Look at What Happens to Peaceful Protesters in the States

Yes, and they will change their vote to the other party next time.
Do you see a new political party being even moderately successful in the US in
the near future?

 

If there was one right now, I guarantee it would win in a landslide.

The popular vote here is "against" all of the current politicians, democrat and republican alike. Anyone with a pulse could run right now. As long as you aren't seen as a professional politician, you'll win.

The thing I find perplexing about this payroll tax fiasco (which finally just passed) is this:

If the GOP is for lower taxes, why are they fighting to repeal the payroll tax cut, while at the same time, keeping all of the Bush era income tax cuts in place?

It's like the party that runs without logic. They say one thing, they do another at every turn.

 

I'm glad you're so certain
Personally, I can't see it happening because a 3rd party can be easily out-manouevred
on a policy-by-policy basis. They can't have policies
that are all completely different to the other parties.
If they have one major policy closer to the GOP, the Democrats will
highlight that; if they agree with the Dems on another, the GOP will
accuse them of being quasi-Dems.

I think you are stuck with the two major parties for a lot longer.

Here in Australia, the Greens have managed to garner about 7-15% of the
vote, but will have trouble breaking 20% for a long time. They have a little
muscle because they have the balance of power in the Senate, but many
of their supporters are dis-illusioned former voters of the Labor (Dem-like) party.

I know that there are some very strong environmental groups in the US, but
I have never read anything about them trying to form a political party.
Have they tried?

 

I'm not sure that is possible in any large country. Large being defined as area.

With such vast differences in local needs to country needs and so many variations, i doubt you'll ever get a general consensus of the "nation" as such, in what "it" needs. It might hold for a while, but local needs/politics always end up taking precedent in such large countries. Voting for a local politician (who could eventually run for higher office) that will stop people using their mobile phone while crossing the road..how will that affect someone in the Mountains of Montana??..as a an example.

Yet small countries (land area) like say the UK, Germany, Sweden etc...what is local is generally national too.

 

I hadn't thought of that interesting slant.

I used the Australian Greens as an example because they are moderately
successful. I'm not sure why they haven't succeeded in the UK. Perhaps 1st
past the post matters there. They are doing quite well in Germany.

The Greens here have picked up a lot of votes from people disaffected with
the two major parties. There is no other outlet for those who are anti-war,
pro-euthanasia, pro same-sex marriage, as well as those with environmental
issues. Personally, I find them as constrained and nutty as the other parties,
but I like that they have stayed solid in their opposition to our involvement in
Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the other hand, there are some environmental concerns that can span
entire countries like the USA. There was a great outcry over the Deepwater
Horizon, but I don't hear enough to know if it will translate into votes for
anyone else except the Dems or GOP.

 

The problem third parties face in the States is that they're generally organized around one narrow issue, or one maverick personality.

If they have an issue that appeals to the public at large, one of the two major parties will co-opt it. And the best a party that's organized around a person can usually do is split the vote, and deny office to those major candidates who would actually be more receptive to their cause. That's kind of counterproductive....

Ralph Nader's run for President helped the younger Bush win, by pulling Democratic voters -- just as Ross Perot helped Clinton beat the elder Bush, by pulling Republicans.

 

Their manifesto has some good points, but the other parts have hidden away some aspects which are too much to accept; population control (more radical than China’s). Over the years they have become more “main stream” and either not focusing upon ‘those’ issues, or dropping them all together.

The term “Green” is often a misnomer and should not be seen as being related to anything “green” per se, it is more “another way”. So, in the UK as such, they are play more of a “catch-up” game to win votes. Their real “green” roots are hard to see.

Everyone jumped up and down about it, but the reality is that business drives a lot of opinions. The cold facts of bashing BP for example, when their shares went down, so did a lot of Americans future pensions! I’ve yet to see a major environmental issue take root and become main stream and dominate the stage in the US.

They didn’t get their act together after the debacle from hurricane Katrina and the diabolical response by the Govt, so, I don’t see that anything will get them going. It is all hot air…All they have to do is vote with their feet. Or, maybe there is not a system in place that allows them too.

And this is different from the others…how???

When you reduce the whole political system into sound bites and allow the media to feed on this and run amok, all you’re going to get is the same, but more polarised.

 

not really, its pretty obvious that the state of corporate interference in the political process pretty much precludes any successful attempts by a third party. I'd like to think that there might be a way, but I'm not particularly encouraged by what I'm seeing in this election cycle.

Look at the fools running this time around or the last few times around and tell me there's reason to hope. Not seeing it myself.

 

Yah, Its truly depressing to review the current candidates. Only Party talking heads competing in a media beauty contest ..... a real mush lineup.

A wise old man recently told me that "leadership " runs in a fifty year cycle. Only one leader.... only one Margret Thatcher type .....comes around every 50 years.

 

I remember those quite well. Especially how the Dems heaped blame and scorn on Nader for the loss.

 

May I remind you guys of the Tea Party? That was a 3rd party and they took a number of elections because they were not incumbents. People voted for them because they figured they were getting someone who wasn't a career politician. They were indeed a different party, though they went under the banner of Republicans. They changed the GOP in a lot of ways.

The same may come from the Occupy people.

If there was a real and declared 3rd party at this point, I'm sure it would win, provided the platform was one the people wanted.

 

I think it also has a lot to do with the voting system.
We have a preference system in the Lower House (like your Congress) and a
proportional system in the Senate.
For example, if you voted
1 Nader
2 Obama
3 Palin
and Nader didn't get a majority, your preference would flow to Obama.
However, Nader's political oraganisation would get (for example) $1 for each 1st preference vote.
This doesn't help the Greens get many memebers into the Lower House, but it gives people a chance to lodge a protest vote.

BTW, I'm not implying ours is better. You can't take aspects of the systems out of context.

I prefer proportional systems.
I like the idea that if a group gets 5% voter support then they should get 5%
representation in the Legislature. It's even better if they STFU for 95% of the time.

 

That is close to what we have here too.
There are environmental issues in their platform, but many voters for
the Greens use it as a protest vote against the Labor Party (very roughly like
UK Labour and the US Dems). That is possible because of our preferential
voting system and proportional system in the Senate.
The two major parties here are losing large numbers of paid up members.
Online campaign groups have increased enormously and one of them has
almost 10 times as many members as the Labor party.

I can't remember one either, and I can't think of one that would after Katrina
failed to move the "masses". If Monsanto introduced GM spray-on-cheese it
might get US citizens to reach for their guns.

The Greens here were born about 30 years ago in a big protest against a
hydro dam in Tasmania. That protest led to changes in the Constitution and
one of its leaders is still in Parliament now. No other environmental issue has
inspired that sort of passion since.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the Tea Party ran a candidate for President wouldn't that take votes away from the GOP and guarantee their loss?

 

Oh, you are only speaking of a presidential election? My mistake.

You are correct. That would probably happen, as the Tea Party doesn't enjoy a strong enough base to win a single office like president when faced with a contender from each other party.

However, if there were a "moderate" party, that didn't have all the really dumb far right and far left stuff you see in our news, I think they would have a very strong chance, as they would pick up the disenfranchised voters from both the republicans and democrats, ending up as the new top party.

Trouble is, our political system is loaded with extremists.