NationStates Jolt Archive

Forgive my ignorance, but why is there so much difficulty in allowing 3rd parties to be even on a ballot? I keep on hearing about this from various sources.

There isn't anywhere else in the world. USA seems to be the only two party system in the world. The rest either allow many parties, or are a dictatorship and allow only one party.

Australia allows for minor parties, but we've gotten stuck heavily into the rut of two party right-wing dictatorship as of late.

Australia allows for minor parties, but we've gotten stuck heavily into the rut of two party right-wing dictatorship as of late.

Sadly this so is true. I swear, we need another Gough Whitlam to bring some balance to the so-called 'Labour' party.

I mean, a law which was so painfully unjust that even GWB couldn't pass in the US wasn't even challenged by Labour (Andrew Bartlet and Bob Brown continue to gain approval in my eyes recently).

What scumbag pussies, I mean it took 43 retired military and government officials to actually come out and criticize Howard over his....fellatious attitude towards the US and Israel, and his inept foreign-policy.

Isn't the fundamental principle behind democracy the concept that if someone says "let's do this", someone else (preferably in politics, or better yet the 'opposition' for christ's sake) says "that's silly, we should do this", and thus force debate and focus to be brought upon the issue, thus bringing evaluation and analysis as to the best way to go into the situation?

Sorry, I'll stop this ranting now.

Forgive my ignorance, but why is there so much difficulty in allowing 3rd parties to be even on a ballot?

Because leftists can't win without suppressing democracy.

And because both major two parties are controlled by coporate interests who don't want to loose their stonghold on the government.

There isn't anywhere else in the world. USA seems to be the only two party system in the world. The rest either allow many parties, or are a dictatorship and allow only one party.


that's not true. pretty much everywhere that has a "first past the post" election system has a two party system - though sometimes they have different regional parties, but only two competitive parties in each district. under fptp, since there can only be one winner from each district, the party that wins is the party that creates the "biggest tent". since an additional party invariably finds its support at least partially from people who would otherwise vote for one of the big tent parties they are viewed (in a sense, rightly viewed) as spoilers who are breaking up enough of one of the big tent coalitions to let the other win, even though numerically more people didn't want that party to win than did.

'first past the post' elections suck pretty badly.

Because leftists can't win without suppressing democracy.

And because both major two parties are controlled by coporate interests who don't want to loose their stonghold on the government.
In America, it is the left wing parties that are being suppressed. Unless you consider the Republicans and the Democrats to be leftist?

I agree with your second statement. Corporations control American politicians.

The Jewish establishment could not possibly allow anyone but its Democratic and Republican slaves. At least they make it look democratic.

The Jewish establishment could not possibly allow anyone but its Democratic and Republican slaves. At least they make it look democratic.
Oh dear god. IGNORED.

To get on the ballot in the USA you need to have a large population of the state sign a petition to get you on, or have 5% of the vote in the previous election. (At least the way I understand it, but if I'm wrong please correct me someone.)

At times, and in certain states the signatures via petition occurs. The 5% though is the problem. See, we really don't want to elect either of our 2 parties. Very few people in the last election really wanted to elect Bush, or Gore. What happens though, is that we're stuck in a continual "lesser of the two" scenerio. So we never vote our conscious, but rather we end up voting for the other guy.

For example in 1992. No one wanted to vote for Bush Sr. No one had heard of Clinton though. He won because he was the other guy. In this election most of Kerry's votes will come because he is the other guy. If we vote for a 3rd party, we risk the chance that the person we really don't want to get elected, actually gets elected.

The thing about third parties in the US is that there isn't a single, federal election law code, at least in terms of ballot access. Each state has its own rules about what has to be done in order to get on the ballot. The big parties have the obvious advantage here because 1) they already have the organization at hand to get onto the ballot and 2) they have the money to have people do this full time even at the local level. Third parties are on the ballots in all states, but none of them are regularly on the ballot in all 50. The Libertarian Party is the closest--I think they're on in 48 or something.

The 5% rule has to do with federal matching funds if my memory is correct.

The biggest reason that third parties tend not to succeed in the US in, my opinion, is because whenever they hit upon a topic that resonates, an issue that makes people sit up and take notice (deficits in 1992, for instance, were Perot's pet peeve), one or both of the major parties gives at least lip service to the idea and co-opts it. Voters start to think that a vote for a third party candidate isn't as important since their issue is now being talked about by the big parties, and so the third parties die out for the most part.

The other thing to realize about US third parties is that they're traditionally a cult of personality--Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party, Ross Perot's (and later, Jesse Ventura's) Reform Party, George Wallace's Dixiecrat Party--and when the personality disappears, so does the party. New parties generally only arise in a vacuum, when one party has gotten so ineffective that another must arise, as what happened when the Republicans supplanted the Whigs.

Because leftists can't win without suppressing democracy.
Venezuela.

The inevitable takeover of a large democracy by corporations and interest groups is described by "Public choice theory", a branch of economics that deals with the incentives facing politicians and bureacrats. It's as inevitable as supply and demand.

that's not true. pretty much everywhere that has a "first past the post" election system has a two party system - though sometimes they have different regional parties, but only two competitive parties in each district. under fptp, since there can only be one winner from each district, the party that wins is the party that creates the "biggest tent". since an additional party invariably finds its support at least partially from people who would otherwise vote for one of the big tent parties they are viewed (in a sense, rightly viewed) as spoilers who are breaking up enough of one of the big tent coalitions to let the other win, even though numerically more people didn't want that party to win than did.

'first past the post' elections suck pretty badly.

I agree that fptp sucks. In many countries however, third parties still arise. In the UK for example, in three recent by-elections the third party won two of them, and came second place by only a few hundred votes in the other. The minor parties in the UK have a disproportionately small say in the UK parliament, but still have a sufficient number of seats to have a say, but not enough to disrupt the business of government. This does not appear to be the case in America, which is the point I'm making.

I agree that fptp sucks. In many countries however, third parties still arise. In the UK for example, in three recent by-elections the third party won two of them, and came second place by only a few hundred votes in the other. The minor parties in the UK have a disproportionately small say in the UK parliament, but still have a sufficient number of seats to have a say, but not enough to disrupt the business of government. This does not appear to be the case in America, which is the point I'm making.

well, many of the smaller parties in the uk are regional - they win only in particular districts. though the liberal dems do form something of a special case.

and we do have one minor party member in congress. the poor lonely socialist from vermont.

The reason the US only primarily has a 2 party system is sadly clear. If you are big business or a special interest group why give money to numerous parties that will vote in your favor when you can give the money to only 1 or 2 and get the same result.

The reason the US only primarily has a 2 party system is sadly clear. If you are big business or a special interest group why give money to numerous parties that will vote in your favor when you can give the money to only 1 or 2 and get the same result.

nah, you've got cause and effect backwards. we had a two party system from the start. the corporations come later and take advantage of a pre-existing system. if you want more than 2 parties, you need to either form regional parties or move away from single winner elections.

Venezuela.
Good one. I'd also throw in much of western Europe.

Forgive my ignorance, but why is there so much difficulty in allowing 3rd parties to be even on a ballot? I keep on hearing about this from various sources.
Third parties are on the ballot in many states, although they have to apply state by state. In some states, only a few signatures are required to run, while others require lavish fees.
Should a presidential candidate get 5% of the popular vote, btw, then they are eligible for federal matching funds in the next election. At current, the Greens are elligible, but they don't stand a chance to hit 5% again without Nader. Nader is an Independent, btw, and they tend to have some clout, even in Congress.
BTW, the governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura, is in the Independence party, a centrist movement.

Is Ventura still governor or does his term expire this year? I know he wasn't running for reelection, so his party will lose whatever meager attention it was recieving if it hasn't already.

I think you're right about the Green Party, but I don't think their rejection of Nader has anything to do with it. Had they chosen Nader as their candidate, they'd have lost any bargaining power they have (and it's not much, admittedly, but it's something) with the Democratic Party. Their candidate, Cobb, has basically campaigned on a theme that says "we want to be allies with the Democrats" as opposed to "there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans" (i.e. Nader's theme).

As to the Congress, I know of two independents, one in each House: Jim Jeffords in the Senate and Bernie Sanders(? I think) in the House, and both I believe from Vermont.

Is Ventura still governor or does his term expire this year? I know he wasn't running for reelection, so his party will lose whatever meager attention it was recieving if it hasn't already.


Don't know. But he still exists.

In America, it is the left wing parties that are being suppressed. Unless you consider the Republicans and the Democrats to be leftist?


I'll disagree with you on that one. There are conservative parties that are being suppressed as well.

The Feingold-McCain campaign finance reform law that went in is going to great lengths to maintain the two party system. Nice blow for freedom. Ugh.

With Nader running, bush will be in the lead, because the Kerry votes have been split. Not even he is stupid enough to know that. I think Nader is running for a personal reason. Maybe a wish from a dieing relative?

The campaign finance reform law was put into place to try to curb the corporate influence. The problem is that throughout the process to make the bill a law, bureaucratic influences at various stages (committees, additions of additional amendments to the bill, making both the House and Senate final versions of the bill into one form, etc.) water downed the strength of the bill, putting a lot of loopholes in it. The United States used to have numerous third parties that could actually have a chance of success. In fact, the Republican party used to be a third party (it eventually replaced the very old Wig party as one of the "major" parties). Abraham Lincoln won his second term in office not as a Republican candidate, but as a Unionist candidate.

Well our founding fathers laid down the two part system because they feared that more parties would cause breaks in the new nation of America. What is ironic is that in the eyes of Washington, Hamilton, Franklin and the others is that they thought one party would be best for the nation, but the idea was so contested that they let it go for a two-party system. Since then, there have always been two dominant parties within the American political system. They have had different names, but findamentally have been democrats and republicans.

Third parties have been around with moderate success. Eugene Debs and the Socialist party were players in the early 1900s. Theodore Roosevelt and the Bull-Moose party were the most successful of the third parties during his run for a third term (still allowed at that time). The progressivists were also fairly successful. What eventually happens is that a third party will make big noises, then one of the two established parties will suck up the third party's ideals and that party will disappear.

That's basically the point I was trying to make, BLARGistania--but I wanted to add that third parties have largely been based around personalities--Teddy Roosevelt and Ross Perot for instance--and when the personality leaves, the party dies as well, with their signature issues swallowed up by one or both parties.

Yeah, most of the important points have been said. Essentially, we have a system which favors two dominant parties. To give a third party a real chance of winning (like proportional representation), the people in government have to agree to hand over some of their power.

If you belonged to a party which consistantly held 40-60% of the country's political power, would you give some of it to the little guy in the name of fairness? If so, I salute you. You're better than the vast majority of politicians in this country.

Fun fact of the day: A single third party candidate was successful in winning a US Presidential election. Big Abe. The vote between the two parties was split, and Abe sucked up all the votes in the middle.

Well our founding fathers laid down the two part system because they feared that more parties would cause breaks in the new nation of America. What is ironic is that in the eyes of Washington, Hamilton, Franklin and the others is that they thought one party would be best for the nation, but the idea was so contested that they let it go for a two-party system. Since then, there have always been two dominant parties within the American political system. They have had different names, but findamentally have been democrats and republicans.

That's pretty close... but to be fair, Washington didn't want ANY parties. The very idea was a turn-off. The two-party system came along and made sense when T. Jefferson was running for office because the country was going to go in one of two directions: argriculture or industry. Your vote for a president was a vote for America's future direction. Sadly, we just haven't had the strength or creativity to come up with a new system now that industry has kicked the crap out of agriculture.