Here is an article on third parties from “The Godfather.” There is some to agree with and, I suspect for the folks at this website, much to disagree with. Discuss.
Trying to get elected as a third party candidate in American politics is extremely difficult if not impossible since the electing process is not by majority vote. Ballot access is also an obstacle since third parties have to meet additional criteria not required of Republicans and Democrats. Reform Party candidate Ross Perot was able to get on the ballot in all 50 states in 1992 as was Pat Buchanan in 1996. Perot was a nationally known figure who had lots of money to pour into the process. The Reform Party affected both elections but did nothing to advance it as a genuine third party player. While Perot received nearly 20 percent of the popular vote in 1992, he did not receive a single electoral vote.
Trying to change America’s political system by running a third-party presidential candidacy is a pipe dream.
Xenu be praised!
I don’t know if you have turned on your TVs today, or listened to the radio, but I the Rev. Alberto Medvedev have endorsed Bob Milnes for President.
June 27, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
CONTACT:
Rev Alberto Medvedev
Church of Xenu
(973) 304-0808
[email protected]
http://
Rev Alberto Medvedev Demands America Vote Milnes
(Tinton Falls, NJ, 6/27/11) The Rev Alberto Medvedev officially called upon Americans to vote for Bob Milnes. He also supports the Green Party because he thinks they are a top-notch bunch of folks.
“I am sure Milnes will be a snazzy president,” said Rev Alberto Medvedev. “The Libertarians are a top-notch bunch of folks!”
Rev Alberto Medvedev has been an influential figure in American politics for three decades. He was a member of the LaRouche “US LABOR PARTY” before considering a run for the presidential nomination of the “Natural Law Party.”
“I think I would have won if I had run with the Natural Law folks,” said Rev Alberto Medvedev. “I have mastered yogic flying.”
Rev Alberto Medvedev wants everyone to remember that he is 100% in support of the Bob Milnes campaign, but also supports the Green Party because he thinks they are a top-notch bunch of folks.
# # #
more…
While NY is not technically NE, it’s passage of the same-gender marriage law should prove interesting. I suspect the Conservative Party has flipped out over this one, and will use the issue to bludgeon the Rs into being more socially “conservative” in its public positioning. NY’s not as “blue” as one might think, but I suspect it will become more so, as the social cons will overplay their hand, pushing forth people of the quality of Christine O’Donnell and crowding out the more tolerant Rs.
20 rp: This probably has to do with the increased nationalization of politics due to technology, mobility, etc. It would be hard for a regional or state level third party to exist independently today as they could in the past.
me: Could be. It might more be about money. Money flows nationally, so supporters aligned with the Rs or Ds support candidates nationwide. Still, the New England states have been trending toward making the Rs a minor party. My sense is that the litmus tests of pro-life and opposite-gender marriage only views of the national Rs threatens to make NE solid blue. And yet NEers are not all “liberal.” A third party that wants more liberty across the board might see that opportunity and exploit it.
At the moment, none has stepped into the breach.
@ 24: I am so glad you asked what parties I, the Rev. Alberto Medvedev, have been in over the years! Allow me to present you with my timeline.
1976-1980: US Labor Party
1980-1986: Communist Party USA
1987: Populist Party
1989: New Alliance Party
1992: US Taxpayers Party
1994: LaRouche Was Right Party
1996: Green Party
1997: Natural Law Party (hoped to be their nominee in 2000!)
2000: Prohibition Party
2001: America First Party
2004: Socialist Workers Party
2008: Constitution Party
TODAY: Reform Party USA
As you can see, I switched party registration several times.
The blessings and fruit of Xenu fills the stomachs of hungry theetans,
Rev. Alberto Medvedev
Sean is correct that the Wisconsin Progressives were viable in the 1930’s because the Democratic Party was weak. The Progressives had been Republicans, but formed the new party to back FDR without joining with the Democrats.
The Progressives lost support as Wisconsin voted Republican in 1938 to reject the national Democrats. The Progressives also began to split with FDR over foreign policy – the Progressives were anti-interventionist as FDR moved to ally with Britain and enter World War II.
When the Progressives voted to disband, most returned to the Republican Party.
Before touting the Wisconsin Progressives, they existed largely because the Democrats in Wisconsin at the time were incredibly weak. “A Polish-Irish marching society” one called it. To vote for the Democrats in the 1930s and 40s was to vote for a party that was both racist and controlled by corrupt urban political machines controlled by gangsters. You can see why many on the left had no desire to vote for such a party and that’s why the Progressives were formed. They died because of FDR and World War II.
That being said, there is room states and cities for non-major parties to become, in a sense, “second parties” if there’s no competition. The Country Party in Wyoming is a good example of this. I think what’s needed is for persons with the three main ideological parties (Green, Libertarian, Constitutionalist) to form new local and state parties with like minded fellows in coalitions in order to provide such competition where none exists. The Wisconsin Alliance of the early 1970s is another example of this.
Great Jubilous Juice!
What do all these candidates have in common?They didn’t use PLAS–the Prohibition Libertarian Alliance Strategy!
Has they simply nominated the Prohibition Party candidate and attached a female celebrity (ie Angela Lansbury of “Murder She Wrote” fame) they would have won with at least 68% of the vote!
I have used my election-programatron computer to prove this beyond any doubt.
But who did I, Alberto Medvedev vote for?
Well, let us take a gander at the goose that gave us great goodies.
1984-Gus Hall
1988-Lenora Fulani
1992-Bo Gritz
1996-Earl F. Dodge
2000-Pat Buchanan
2004-Earl F. Dodge
2008-Bob Barr
2012-Milnes/Lansbury(?)
Xenu with be you and in your hearts,
-Rev. Alberto Medvedev
Money and Media Matters Most !
Reprinted from Yahoo News –>
…Later, Obama ducked into the Broadway Theater after the conclusion of “Sister Act” so he could speak to donors. Actress Whoopi Goldberg, one of the show’s producers, introduced the president and told the crowd Obama needs four more years to finish the job he has started.
With Obama’s 2012 campaign kicking into high gear, advisers are telling donors privately that they hope to match or exceed the $750 million raised in 2008. Some estimates say the 2012 re-election campaign could pull in $1 billion.
Republicans were quick to criticize Obama’s fundraising blitz through Manhattan.
“While President Obama tries to escape the pressures of his failed economic policies with a fundraiser in New York, millions remain out of work and are beginning to realize that the only job our president is concerned about is his own,” said Ryan Tronovitch, spokesman for the Republican National Committee.
From New York, Obama was heading to Pittsburgh, where he was to speak at a manufacturing event Friday.
The money raised at Thursday’s events go to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising account by the Democratic National Committee and Obama’s campaign.
At Victory Fund events, the first $5,000 of a donor’s contribution goes to the presidential campaign and the remainder goes to the DNC, up to a maximum of $30,800 a year.”
…
$1,000,000,000 vs ? third party ? $
= no contest !
“If you don’t like Republicans and Democrats, You might be a Libertarian.” – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=254
If You Hate the Government As Much As I Do, You Might Be A Libertarian!” – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=444
Now you can get a Bumper Sticker Variety Pack with the Magnet Back already applied at the special price of $24.95 – save $15.00!
http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=869
“Almost all recent independent Senators have been apostates from the duopoly.”
This probably has to do with the increased nationalization of politics due to technology, mobility, etc. It would be hard for a regional or state level third party to exist independently today as they could in the past.
Oh, I forgot Ralph Nader getting almost 3% in 2000. If we can find a life-long gadfly with no life, who has received great publicity as a whistle-blower, maybe we can make 2%.
RC @ 14 – the strongest third party candidates for President in the 20th Century were Theodore Roosevelt (former GOP President); Ross Perot (billionaire); Sen Robert M LaFollette (Republican Senator); George Wallace (former Democrat Governor.
Others who ran less strongly were Eugene Debs (union organizer – 6% in 1912); John Anderson (Republican Congressman); John Schmitz (Republican Congressman) and William Lemke (Republican Congressman).
I am not saying that nominating a Republican Congressman or former Congressman will ensure a good vote total – only a vote total greater than nominating a non-billionaire with no experience as elected office-holder.
@16 Interesting that they refer to the Senate this way. If you’re going back 130 years as opposed to an even 100, you’re trying to include the People’s Party (aka Populist Party), who elected a raft of Senators. Of course they were able to do this because Populists controlled numerous state legislatures, which elected senators prior to 1913. Very different from what we have now.
Then in the 1920’s you get the Farmer-Labor Party (MN) and the Progressive Party (WI) electing Senators. LaFollete may have started as a Republican, but as a Progressive he competed with the GOP and built a separate state-wide organization.
I’d say these two ideological groups far exceed the number of major party malcontents like Lieberman, Murkowski, Thurmond (in the 1950’s) and Harry Byrd, Jr. (in the 1970’s). But the FLP and Wisconsin Progressives had their heyday 70 years ago. Almost all recent independent Senators have been apostates from the duopoly.
Bernie Sanders is probably the only recent exception.
At Gene #9,
“Over the years more than one hundred third party candidates have been elected to Congress, and more than 30 third party Senators have been elected.”
How many of these were ideological third party candidates vs. moderate/mainstream candidates who had for some reason fallen out with their own party (Lieberman, Murkowski)? The obstacle to electing ideological third party candidates is even higher.
@#14, George Wallace maybe?
9 gb: …every strong alternative party candidate for President had been elected to Congress or as Governor on the Republican or Democrat ticket.
me: I’d like to see the details. The LP has tried this 2x, and neither time did our candidate break even 1%. So, I guess I’d like to see what you mean by “strong”? John Anderson?
I’ll counter what I said myself at 11.
In 1912, the “Bull Moose Party” just might have won if there had been a top-two runoff between Wilson and Roosevelt. Teddy probably could have gotten far more of the Taft voters, and maybe some of the Deb voters too, plus maybe quite some nonvoters to vote in the runoff, for a win.
“Given our current system of first past the post, the long term goal is not to become a “viable” third party, but to replace one of the major parties.”
Far better to do away with “first-past-the-post” so there can be such a think as multi-party democracy. Until then we’ll probably just be spinning our wheels. The best bet is to count all votes. Allow voters to vote for the ones they want, instead of requiring them to vote for just one of the ones they want. That’d be simpler and better, because then there’d be no spoiler. In other words, do the form of voting that’s simpler than “first-past-the-post”. Do the world’s simplest form of voting – approval voting.
I don’t get this part:
“Trying to get elected as a third party candidate in American politics is extremely difficult if not impossible since the electing process is not by majority vote.”
How does that make sense?
It’s fairly common around the world to do a top-two runoff for chief executive, which is a way to get a majority vote requirement, but how would that help upstart parties? Historically, it would not have helped once, at least not since the Repub/Demcrat system took hold shortly after the Civil War. The best voting methods for budding parties are ones that do not require a majority. It’s the double standard ballot access and 15% debate entry rule that shut out good choices from the voter, as well as voter ignorance.
I agree with Red in post 4 (except for the clause about punishing the party closest to your beliefs; I’m a Libertarian and don’t consider one larger party closer than the other). This writer assumes that the only goal in running an alternative party candidate for President is to win the office. How absurd.
In fact, since the Civil War, every President has been elected as a Republican or a Democrat. Except for Ross Perot, with his ill-gotten billions, every strong alternative party candidate for President had been elected to Congress or as Governor on the Republican or Democrat ticket.
Every President since FDR, regardless of party, has presided over an expansion of government. Those who want freedom and limited government should put their effort into electing members of Congress who support cutting the size, power and cost of government.
Over the years more than one hundred third party candidates have been elected to Congress, and more than 30 third party Senators have been elected. And some limited government conservatives have been elected as Republicans as well. Without a Congress committed to cutting back the power of government, even a President like Ronald Reagan will end up seeing government expand.
Congress is the key for supporters of limited government, and for third party activists.
4 rp, my take is a third party COULD be used as a vehicle to give like-minded folk a vehicle to express discontent with the country’s current conditions and direction. Should the different direction offered by the third party be viewed by enough people as more desireable than the current direction, it could become a major party, supplanting one or the other major party. Since 1860, no non-major party has offered such a path, broadly defined. It’s not an easy task, admittedly.
Being a Libertarian I believe in free and open markets. And the market place for goods and services is and has been one of the biggest forces for change in the world and change is not conservative thus I do not see how a free market belief even begins to be labeled as conservative.
Secondly the whole purpose of this effort in my opinion is to bring to the marketplace ideas that are not being discussed for fear of losing votes. It is not to win elections. If someone should win then great job well done.
Perot was an independent candidate for president in 1992 and the Reform Party nominee in 1996. He was on all ballots both times because of his personal fortune. Buchanan was the Reform Party nominee in 2000 and he was not on all ballots as has been previously noted.
IMO, the point of a third party presidential candidate is not to win, at least not in the near term, and anyone who thinks it is is bound to be disappointed and frustrated. The point of a third party presidential candidate is to punish the party closest to your beliefs for being insufficiently faithful, to provide a safety valve and home for those unwilling to compromise and vote for the lesser of two evils, and to hopefully build the party base so you can better challenge in the future. Given our current system of first past the post, the long term goal is not to become a “viable” third party, but to replace one of the major parties.
Here is a major red flag right from the start- the claim that Pat Buchanan was on all 50 ballots in 1996. Obviously he ran as the Reform Party candidate in 2000 and he actually wasn’t on all 50 ballots. He was not on the Michigan ballot.
Pat Buchanan was on the ballot in all fifty states in 1996? Hmmm…must have been a total media blackout.
[a] Patrick / Baye Buchanan ??????????
[b] ………. where’s the $12.5M ‘party building’ from 2000?
[c] every time non Dems and non GOP do well, it gets more difficult ——– next time!
[d] oh how other cultures must HATE us for the on going hypocrisy!