This country needs a 3rd party

[Dave D]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Too many people will not vote for a third party candidate because they feel there is no chance of the third party candidate winning and they do not want their vote to be "wasted".


[/ QUOTE ]

instant-runoff voting fixes this problem perfectly. Amazing that no one in the US has heard of it [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img].

wikipedia explanation

cheers,
-highland

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah we have. It's called the primary system.

The reason we don't have 3rd parties in this country is because entrenchment is good to a certain extent. You don't want random 3rd parties springing up, taking over [censored], messing it up, and then leaving.

Random examples include: Nazis, and Populists (the ones in the 1910-20 era).

More recently, a few years ago Le Pen actually managed to get past the first round in France. Yeah, a crazy, nut, racist type actually had kind of a shot at winning position of serious power. In this country we try to prevent that nonsense by making sure that only those that have proven themselves can get anywhere.

Making it hard to break into the system has it's advantages too.

A party has to prove itself worthy by slowly winning in the long run.

[WordWhiz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Too many people will not vote for a third party candidate because they feel there is no chance of the third party candidate winning and they do not want their vote to be "wasted".


[/ QUOTE ]

instant-runoff voting fixes this problem perfectly. Amazing that no one in the US has heard of it [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img].

wikipedia explanation

cheers,
-highland

[/ QUOTE ]

But IRV creates other problems, as does every method of voting, as Kenneth Arrow won a Nobel Prize for proving.

I think there's been some analysis on how in representative democracy like the U.S. (as opposed to a Parliamentary democracy) a two party system is inherently stable, whereas more parties are not. Thus you'll see things like Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura every once in awhile, but the two major parties end up absorbing any popular ideas the 3rd party candidates espouse, reinforcing their own duopoly over American politics.

[highland]

[ QUOTE ]
whereas more parties are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, it's just like celestial bodies of similar mass?

In the short-term case, IRV sure seems to allow people to vote for their candidate of choice, thus aiding in the development of a 3rd and further parties. You're saying that things go south once there are more than 2 viable parties. I've tried thinking through that a few times, but my brain started to hurt.

The Weimar Republic sure had a lot of parties, and that worked out arguably as bad as anything in history [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img].

cheers,
-highland

[John Deere]

After Ross Perot proved that a third candidate was viable (or at least could alter the outcome of an election), the two major parties will make damn sure that they never let it happen again.

[peritonlogon]

The notion that more than 3 parties would lead to more divisiveness is really ridiculous. Right now, in the 2 party system, there is divisiveness between the parties because there is little difference between the two parties, not inspite of the lack of difference. When one party accuses another of being "partisan" it is typically a true statement. Why else would there be so much venom directed towards George W. Bush durring the '04 campaign when the whole crew of Democratic challengers (excepting Al Sharpton, Denise Kucinich and Carol Mosely-Braun) were running on 95% the same platform?

Howard Dean had a whole lot of rhetoric that resonated with progressives, but when it came down to issues he was not for an immediate pull-out from Iraq, his record demonstarted that he favored allowing industrial leaders write their own regulations and that he was neither environmentally friendly or in favor of a fairer tax code, all of which he criticized George W. Bush for, all of which got him his early support.

Kerry was really no different. All that was left to campaign on was partisanship. I mean, why would Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the pundits as well as the Republicans in Congress hate Clinton so much? Because he was for balancing the budget, don't ask don't tell, welfare reform, tax cuts for wealthier Americans and against gay marriage? NO, it was pure partisanism. Clinton endorsed most of the Republican party's platform.

When there's no difference between the two parties, all that's left is partisan attacks. If there were substantial differences, and issues discussed and those issues were represented by multiple parties than the debate would be substantial.