NationStates Jolt Archive

Nader: 0.34%
Badnarik: 0.33%
Peroutka: 0.11%
Cobb: 0.09%


Compared to 2000...
Nader: 2.74%
Buchanan: 0.42%
Browne: 0.36%

And to 1996...
Perot: 8.4%
Nader: 0.71%
Browne: 0.50%

And to 1992...
Perot: 18.87%
(Other): 0.36%

Even in 1988, Ron Paul managed to take 0.5%, more than Nader this year.


Seems the third parties are getting creamed by the Dems and Repubs.

This year Nader was marginalized, ridiculed, and basically attacked by the Democrats...and accepted funding and signature-collecting from Republican groups, as well as the endorsement of the party that put forward PAT BUCHANAN four years ago (Reform Party).

Any thoughts on the future of third party politics?

They are going about this all wrong. One of them could potentially push a major party out of power and take over, if they get into local government first and then take great efforts to publicity-stunt themselves in a way the media will hype.

They are going about this all wrong. One of them could potentially push a major party out of power and take over, if they get into local government first and then take great efforts to publicity-stunt themselves in a way the media will hype.

Agreed. There is alot to say for starting small.

They are going about this all wrong. One of them could potentially push a major party out of power and take over, if they get into local government first and then take great efforts to publicity-stunt themselves in a way the media will hype.

Of course they're not really trying to get into office. They couldn't possible be stupid enough to think that they might turn around a .03% share of the vote and rally for a victory.

It's more about trying to make sure that the Democrat or Republican on "their side of the fence" doesn't get too tempted to turn into a clone of his opponent. Of course they're completly useless at that too. Although a certain amount of Bush's pulpitry might be attributable to the "Constitution" Party.

There is nothing wrong with a third-party candidacy. Nader is just not packaging his message in a way that has mass appeal. The democrats did go after him, but only to make sure they had a better chance of electing John Kerry. Nader continued his candidacy based on principle. He knew he stood no chance of being elected and ran anyway, The result was to make it more likely that Bush would have another four years in office.

I agree that you have to start at the local level (state politics) before attempting to put a viable third party candidate in federal office.

Nader is on the way out, yes. However, Badnarik and the Libertarians are on the upswing. Sure, he may have gotten a small vote comparatively, but 300,000+ supporters is something to work with. That is plenty a base to build on.

Keep in mind the mindset many people have- that a vote for a third party is a waste of a vote. That is a most ridiculous notion. Voting for candidates and parties you dont agree with, just because of fear of a 'wasted vote', is a wasted vote. For doing that will never bring change, only more power to what you oppose. Hell, nearly everyone you talk to says, "Well, I dont like Bush nor Kerry, but [so-and-so] is the lesser evil..." They think they have to vote for them, but they do not. If people would get out of that mindset, there really could be a change in this country.

I have a feeling as the Democratic party begins to split inside (liberals vs moderates) the Libertarians will start to come more into the spotlight. Of course, they have to nominate a higher profile person for 2008. I'm thinking Jesse Ventura would bring some press.

Heck, Strom Thurmond beat those numbers when he ran for President. He got 2.4% I believe. Too bad for those guys.

/End Southern Pride

And George Wallace did quite well in 1968.

O God - 3rd parties are declining fast.

NOO! *cries out in agony for Badnarik*

http://www.theonion.com/index.php?i=1

Nader Supporters Blame Electoral Defeat On
Bush, Kerry
WASHINGTON, DC—Supporters of presidential candidate Ralph Nader blamed his defeat Tuesday on George W. Bush and John Kerry, claiming that the two candidates "ate up" his share of the electoral votes. "This election was stolen out from under Mr. Nader by Bush and Kerry, who diverted his votes to the right and the left," Nader campaign manager Theresa Amato said. "It's an outrage. If Nader were the only candidate, he would be president right now." In his concession speech, Nader characterized Bush and Kerry as spoilers.

It isn't "too bad for those guys". It is "too bad for the American people who have been suckered into this." We have been conned into the belief that only a vote for Rep/Dem will be a 'useful' vote. If 3rd parties can get the word out to people that there are millions of voters that are not happy with how the country is ran and want a change, we could make some serious noise.

The farther-right ones have a chance now that the Republicans have expanded influence, and Bush really can't be opposed anymore. Perhaps the Liberatarians and the Reform party may become big again, although I doubt the Reform can in its current state. It is a mess, divided between Southern populists, isolationists, and socialists. They allowed Nader to run only because they are really a non-party right now.

The farther-right ones have a chance now that the Republicans have expanded influence, and Bush really can't be opposed anymore. Perhaps the Liberatarians and the Reform party may become big again, although I doubt the Reform can in its current state. It is a mess, divided between Southern populists, isolationists, and socialists. They allowed Nader to run only because they are really a non-party right now.

There also exists a fairly large part of the Republican party unsatisfied with the neo-con/Christian right take over of the party. A split into 3-4 parties won't happen in 2008, but 2-12 or 2016? Maybe?

It isn't "too bad for those guys". It is "too bad for the American people who have been suckered into this." We have been conned into the belief that only a vote for Rep/Dem will be a 'useful' vote. If 3rd parties can get the word out to people that there are millions of voters that are not happy with how the country is ran and want a change, we could make some serious noise.

The system is geared towards 2 parties. 3rd parties historically only arise in the US as a sort of corrective, pushing the parties towards a certain position or issue that's not being dealt with properly. A move to a proportional election system would make 3rd parties more viable, but I don't see it happening anytime soon in the US.

Nader is on the way out, yes. However, Badnarik and the Libertarians are on the upswing. Sure, he may have gotten a small vote comparatively, but 300,000+ supporters is something to work with. That is plenty a base to build on.
It is interesting that so much attention was given to Nader by both sides, and here Badnarik almost beat him!!!

I agree, the Libertarian Party is the most viable third party around. They have the potential to pull moderates, unlike the winger parties (Green and Constitution). Libertarians can attract social liberals fed up with their party's pandering to the middle, as well as economic conservatives irritated with their party's big spending.

All the winger parties can do is pull votes off the ends, Libertarians can drive up the middle and form a large coalition. I think they'll be a big player in the future.

And McCain will run for prex in 2008, and then all your hopes will be demolished, because Hillary will never beat him. Besides, what, precisely, is there to dislike about McCain? Nothing! He's great! Eveyone loves him! He's a moderate, and 70% of the country will go to him. Go McCain!

And McCain will run for prex in 2008, and then all your hopes will be demolished, because Hillary will never beat him. Besides, what, precisely, is there to dislike about McCain? Nothing! He's great! Eveyone loves him! He's a moderate, and 70% of the country will go to him. Go McCain!
The evangelicals wont vote for him.

He's pro-choice, and joined the Democrats in defeating the gay marriage amendment.

He doesn't exude that good ole spirituality that Bush does.

So, while he is obviously a strong candidate, it remains doubtful if he can maintain the neo-con/religious right alliance that has been dominating the GOP recently.

From an article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1343992,00.html?=rss) about the religious right's influence in this election:

"I think it's quite possible this could be a turning point," said Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Group lobbying organisation.

"We're seeing from the exit polls that conservative Christian voters turned out in record numbers ... so we certainly will be pressing for action on key items of our agenda, and we will not be shy about claiming that our influence was significant in the outcome of the election."

As well, in a post-election memo obtained by the New York Times, Richard Viguerie, a rightwing direct-mailing campaigner, issued a warning to the Republican party. "Make no mistake - conservative Christians and 'values voters' won this election for George W Bush and Republicans in congress," he wrote.

"It's crucial that the Republican leadership not forget this - as much as some will try ... Liberals, many in the media and inside the Republican party, are urging the president to 'unite' the country by discarding the allies that earned him another four years."

People are talking about the Democrat Party splitting and dying or whatever...I wonder about the future of the Republican Party as well.

Any thoughts on the future of third party politics?

There are only three possible futures for successful third parties, based upon the restrictions of the U.S. Constitutional sytem.

1) They Become Spoilers - This is the most common role for third parties that achieve any level of success. Ralf Naders' Green Party run in 2000 is the most well know example in recent history, but Teddy Rossevelt's Bull Moose Party cost Taft and the Republicans the election in 1912 and the Liberty Party probably cost Henry Clay the presidency in 1844.

2) Ideas Absorbed by the Big Two - This is the fate of successful third parties with attractive ideas or ideologies. The best known example is the Progressives of the early 20th century. Their ideas concerning increased democracy, government breakup of monopolies, recognition of labor, etc. were adopted by both Democrats and Republicans. In fact their ideas were so popular that the 1912 election essentially had three progressives running for president: Democrat Woodrow Wilson, Republican Howard Taft, and Progressive Teddy Roosevelt.

Ross Perot's Reform Party had their idea about reducing the deficit co-opted by the Democrats in 1992; the 1836 anti-Mason party disappeared into the Whigs; the 1948 Dixiecrats and George Wallace's 1968 American Independence Party became building blocks of eventual Republican domination of the South.

3) They Become the Second Party - If the third party is really successful they can eventually replace one of the two major parties. This requires they move beyond a single issue and build a coalition appealing to a large percentage (eventually majority) of Americans.

The most well know case of this happening was when the Republican Party replaced the Whigs as America's second party in 1860.

I just found it amazing that Badnarik's name wasnt mentioned ONCE on CNN the night of the election. Hell, he wasnt even on the website except for the required footnotes. They spoke of Nader plenty, and he received a lot of air time, yet he only had a few thousand more votes. I wonder what could have happened had the media been a little more diverse in their coverage...


The problem with 3rd parties is that NO ONE knows about them. Ask around your school (and workplace) and see how many people know of Badnarik, his party, and his stances. These small parties do not stand a chance without more coverage, coverage that must begin on the local level. Grassroots, baby.

There are only three possible futures for successful third parties, based upon the restrictions of the U.S. Constitutional sytem.

1) They Become Spoilers - This is the most common role for third parties that achieve any level of success. Ralf Naders' Green Party run in 2000 is the most well know example in recent history, but Teddy Rossevelt's Bull Moose Party cost Taft and the Republicans the election in 1912 and the Liberty Party probably cost Henry Clay the presidency in 1844.

2) Ideas Absorbed by the Big Two - This is the fate of successful third parties with attractive ideas or ideologies. The best known example is the Progressives of the early 20th century. Their ideas concerning increased democracy, government breakup of monopolies, recognition of labor, etc. were adopted by both Democrats and Republicans. In fact their ideas were so popular that the 1912 election essentially had three progressives running for president: Democrat Woodrow Wilson, Republican Howard Taft, and Progressive Teddy Roosevelt.

Ross Perot's Reform Party had their idea about reducing the deficit co-opted by the Democrats in 1992; the 1836 anti-Mason party disappeared into the Whigs; the 1948 Dixiecrats and George Wallace's 1968 American Independence Party became building blocks of eventual Republican domination of the South.

3) They Become the Second Party - If the third party is really successful they can eventually replace one of the two major parties. This requires they move beyond a single issue and build a coalition appealing to a large percentage (eventually majority) of Americans.

The most well know case of this happening was when the Republican Party replaced the Whigs as America's second party in 1860.


Almost exactly. The only thing I can correct is that the plurality voting system (which is one of the biggest obsticals to third parties) is not constitutionally mandated.

I'm just impressed that Badnarik even got close to Nader's numbers, considering he had only $1 million in campaign funds and had to deal with a complete media blackout.

There are only three possible futures for successful third parties, based upon the restrictions of the U.S. Constitutional sytem.

1) They Become Spoilers - This is the most common role for third parties that achieve any level of success. Ralf Naders' Green Party run in 2000 is the most well know example in recent history, but Teddy Rossevelt's Bull Moose Party cost Taft and the Republicans the election in 1912 and the Liberty Party probably cost Henry Clay the presidency in 1844.

2) Ideas Absorbed by the Big Two - This is the fate of successful third parties with attractive ideas or ideologies. The best known example is the Progressives of the early 20th century. Their ideas concerning increased democracy, government breakup of monopolies, recognition of labor, etc. were adopted by both Democrats and Republicans. In fact their ideas were so popular that the 1912 election essentially had three progressives running for president: Democrat Woodrow Wilson, Republican Howard Taft, and Progressive Teddy Roosevelt.

Ross Perot's Reform Party had their idea about reducing the deficit co-opted by the Democrats in 1992; the 1836 anti-Mason party disappeared into the Whigs; the 1948 Dixiecrats and George Wallace's 1968 American Independence Party became building blocks of eventual Republican domination of the South.

3) They Become the Second Party - If the third party is really successful they can eventually replace one of the two major parties. This requires they move beyond a single issue and build a coalition appealing to a large percentage (eventually majority) of Americans.

The most well know case of this happening was when the Republican Party replaced the Whigs as America's second party in 1860.

Of course my previous observation only applies to successful third party candidates. I don't consider Nader, Badnarik, Peroutka, or Cobb successful this past election.

The electorate was a lot more polarized this time which fares badly for 3rd parties. Many of us who voted for 3rd parties in the past (ie I voted for Nader in 2000) did not see any value in it this year. Also our electoral system is fundamentally 2 party and unless some sort of proportional or instant-runoff voting is instituted it will be extremly difficult for any viable 3rd party to form on a national level.