party would gain supporters, but not as much supporters as democrats and republicans.
Deletefirst of, why would American people be dedicated to parties? It's because they believed in the ideologies that, that certain party withholds. I wouldn't support a party just for the sake of me being dedicated to the party. I'd support a party because I agree with what they are promoting and championing. So, if a third party appears more, they might gain more supporters than expected.
DeleteLet me re-phrase my first line... First of, why would the American people support and be dedicated to a certain party? It's because they first believed in the party's ideology.
DeleteBishoy! Are you saying adding another political party will not force Democrats and Republicans to think of new ideologies and make them think in the best interest of the people and not the party? Honestly political parties right now are so worried about making the best choice for themselves and not the people. If you add another party who actually will provide a new perspective, Democrats and Republicans will be forced into rethinking their viewpoints and start actually doing their job which is to make the best decisions for the people of the United States and not themselves.
DeleteI think that the arising of third parties will not occur, and our country is nowhere near to having them become the next big new thing. Throughout history there have only been two major political parties, which have had the higher power. However, candidates of third parties do have a pretty good chance in influencing the elections. A third party can gain votes from people, who don’t agree with either major political parties, and might gain enough votes to make an major political party lose. One of the most memorable times this occurred was in the election of 1912 and Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party gained voter who supported the Republican William Taft. The Republican vote was split between Roosevelt and Taft, and because of that Democrat Woodrow Wilson won the election instead. Hypothetically speaking, if third parties were to arise they would not survive very long because building presidential campaign costs a lot of money and third parties have nothing. While the other two major political parties have all the money and power in the world and will run over third parties in heart beat.
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with your statement: "However, candidates of third parties do have a pretty good chance in influencing the elections."
DeleteThey do not influence elections because the two main parties appeal to such a broad range of voters that they cater for most issues the voters represent. When a third party proposes an idea that sits well with voters, it gains them more support. But when this occurs the major parties simply adopt this 'idea' into their ideology meaning that the third party potentially disintegrates.
They also cannot raise funds like the two major parties can and are often viewed as "wasted votes" so I would have to disagree with your claim of their influence.
I would definitely agree with Jenn on the statement "However, candidates of third parties do have a pretty good chance in influencing the elections." Yeah maybe they will provide new perspective that will help gain them support but realistically they can't compete with the Democrats and Republicans. Just like the Populist party in the nineteenth century, it provided great ideas but the Democrats eventually Incorporated the Populist ideas into their ideologies. Now the third party will no longer exist because the two major political parties have a larger support system who will enjoy the new concepts and beliefs of the party. Basically I am trying to say is the third party will have little effect on the election because the two primary parties will just incorporate new ideologies that appeal to their supporters.
DeleteThe addition of a third primary party to our nation’s political system would have a deepening influence on society if approached at the correct angle. It will also influence the amount of corrupt power currently held by the donkey and the elephant, but I will get back to that. As we have seen in history, only a few non-primary third parties have been reasonably successful in effecting the distribution of votes as well as the results in a political election. A couple of examples are the reform party of 1992 and Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull-Moose Progressive party which received a substantial amount of votes making a scratch in their respected election. I believe that the establishment of a Primary third-party system will have this same effect but even greater, making dents in their respected election and truly splitting the votes among three main parties. Is it violable? I believe it is however, it is not going to come easy what so ever. Historian Richard Hofstadter once said "Third parties are like bees. Once they have stung, they die" As history shows, yes, third parties usually do die out after first impact much like the Populist Party had when the Democrats absorbed them along with their ideologies. But the primary third-party system can happen if it works more as an army of bee’s rather than one alone. If a third party system can find the support to muster up enough popularity within politics and with the people, they will not be taken down. Now this is hard enough as it is but it isn’t going to take weeks or months. This may take years but I feel in this time period where it seems that both the Republicans and the Democrats cannot solve any of our nation’s problems, given the people more choices will not only appeal to them, but raise political popularity. Now regarding the corruption; the third party may have to be corrupt in order to maintain power. However haven’t we seen that most of the power gained in through corruption as it was in the Gilded Age? So with this corruption the third party will take power from the democrats and republicans and the power and corruption will balance out. Therefore, the two reining major political parties will lose power at the presence of a third powerful political party.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a major third party would be beneficial only because it would actually cause the Republicans and Democrats to actually pay attention to issues the American people are concerned about, for fear of losing votes.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't think a primary third party is a realistic hope for many.... the Democrat and Republican parties, corrupted as Ventura stated, would likely do something to destroy the third party before it could gain a serious following, in essence "uprooting the weeds," as they would view it.
If, by some miracle, a third party was able to emerge as a primary party, I doubt it would affect the election process very much. I'm sure campaign tactics will still be similar to what they are today- tv commercials, magazine and campaign ads, tours, etc. There would probably just be more of it, especially by the Democrats and Republicans, in order to keep their power.
I agree with what you said in your first paragraph. I don't think the third party itself would make a difference in bringing new ideas to the table, but the intimidation of a third party can help reform the Republicans and Democrats.
Delete"If, by some miracle, a third party was able to emerge as a primary party, I doubt it would affect the election process very much. I'm"
DeleteI must say i completely disagree with this statement because it would have the exact opposite effect. If a third party managed to gain this amount of power it would greatly effect the outcomes of political elections to a very substantial amount. Even non-primary third parties have cause changed in elections such as Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull-Moose Progressive party. There rise in power would actually expand to the people new ideologies in which some may agree and will definitely skew the vote distribution.
I didn't mean to say that it wouldn't affect the outcomes of votes; I just meant that the election process itself would remain the same.
DeleteI really cannot see an additional party doing much for the division in DC. While voters remain angry at the current two way split regarding political parties, how could a third party resolve conflicts when we can't even manage with 2? Additionally, the third party would be bought off by the special interest groups in short order and then we'd have to deal with 3 corrupt party's instead of two! No new party is successful because the two major parties confine American politics to themselves in order to retain their positions. While in theory a third party sounds like it would provide more voting options to increase voting participation, another party wouldn't even gain the ability to have a shot at competing with the elephants and donkeys.
ReplyDeleteEstablishing a third political party would be beneficial to the nation’s voter. Having a third political party would provide the nation’s people with different viewpoints and opinions, giving the people more perspective on controversial issues our nation faces every day. The two primary political party the United States has is Democrats and Republicans, who only believe in their own ideals and ethics. By creating another political party this will force competition between the political parties and thus allowing the deadlock that Democrats and Republicans always have to end. Also it will make the political parties do what is the best interest of the people and not their selves.
ReplyDeleteEven though I agree having a third political party would be extremely beneficial, it really is not a violable solution. First the strength of the two primary political parties, Democrats and Republicans would crush the third political parties. If the third party sprouted miraculously the ideals and political viewpoints would disintegrate. Meaning the other two political parties would start to incorporate the beliefs of the third party and eventually the third party will no longer exist. This was shown previously in history with the Populist party and how the Democrats began to include the ideologies of the Populist party into their own ideologies. I definitely agree with Jesse Ventura, the former Minnesota Governor. She is correct on the part that system is so corrupt that eventually the third political party would corrupt it even more. It would not make sense to add another corrupting head to the system which already contains two.
I have to say that I loved reading this week's post and comments!!! Good debate. I was actually somewhat surprised that there wasn't more support for a major 3rd party. I have to state that I don't fully agree with Nick's viewpoint that multiple major parties would be beneficial (for one reason, if you have too many they all cease being "major," but I believe that is part of his argument).
ReplyDeleteMy point about a 3rd Major party was that if it did exist (and yes, I do believe it would be possible, even if difficult, for one to be established), it would force compromising and working "across the aisle" to resolve some of the VERY pressing issues in our country. By having a strong 3rd party, it would be almost impossible for a given party to have complete control of either the House or the Senate, and in my opinion, stop this ideology of "the Party of the President" and simply going along with the Executive branch just to remain loyal to the "party."
I also agree with many of you that a 3rd party wouldn't be a "magical" fix, but it would and could have an important influence in getting things solved.
This is MY opinion only and not intended to influence any of you. My opinion isn't any more "right" than anyone else's viewpoint. - Just want to make that declaration. :-)