As broken as the two-party political system can appear, its cracks still never seem big enough to allow a third party to break through. Could Unity.08.com be different? The new Internet-based effort is being led by seasoned operatives — Democrats Hamilton Jordan and Gerald Rafshoon (Jimmy Carter ‘76), Republican Doug Bailey (a media guy for Gerald Ford) and former independent Maine Gov. Angus King. Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter writes, “Their hope: to get even a fraction of the 50 million who voted for the next American Idol to nominate a third-party candidate for president online and use this new army to get him or her on the ballot in all 50 states. The idea is to go viral — or die.” The site is optimistic and interesting, even offering a “Frogger”-like game called “DemocracyLand.” But can it lead to victory, especially without a known candidate or cause to rally behind?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Agnatha on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
16 Comments
Although the time maybe ripe, I would hope it would not be just another Green party or a Ross P in its effect upon an election. Taking voters from a party and in effect shoring up a the other side. That would be defeating the purpose of a third party in that the main parties are still the winnable ones. I read that the R.R. is considering starting their own party and thus pulling their support from the GOP. The only up side to that would be there goes the Neo_Cons and the PNAC. UNLESS….there would be another attack that could be used to suspend the elections and leaving Bush in power.
I vote for a candidate, regardless of party or independent, is still a vote for that candidate. And the voter has that right to choose.
The aurgument that voting third party just takes votes away from another one is not one I take.
It is true that if Ross Perot did not run in 1992 Bill Clinton would have lost, or if Ralph Nader didn’t run in 2000, Bush might have lost, but that is only a “what if” senerio.
But those third party or independent candidates earn those votes regardless of their effect it would have on the election outcome or the other candidates. So they didn’t steal votes or sphion votes, they earn their votes and more power to them.
So tough crap if their support of votes effects a candidate or party that you want in office. Maybe they need to campaign better or connect to voters. i.e. H.W. Bush and Gore Jr.
But how vile the radical left and the right are they really hate 3rd parties.
Wrong again, Joe Williams.
People hate third parties for a very good reason. They screw everything up and add nothing.
The system we have is a two-party system. It’s like a two-lane highway. If a car tries to make a third lane, it just causes accidents.
Nader and Perot did absolutely NOTHING when they ran except f-up the process. In the case of HW, the country got lucky and it resulted in Clinton–eight years of peace and prosperity. In the case of Gore, we got worst. president. ever.
And look at the legacy of third party candidates–Perot, who? Nader egotistical ass, John the Jerk Anderson, George KKK Wallace.
We could change to a parlimentary system, we could change to a new way of voting in which we number our choices for candidates.
There are a lot of ways we could accomodate third parties, but if we can’t even elect the president with a majority of the voters, it’s unlikely we’re going to reform election in any more radical way.
As TrueBlue points out, for a number of historical, legal, and especially structural reasons, a third party simply is not a viable option in the electoral system we have.
It makes much more sense to work within the parties to nominate candidates you like. The parties are open to dedicated workers within the party during the nominating process, and a relatively small group which shows up to work campaigns and turns out in primaries can make an impact beyond their mere numbers.
Third party? pipe dream, pointless effort, wasted energy.
“The system we have is a two-party system. It’s like a two-lane highway. If a car tries to make a third lane, it just causes accidents.”
Well unfortunately this is true. However if the drivers in the 2 existing lanes are DWHUA (driving w/ head up a$$), driving like imbeciles I reserve the right to drive *around* them and get on with my drive. If it takes electing a ‘third’ party to major office then so be it. The existing parties have a monopoly on the voting and think that these are the ‘only real’ voting opportunites and anything else is just throwing a vote away. If enough of us ‘throw’ our vote away – we might wake the existing parties up and get them to not take us for granted. Maybe by leaving them they will wake up and realize how much they really need us.
Great, Julie. I hope you and all your like-minded conservatives vote for Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson or whatever Pat offers you pie in the sky by and by.
As for me, I’m working within the party of my choice NOW to effect change.
Our electional system allows for third parties and independents as well as write-ins. If you feel they screw things up or wasted energy, that is your opinion.
This is our electorial system. Deal with it, because it isn’t going to change. Unless you want to outlaw third parties and independents. Well… If the left has their way they would probably outlaw all parties and elections and establish a facist or communist government, like they did with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. That way “their” Candidate would always be in power.
“Great, Julie. I hope you and all your like-minded conservatives vote for Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson or whatever Pat offers you pie in the sky by and by.”
I wouldn’t vote for those guys with your hand!
Sigh……
Clueless Joe?
Again. Nazi Germany was about as far away from anything leftist as possible. The mere fact that “socialist” was part of the party name does not mean anything. Please Joe, you are embarrassing yourself.
I call third parties a good even necessary idea. The Democratic party has drifted and pandered to the squishy middle for far too long. That is what got us Bill Clinton, the best Republican President of the last 100 years.
I am not pleased that Ralph Nader DELIBERATELY campaigned in battleground states to take votes from Gore and thus cost him the election. But the message should not be lost from that. Democrats should ignore their core principle voters at their own peril.
The two parties KNOW their voters have nowhere else to go. That is why they neglect them. It is long past time to correct that.
I would welcome and work for the Green party in Kansas. This state is never going to be anything buy default dittohead, dumb Republican by majority anyway. Reducing Democrat relevance in a state where they already have none would be a small price to pay to get a third party some little status.
Have any of you, other than TB, actually TRIED to influence the kansas democrats? Talk about an exercise in futility! You have to be a republican true believer to be a democrat in kansas! Just look at governor leadership, the best republican governor we ever had!!!!
Joe – numbers I have seen indicate that Perot took as many or more votes away from the challenger in 1992 than from the incumbent. In general. my experience has indicated that an incumbent benefits from a fragmented electorate.
I do not ever recall casting a vote that was not for a Republican. My actions would indicate that I find the third party to be useless. However, I am not opposed to them and would like to see some third or fourth way to vote arise.
I may be ignorant, but I do not see where the constitution allows for only two parties. I dont recall it in the declaration either. Just because that is where we have led ourselves over the past hundred years doesnt mean that is the way it is supposed to be.
If the libertarian party had the strength, I would vote along those lines in a heartbeat. As it is, I put my vote where I thought it would buy a political standoff so that citizens could get on with their lives.
I see that may no longer be possible.
Good grief, if trueblow had his way, there would be only ultraleft running for office.
Personally, I like the idea of a third party. It just might be time for one. The Ross Perots, Ralph Naders, et all, DID add something to the elections: they got people thinking.
So far, there have, IMHO, been no real leaders coming out for the 2008 election. If one were to pop up in a third party position, he or she might have a fighting chance to pull it out. The American people seem to be pretty well fed up with what is occupying congress now.
I have been advocating a viable third party for a long time. Maybe, with a good candidate, and some grass roots backing, we can get one going and get some new blood in Congress. Lord knows the blood in Congress now is tainted with about every disease known to man.
Walker, I agree about the hunger for leadership in this state and in this country.
I think I have posted about this before but Marvin Weisbord wrote a great but old book “Productive Workplaces”. In it, he talked about research done in workplaces regarding management.
The research involved looking at what was going on in the workforce, and then looking at management styles to see if there were any correlations. Like if x was going on in the workforce, it was related to y mgmt style.
The one that stuck with me was the example of a workforce where everyone fought over nothing, and people just turned on each other and ate their comrades.
That happened in places with NO leadership. Sound familiar?
I think if a real, authentic, and visionary leader emerged, the party affiliation wouldnt matter.
“where there is no vision, the people perish”
XXX
Maybe a purple chicken party would be good for Ks.
The current system is rigged.
It’s designed (and always has been) to be a two party system. Back when the US constitution was written, that was difficult enough to manage based on the spread out colonies.
Unfortunately, our election system itself would have to change (run off type system or other multi-party voting system) in order to really allow new political parties into the game. The ones who control the system however, are rather vested in it.
Good luck convincing the politicos (at all levels) to relinquish even a little bit of their stranglehold.
Cheers.