Comments on: Third Parties

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Third party candidates....yes they won't win but they can change the status. Our system will only allow two real viable parties but they can change. When was the last time anyone voted for the Whiggs (spellng). Of the two major parties, I think the democrats are the most vulnerable. The Republicans seem to have a fairly coherent base. The Democrats don't: you have the unions (socially conservative and extremely patriotic) clashing with those who aren't. To add a third fracture point you have all the single interest groups whether it is the ladies at NARAL or those of the NAACP. There doesn't appear to be a unifying element to the democrats beside the Republican boogyman. There isn't anyone to take the Democrat's place currently, but a few more years out of power...you might start seeing the successor party. It won't be the greens but maybe something else. I am not quite sure what.

By: Scott Harris

Scott Harris — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

There are those that decry the lack of coalition politics required by parlimentary systems. But the reality is that each of our main parties is de facto a coalition party. We allow small minorities influence, but our system demands that they work within the system if they are to have any hope of success. This tends to moderate the extremes.

But it is not impossible to obtain heavy influence over a party. In the case of the Democratic party, the anti-war movement during the Vietnam era successfully gained control of the Democratic party. Not long after, in response to Roe v. Wade, the Religious Right was born under Falwell, mutated under Pat Robertson and now has tremendous influence in the Republican party.

Third parties are mostly about laziness. Those too lazy to work within the system for real change form third parties and spend their time congratulating one another on their own moral superiority. It is an exercise in narcisism.

(I say mostly because the Reform Party didn't fit this mold. It fell apart because of the excentricity of it main backer, but it was a real effort at making change.)

By: AST

AST — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I think that a lot of Neo-cons are more a libertarian blend of liberal (legalize drugs and porn) and conservative (free markets, cut government) ideas. As traditional liberals give up and die out, the new movement might be libertarian.

I know it sounds counterintuitive, since liberals are supposed to believe in bigger government, a la the New Deal, but the old coalitions are collapsing and socialism is no longer credible. What's left but the civil liberties, which seem to have more appeal than straight democracy?

By: ProfessorBainbridge.com

ProfessorBainbridge.com — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Nader announces Ralph Nader's going to run again, but this time as an independent. Juan Non-Volokh opines that: "Whatever the effect of Nader's campaign on the 2004 election, if it invigorates efforts to improve ballot access for third parties, it will be

By: PoliBlog

PoliBlog — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Nader and Third Party Fun
Professor Bainbridge, James Joyner, and following Juan Non-Volokh and Glenn Reynolds, discuss the implications of the Nader candidacy. Juan and Glenn think it is healthy for electoral democracy in the US while James and Steve rightly note that third pa...

By: The Columbia-Union

The Columbia-Union — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

BoLOGna: Package #3
BoLOGna: A roundup of reactions in the blogosphere to Ralph Nader's decision to run for President.

By: Signifying Nothing

Signifying Nothing — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Ralph's run
Thoughts on Ralph Nader’s candidacy and what it means for our democracy.

By: Rooftop Report

Rooftop Report — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

What to think of Nader
Well after reading a recent article on Yahoo!, I don't really know what to think of Nader running. He innately seems to appeal to more left leaning voters, but some of his quotes make me think he may just be

---