NationStates Jolt Archive

Throughout American history there have been numeous parties, Federalists, Wigs, Tories ect. (unfortunatly only 2 at a time) however these parties have fallen from popularity. In fact their once was a Democratic-Republican Party before it split up. Is the time right for one of the parties to fall and anotherone to take its place? Which party is it? Will we have a political monopoly for a few years before it gets organised?

Republicans will collapse and Democrats will rise due to the ever rising minority population.

Republicans will collapse and Democrats will rise due to the ever rising minority population.

Republicans and Democrats both seem to be pretty stable and loathe to break up (as opposed to third parties, which seem to break up more quickly than a sheet of glass falling onto a concrete floor from three stories up).

if the republicans can't keep a boogeyman around, they would probably fall apart. free market fundamentalists have very little in common with christian fundamentalists other than common enemies.

of course, the democratic party already partially collapsed a couple decades ago when they decided to stop appeasing racist southern assholes.

of course, the democratic party already partially collapsed a couple decades ago when they decided to stop appeasing racist southern assholes.

The further from Andrew Jackson the Democratic party is, the happier I am.

Neither party will break up any time soon. Even with more Hispanics, 3rd-generation Hispanics have more in common with your average White person than they do with 1st generation.

I could see an "anti-bigness" party getting support from dems and GOP who are tired of abuses both by big government and big business. It would be like Huey Long's Populism.

I think you're more likely to see a morphing of the individual parties in the US than the demise of either major party. The Democratic party always seems to be on the verge of a split because it really exists as a coalition of disparate groups, but I'd argue that the Republican party is facing a potential problem.

There are two wings in the current party--the old school fiscal conservatives who were at least "live and let live" on social issues (the John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chaffee types) and the new school social "Christian" conservatives who are far right on social issues and less concerned with fiscal responsibility, and they're currently in charge. That's the Bush, DeLay, Frist, Santorum wing.

The first group, also known as Rockefeller Republicans, are a dying breed. They're being squeezed out and attacked by the conservatives. That Arlen Specter had to fight off a serious challenge from Toomey in his PA Senate bid is an example of the rift. There is the potential that the moderates in the Republican party may look at the fiscal responsibility of the moderate Democrats and decide they have more in common than with their own party. It happened with Jim Jeffords. I'd be more than happy to welcome any of the others who would like to come over.

I could see an "anti-bigness" party getting support from dems and GOP who are tired of abuses both by big government and big business. It would be like Huey Long's Populism.

Perot*s Reform Party fit that definition quite well. Anti-big, populist, and centered on 1 person. They didn*t last long as a major force.
Several other parties fitting that definition more loosely also exist: Libertarian, Green, Natural Law, etc. None have shown much sucess.

Before a major party can collapse there needs to be a legitimate third party to siphon votes away. Then, as popularity for the main party drifts towards the third party, the main party will begin to collapse. Unfortunately right now there are no third parties that can even begin to call themselves legitimate threats.

Before a major party can collapse there needs to be a legitimate third party to siphon votes away. Then, as popularity for the main party drifts towards the third party, the main party will begin to collapse. Unfortunately right now there are no third parties that can even begin to call themselves legitimate threats.

Unless the main party does a 'New Labour' and completely changes its agenda.

Before a major party can collapse there needs to be a legitimate third party to siphon votes away. Then, as popularity for the main party drifts towards the third party, the main party will begin to collapse. Unfortunately right now there are no third parties that can even begin to call themselves legitimate threats.In the US there's little chance of that happening, mainly because the two dominant parties have staked out such wide swaths of positions that the only way a third party can get traction is as a single issue candidate or as a celebrity candidate like Ross Perot. There's always been the illusion that a group of moderates could form a centrist party, but unfortunately, it's hard to draw a crowd that gets excited about moderation.

I could see an "anti-bigness" party getting support from dems and GOP who are tired of abuses both by big government and big business. It would be like Huey Long's Populism.

Perot*s Reform Party fit that definition quite well. Anti-big, populist, and centered on 1 person. They didn*t last long as a major force.
Several other parties fitting that definition more loosely also exist: Libertarian, Green, Natural Law, etc. None have shown much sucess.

When the Reforms, the Greens, the Natural Laws and the Libertarians realize they have more in common with each other than the Neo-Cons and the Socialist - then they'll take the conservative (classical Liberalism) vote with them to a major Third Party!

When the Reforms, the Greens, the Natural Laws and the Libertarians realize they have more in common with each other than the Neo-Cons and the Socialist - then they'll take the conservative (classical Liberalism) vote with them to a major Third Party!

Actually, there's already a party named the Third Party.

However, I think Libertarians and Greens might have trouble working together. You know, that whole environmental regulation thing?

However, I think Libertarians and Greens might have trouble working together. You know, that whole environmental regulation thing?

stranger things have happened. the new deal coalition democrats included both blacks and klan members

Just a point to make:
The old Democratic-Republican party is the modern day Democratic party. It did not split. The party just decided to drop "Republican" part of the name. The Republican party started as a third party that was made up of Whigs, some Free Soilers, and dissatisfied Democrats.

As for a third party arising, it would have to come from a rift within one of the major two parties. I am personally a moderate Republican in the model of John McCain, some have even called me a Rockefeller Republican. The only viable major third party that I can see is one made up of moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats.

That said when and if a major third party does arise that means one of the current major parties will dissapear.

The idea that Libertarians, Greens, Natural Laws, Reforms could come together is far fetched. The idea that they could become a major party in America is almost laughable. Americans have always voted for center-right and center-left parties (except in a very few instances).

That said when and if a major third party does arise that means one of the current major parties will dissapear.

thanks single member plurality voting!

However, I think Libertarians and Greens might have trouble working together. You know, that whole environmental regulation thing?


A libertarian-green pro-environment coalition could work quite well on the environmental issue if they both focus on a common adversary: the government. Governments are the largest polluters and most powerful subsidizers of pollution there are. Get the Greens to focus on the government and its abuse of the environment, and get the Libertarians to supplement that by approaching limited government from an environmentalist point of view. It could work quite well actually.

I think if any party is on a down turn right now, its the Green Party. Ralph Nader is running independent because he does not wish to be associated with the Green Party and be seen as a "spoiler." The Green Party does not want to associate with Nader as they seem him as interfering with the "anyone but Bush" movement. The Green Party, therefore, has lost its celebrity, and if Nader had trouble getting on ballots all over the nation, then ballot access for whoever replaces him is going to be an absolute nightmare.

This coupled with pretty much every leftist out there voting for Kerry to oust Bush means that the Green Party is in big trouble this next election.

(The Libertarians, on the otherhand, have a HUGE opportunity to attract the conservative vote which is disillusioned with Bush and can have an equally huge turnout if they play their cards right. Perhaps they can even have better results than the Greens this next election, which would be a huge boost for their cause.)

The Libertarians, on the otherhand, have a HUGE opportunity to attract the conservative vote which is disillusioned with Bush and can have an equally huge turnout if they play their cards right. Perhaps they can even have better results than the Greens this next election, which would be a huge boost for their cause.

It would be fair to say that that the Libertarians have support from about 10% of the population. It's a shame that cannot translate that figure into congressional seats.

I think the two main problems with the Libertarians is that they are not very vocal when major issues are raised in the media and they seem unclear as to how far they want to see individual freedom expanded and the justifications of expanding it. The hard-core Objectivists don't help their cause either by sharing the same belief as Rand did: that they are nothing more than anarchists. They could help their cause further by becoming more involved in campaigns which most sides of the political spectrum support, such as drug decriminalisation and the elimination of the Federal Reserve and the fiat money system.

They could help their cause further by becoming more involved in campaigns which most sides of the political spectrum support, such as drug decriminalisation and the elimination of the Federal Reserve and the fiat money system.


How do most side support drug decriminalization? The only parties I know of that support decriminalization are the Libertarians and the Greens (although the Greens seem only to focus on marijuana, whereas the Libertarians focus on everything). Also, the only people supporting elimination of the Fed are the Libertarians. The Democrats and the Republicans rely on the Fed to maintain their stranglehold on American politics. And the Greens would probably sooner cover the Earth up to our elbows in toxic waste than let people have private mints.

They could help their cause further by becoming more involved in campaigns which most sides of the political spectrum support, such as drug decriminalisation and the elimination of the Federal Reserve and the fiat money system.


How do most side support drug decriminalization? The only parties I know of that support decriminalization are the Libertarians and the Greens (although the Greens seem only to focus on marijuana, whereas the Libertarians focus on everything). Also, the only people supporting elimination of the Fed are the Libertarians. The Democrats and the Republicans rely on the Fed to maintain their stranglehold on American politics. And the Greens would probably sooner cover the Earth up to our elbows in toxic waste than let people have private mints.

While the parties themselves do not support such policies there are people who aren't Libertarians or Greens who support drug decriminisation and people who aren't Libertarians who support the elimination of the Federal Reserve and the fiat money system.

It would be fair to say that that the Libertarians have support from about 10% of the population. It's a shame that cannot translate that figure into congressional seats.

thanks again single member plurality voting.

it kinda surprises me that there isn't more call for the us to adopt some form of proportional representation.