NationStates Jolt Archive

Much debate about third party candidates in US elections. Oh, they can't win, or a vote for a third party is just a vote for the other (Dem or Rep) party, or don't throw away your vote.

So, do you think a third party candidate could ever be elected to a national office? Why or why not? I think they can because people are getting fed up with the "politics as usual" attidude of both the Democrats and Republicans.

So, do you think a third party candidate could ever be elected to a national office?


Nope. (Edit: Correction: could a candidate ever get elected to national office? Possibly. Could a third party ever enjoy electoral success, comparable to that of a major party, on the national level? Nope.


Why or why not?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law


I think they can because people are getting fed up with the "politics as usual" attidude of both the Democrats and Republicans


Considering the typically low voter turnout rates, it is probably more accurate to say that the majority don't care, one way or the other. For those that do care, see "Duverger's Law" above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law


Sorry, but I cannot accept wikipedia as a credible or acceptable source.

[/QUOTE] Considering the typically low voter turnout rates, it is probably more accurate to say that the majority don't care, one way or the other. [/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, this is true. So I guess Plato and my sig are applicable.
:(

Hey, third parties are starting to do better in state elections, so eventually a third party candidate will probably do well in national elections, and then the party itself. And yeah, I would vote for third party candidates if I feel they'll do better at the job than one from the main parties.

Oh, and third parties show up throughout US history. Typically what happens is that the two parties get too stuck in their party-ness and ignore some huge issue that a large group of the American people are concerned about. So, the party gets support, and lasts for about two or three elections. Then the main parties incorporate the "fringe" idea into themselves and it goes back to the two parties once more.
And yeah, I'd say it's about time to have a third party come in for a little bit. It's been a while, and the two parties seem to be at that sort of lock-out that would happen at other such times.

.

Oh, and third parties show up throughout US history. Typically what happens is that the two parties get too stuck in their party-ness and ignore some huge issue that a large group of the American people are concerned about.

Like, oh say Immigration?

Like, oh say Immigration?

That's a possibility of something that could cause a third party to have success. Medicare could too. Even the war could. Anything that bothers enough people. Although it's more likely to be something relatively domestic, so immigration and Medicare seem more likely than the war.

Sorry, but I cannot accept wikipedia as a credible or acceptable source.

You what?

I have to because both parties support torture, this so-called "war on terror", the free market, destruction of the environment and the occupation of Palestine. Green is the only way to go, otherwise I would be voting for immoral murders.

Why would anybody want to vote for the third party when you have a perfectly good Republican Party candidate running for office? You people are all crazy.

Much debate about third party candidates in US elections. Oh, they can't win, or a vote for a third party is just a vote for the other (Dem or Rep) party, or don't throw away your vote.
A vote for Nadar is still a vote for Nadar :p

So, do you think a third party candidate could ever be elected to a national office? Why or why not? I think they can because people are getting fed up with the "politics as usual" attidude of both the Democrats and Republicans.
That's the trouble with the pluralty system, it doesn't allow more than two parties to have much of a chance. Someone already mentioned Duverger's Law, which works pretty well. What this country needs is election reform, then we can elect leaders we actually like. :eek: ;)
I'd like a nice IRV system or even a Borda Count at this point, some kind of preference voting. Even approval voting seems fine compared to the bull we have now. And while we're at it, get rid of the obsolete and oppressive electoral system where a person is worth more in a state with less persons. Ridiculous...
For our Congress we ought to get some proportional representation system devised, then third parties would have a chance there too.

Like, oh say Immigration?

Or like pork spending? Did you know that the Senate voted for additional C-17 aircraft for the Air Force "to keep the C-17 line open, even thought the Air Force said they didn't need or want the aircraft?
Did you know that the Senate voted to give money to a shipyard in Mississippi to rebuild because it was "underinsured?" But where is the money for the citizens who cannot afford to rebuild their homes because they were "underinsured?"

Did you know that the Senate voted to tear up and relocate a railroad in Mississippi to build a road that is not needed? Did you know that the Federal government just paid $ 250 million to rebuild that same railroad?

Hell no, it isn't all about immigration.

Or like pork spending? Did you know that the Senate voted for additional C-17 aircraft for the Air Force "to keep the C-17 line open, even thought the Air Force said they didn't need or want the aircraft?
Did you know that the Senate voted to give money to a shipyard in Mississippi to rebuild because it was "underinsured?" But where is the money for the citizens who cannot afford to rebuild their homes because they were "underinsured?"

Did you know that the Senate voted to tear up and relocate a railroad in Mississippi to build a road that is not needed? Did you know that the Federal government just paid $ 250 million to rebuild that same railroad?

Hell no, it isn't all about immigration.

After that we can tackle the beast of gerrymandering. And then end corruption...
Pork won't stop no matter who is in power because power corrupts. And, the average American doesn't know or even care about pork or most forms of corruption. But when you don't adhere to their "values" in your personal life, you will be grilled.

You what?

I did not stutter. I cannot accept Wikipedia as a credible or acceptable source of information. If you don't like that then ...it is your problem. Most academic institutions will not accept Wikipedia and if they do, they want other sources to back it up. I'm not an academic institution, but why should I accept any less than they do as a credible and acceptable source?

Or like pork spending? Did you know that the Senate voted for additional C-17 aircraft for the Air Force "to keep the C-17 line open, even thought the Air Force said they didn't need or want the aircraft?
Did you know that the Senate voted to give money to a shipyard in Mississippi to rebuild because it was "underinsured?" But where is the money for the citizens who cannot afford to rebuild their homes because they were "underinsured?"

Did you know that the Senate voted to tear up and relocate a railroad in Mississippi to build a road that is not needed? Did you know that the Federal government just paid $ 250 million to rebuild that same railroad?

Hell no, it isn't all about immigration.

Just an example!

True though You buget is REALLY fucked up.:p

I did not stutter. I cannot accept Wikipedia as a credible or acceptable source of information. If you don't like that then ...it is your problem. Most academic institutions will not accept Wikipedia and if they do, they want other sources to back it up. I'm not an academic institution, but why should I accept any less than they do as a credible and acceptable source?

Wikipedia is like a collection of a bunch of other sources really, with millions of people fact-checking and improving it all the time. If you don't consider that to be a credible source, well it would be hard to accept any second-hand source.

perfectly good Republican Party candidate


This is an oxymoron right?

Just an example!

True though You buget is REALLY fucked up.:p

If by my budget you mean the budget of the US, I agree. :mad: If you mean by my budget you mean my personal budget I must disagree. I can't even afford a new house let alone a couple of new C-17 aircraft. :D

Wikipedia is like a collection of a bunch of other sources really, with millions of people fact-checking and improving it all the time. If you don't consider that to be a credible source, well it would be hard to accept any second-hand source.

Anyone can make changes to Wikipedia and some have to the detriment of some individuals especially politicians. How sad. I prefer some other sources where the facts are checked before the information is posted.

If you were a student in my class and relied, only on Wikipedia as a source of information you might have a problem. If you could back up your Wikipedia information with other sources of information, you would have less of a problem. If you were in an advanced degree program and used Wikipedia as a source, you would have a severe problem with your committee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

Sorry, but I cannot accept wikipedia as a credible or acceptable source.



Could you please explain yourself? If you said, 'Wikipedia isn't an acceptable reference in a court of law', I'd believe you, but -- for the purposes of letting people know what Duverger's Law is, isn't it adequate? Do you have some quarrel with the definition it offers? Are you claiming that Duverger's Law doesn't 'exist' in some sense, so in offering an article on it Wikipedia is perpetrating a fraud? What's your point? At the very least it's alerting you to the existence of an idea you can research further elsewhere, and that idea is highly relevant to the discussion. For that purpose alone - as a quick first reference - Wikipedia is valuable.

Anyone can make changes to Wikipedia and some have to the detriment of some individuals especially politicians. How sad. I prefer some other sources where the facts are checked before the information is posted.

If you were a student in my class and relied, only on Wikipedia as a source of information you might have a problem. If you could back up your Wikipedia information with other sources of information, you would have less of a problem. If you were in an advanced degree program and used Wikipedia as a source, you would have a severe problem with your committee.

Okay, conviently enough for teh Wikinazis, if you would scroll to the bottom of the page, you can find Wiki's source and check those. See that section down there? "References"? Click the links. Those will not be pages "Anyone can change". M'kay? Wiki has sources, go there.

Okay, conviently enough for teh Wikinazis, if you would scroll to the bottom of the page, you can find Wiki's source and check those. See that section down there? "References"? Click the links. Those will not be pages "Anyone can change". M'kay? Wiki has sources, go there.

Beat me to it.

I'm an academic teacher. Wikipedia and answers.com, in this case anyway, would be fine for a paper like this. Celtlund is clearly closed minded and did not bother to read the wiki article and check the reference at the bottom of the page. Only to discredit everything associated with wiki style pages.

The fact is that if you don't know what the Duverger's law is, you shouldn't be teaching politics. And if a student comes to me with this wiki article as a reference - which by the way is accurate if you bother to read it - I would have no choice but to accept it. It is accurate and it has further references at the bottom of the page. All of this makes it perfectly acceptable to any academic teacher that I work with.

Sorry, but I cannot accept wikipedia as a credible or acceptable source.


Why? Duverger's Law is Duverger's Law, whether presented in Wikipedia or anywhere else. If the description of Duverger's Law in Wikipedia is accurate, then it is accurate, whether one believe that an encyclopedia should be edited by the general public or not. I have studied Duverger's Law as a political science student at the university level, and I believe that the description presented by Wikipedia is accurate. (edit: and even if the article presented is inaccurate, the solution is to research the topic presented and present a counterargument, rebuttal or correction, not to dismiss any discussion or consideration with a single sentence. Attack the presentation, not the presenter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem)).

At any rate, if one insists on rejecting all of Wikipedia because of some "controversy" that has nothing to do with the actual article presented, at the very least examine the works presented in the references section:


References

* Maurice Duverger, "Factors in a Two-Party and Multiparty System," in Party Politics and Pressure Groups (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1972), pp. 23-32.

* William H. Riker, The Two-party System and Duverger's Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science American Political Science Review, 76 (December, 1982), pp. 753-766.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_Law#References

Another good reference is:

Almond, G. A., et al. (2006.) Comparative politics today: A world view. 8th ed. New York: Pearson Longman.

Which in turn references:

Maurice Duverger, Political Parties: Their Organization and activity in the Modern State, [1954] trans. Barbara and Robert North, New York: John Wiley, 1963.

Hey, third parties are starting to do better in state elections, so eventually a third party candidate will probably do well in national elections, and then the party itself. And yeah, I would vote for third party candidates if I feel they'll do better at the job than one from the main parties.

Oh, and third parties show up throughout US history. Typically what happens is that the two parties get too stuck in their party-ness and ignore some huge issue that a large group of the American people are concerned about. So, the party gets support, and lasts for about two or three elections. Then the main parties incorporate the "fringe" idea into themselves and it goes back to the two parties once more.
And yeah, I'd say it's about time to have a third party come in for a little bit. It's been a while, and the two parties seem to be at that sort of lock-out that would happen at other such times.

O how I am currently praying for the current two parties ruling America to break down. If this does indeed happen I will run out into the streets weeping teers of happiness. Down with the Dems. and DOWN with the GOP.

Remember vote Libertarian in '08!!:D

I'm an academic teacher. Wikipedia and answers.com, in this case anyway, would be fine for a paper like this. Celtlund is clearly closed minded and did not bother to read the wiki article and check the reference at the bottom of the page. Only to discredit everything associated with wiki style pages.

The fact is that if you don't know what the Duverger's law is, you shouldn't be teaching politics. And if a student comes to me with this wiki article as a reference - which by the way is accurate if you bother to read it - I would have no choice but to accept it. It is accurate and it has further references at the bottom of the page. All of this makes it perfectly acceptable to any academic teacher that I work with.

Would it be an acceptable stand alone source for an MS or Phd?

Would it be an acceptable stand alone source for an MS or Phd?

Describing and understanding what is an extremely basic and fundamental concept in the study of political science hardly requires an MS or a Phd. (edit: and at any rate, the references to academic works that the wikipedia article in question presents are "acceptable" sources.)

Would it be an acceptable stand alone source for an MS or Phd?

Stand-alone? You only need one source for those?

Much debate about third party candidates in US elections. Oh, they can't win, or a vote for a third party is just a vote for the other (Dem or Rep) party, or don't throw away your vote.

So, do you think a third party candidate could ever be elected to a national office? Why or why not? I think they can because people are getting fed up with the "politics as usual" attidude of both the Democrats and Republicans.
I have in the past, and if I ever got the "pox on both their houses" feeling again, I might, especially if I lived in a state where there was little if any doubt about the outcome of the election. But right now, I wouldn't, because even though I have problems with many Democrats as politicians, there are significant differences between them and the Republicans, and as you know, I think the Republican party has done significant damage to the nation as a whole especially over the last five years.

Now, I have recently voted third party in local elections, and would do so again in a heartbeat, especially given the douchebags that pass themselves off as Democrats around here when there's little if any Republican opposition.

As for winning a national election, I don't see it happening, simply because there's no way to recreate the enormous institutional advantages that the two major parties have built into the system. About the best a third party candidate can hope to do right now is swing the election like Ross Perot did in 1992.

I'd throw away my vote to a third party if the Dem running was of the particularly objectionable branch of the party, or a crook. But I rarely take 3rd party candidates seriously, as they have no chance of winning a real election (although we're due for the death of one of the two big parties and the rise of a new third party, I suppose).

If you support the lesser of two evils, you're still supporting an evil. Grow a pair, and take some responsibility.

That's why I did vote for Michael Badnarik in '04 (although I wanted to vote for Gary Nolan).

Libetarians... bleh.
I hope David McReynolds will run again, Walt Brown was way too right for my tastes.

If you support the lesser of two evils, you're still supporting an evil. Grow a pair, and take some responsibility.


"Growing a pair" and "taking responsbility" has nothing to do with it. It is a simple fact that the first-past-the-post electoral system, as implemented and exercised in the American political system, will not support the rise of a third party to any significant level were third parties in general can thrive. No matter how many pairs I grow, this does not change.

The solution is to support the creation of a more equitable and democratic electoral system that actually represents the people. Some form of proportional representation is a good place to start. The system presented by the Founders was state of the art...over two centuries ago. It is time for the United States to catch up with the rest of the world.

Much debate about third party candidates in US elections. Oh, they can't win, or a vote for a third party is just a vote for the other (Dem or Rep) party, or don't throw away your vote.

So, do you think a third party candidate could ever be elected to a national office? Why or why not? I think they can because people are getting fed up with the "politics as usual" attidude of both the Democrats and Republicans.
I would vote for a third party candidate, if I ever found one with ideas close to mine. Probably a candidate on a conservative party platform.

If you support the lesser of two evils, you're still supporting an evil. Grow a pair, and take some responsibility.
That last sentence is all too phallic for me to take the whole seriously.
A better thing than supporting the two party system if one does not like it, which is not "evil" in any way, would be making a difference by oneself.

I like to have my vote counted, so I would definately not vote for a third party. Unless it was my own third party trying to get me elected.

Libetarians... bleh.
I hope David McReynolds will run again, Walt Brown was way too right for my tastes.

Hmph... well I suppose you are allowed to think that way (damn how I hate freedom of political beliefs;) ). O well I suppose I shall have to let you continue to be un-enlightened. One day, however, you shall realize that a libertarian government is the way of the enlightened;) .

Much debate about third party candidates in US elections. Oh, they can't win, or a vote for a third party is just a vote for the other (Dem or Rep) party, or don't throw away your vote.

So, do you think a third party candidate could ever be elected to a national office? Why or why not? I think they can because people are getting fed up with the "politics as usual" attidude of both the Democrats and Republicans.

I would vote third-party, and I did it in the last election. I think a third party will have to take the place of one of the dying big two before it could win.