Why split the vote by calling for third parties? They are the unlikeliest of winners!
Third parties are the unlikeliest of winners.
Many people as of late have been trumpeting the call for the creation of a “third party”, but I say to you that this would be a detriment to our cause. Considering the success of third parties in the past, how exactly would our own stamp of party yield different results from those other third party advocates who have issued passionate calls throughout history?
To disregard the fact that no third party has succeeded since the era when the South lost its war for secession, is folly for any whom long to make direct change to this country’s course. Need examples of such failed movements?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*The Bull Moose Party of former president Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 actually managed to lead the Republicans in votes that year. However it lost to the other major party, the Democrats. By 1916 the party had been relocated to the annals of history.
* Ross Perot's Reform Party generated a lot of energy back in 1992, but got only 19 percent of the vote, which was good but not enough.
*In 1913 the Non-Partisan League was formed, and though they gained some political ground in 1916, they did not join the winners circle until they cast aside the third party mentality and absorbed the Democratic party.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1950’s sociologist Maurice Duverger, after intense study of various political systems, concluded that any electoral process like our own, will naturally gravitate towards a two party system. The reason for this fact is that our system embodies both “whoever receives the most votes is the victor” and “to the winner go the spoils”. Thus a candidate of the two larger parties does not need to receive a landslide, or even a certain percentage of the vote, since his/her only goal is to best their closest competitor (which is generally another big party contender). Since 1858 the Third parties have only served as a siphon; swaying the race to either a Democrat or Republican nominee. Of course 1858 was an anomaly, and I would be lying to deny that throughout the course of history there haven't been others- such as the success of Jesse Ventura- but it is rare and lesser still on the presidential level. Given time almost all third parties, whom once seemed to be gathering speed, tend to disappear into history- remembered solely for their ideological movement, if at all.
The two party mentality, stems from “sincere voting” and “strategic voting”. Let me layout the basic definition and then you can decide which the American populace tends to favor.
A sincere voter will follow (at least to some extent) a person or party which they believe holds the position that they, the voter, personally find most agreeable.
A strategic voter will take note of public sentiment and apply his/her vote according to where they perceive it will shift the balance of power, i.e. voting for the lesser of two evils, or trying to pick a winner, etc.
Hopefully we all agree that America as a voting majority usually favors the latter during voting season. But for those of who don’t:
Let’s say we have a four party race, and to represent their cause we will use recognizable people from political history. Keep in mind that though I chose derivatives of the two large parties, the two which are noted are to be considered third parties. Our figureheads will be….
Jefferson- representing the Democratic Republicans
Roosevelt- representing the Socialist Democrats
Jackson- representing the third party “Jacksonian Democrats”
Lincoln- representing the third party “the Republicans”.
======================
Early in the race the polls indicate that Jefferson’s in the lead with 35, followed by Roosevelt with 30, Lincoln with 25, and Jackson carrying only 10 percent of the vote. Obviously Lincoln is not favored to win, but his followers press forward hoping that their push for a heavily Marxist government will catch on with the populace. However it most be noted that they are not neutral towards the other candidates, they cannot stand Jefferson and all his big talk about the sovereignty of citizens, “government that governs less” or “State’s Rights”. Many in Lincoln’s party begin to pose the question if their candidate cannot win, should they vote the party line or vote to keep Jefferson out of office? Most choose to push onward; but as the race gradually shows no change in the weather for Lincoln, many start to feel the ever growing reluctance towards casting their vote for a loser. The voices begin to rally ever louder; they call for members to make the most of their vote, to make their vote count. Now some of the influential campaign leaders begin to come forward, they say that its regrettable but they must do everything humanly possible to route Jefferson and his ideals of freedom. Lincoln’s party all of a sudden makes an about face and looks towards Jefferson’s most likely rival- Roosevelt. Luckily for them Roosevelt also wants a massive central government, and though slightly different, he also loves to wield power over the populace. A few members point out that he doesn’t even try to hide the constitution in his desk drawer, he just threatens to pack the Supreme Court and magically the Constitution becomes a malleable document. As they quickly switch camps at the last moment, they find Roosevelt with outstretched arms welcoming them graciously under the warmth of his BIG tent. This turn of events, by compiling the anti-Jefferson movement, sways the vote 55-35 in Roosevelt’s favor. Unfortunately for us Jefferson misses the presidential window and we miss our chance for true freedom.
Of course that scenario could be more dynamic, but I think you guys get the point.
Plus we must also consider that:
* Third parties don't receive enough attention from the media and are blocked from open political debate.
* Most American's have an ingrained notion that third parties cannot win and thus consider them a wasted vote- regardless of how righteous their position is.
* The two larger parties have monopolized the support money which runs the elections.
* Third parties do not have fair access to the ballot.
To use a third party as your vehicle is a foolhardy bet on luck- and by doing so you split the votes in favor of those with already greater public numbers. Why make your job that much harder, if not impossible? If you detest the banner of Republican or Democrat, then just swallow hard and wait until we have won the day. Once we have established control we could always make a show to the public that under our management the “BIG” party will no longer carry the putrid stigma it once had, and thus opt to give it a new title. However we have to win first.
What we REALLY need to do
is to infiltrate both major parties, as well as having a 3rd Party presence.
There's no need for major fanfare, and media announcements.
Just run for your local, state, and federal offices on whatever ticket may be expedient.
When you get elected, vote correctly on policy measures, and have impact on bills. Work with the other elected officials for coalition-building on key bills.
If we're "stealth" and "everywhere" they have no "center of mass" to attack.
This idea of "announcing yourself" and "banner carrying" just makes you a target on their radar screen.
Just move in like little "virus cells", and take over the host. And even prior to us gaining control, each little "virus cell" that gets in there, robs some of the total strength from the host, makes it sick, and less effective, and easier to infiltrate more "viruses" into it.
It's 4th generation warfare, applied to politics.
New Republican party
New Republican party = way to go.
Usually in order to vote your conscience
you NEED a 3rd party.
After what happened the last election
I have never belonged to a major party. I don't see any "split" in votes. Having major party candidates on the ballot isn't the problem. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Gore, all on my ballot and brought to my ballot by corporations who want to globalize and use our military for protection to do to others what we Americans have been very clear, voting in majority, NO WAR, for one example, done to us.
My biggest issue since the time I could vote, 1976, has been relegalization of ALL CANNABIS. The only party in 1976 was the Libertarian Party. Ralph Nader went further in 1992 and stood for industrial hemp, and more... Nader as a consumer advovcate asked "What are copnsumers getting for their money?", in 1992 when Ross Perot bought his way in. Nader never ran for office because Nader did not want to be BIG GOVERNMENT, Nader wants people like him to create or evolve jobs for themselves by watching the government and keeping them on their toes, especially when it came to corporate personhood, and corporations getting more rights then humans.
Federal Elections Commission says to count ballots you must be on the ballot. That is why Nader runs, and more, an election provides the ability to travel and unite, listen and talk about issues, and find corruption.
When I collected signatures for Nader's ballot access in 2004, it was BRUTAL. Democrats, nice dressed people on the street, twice told me, "You should be shot in the head". I had dirty tricks played on me which included police, city and state corruption with the Democrats so terrorising, Nader could not keep professional pedtitioners. The Republicans LAUGHED. Republicans thought it was funny. And I thought, here's your opportunity to take back America, but they didn't do it... they would rather tell us (many of us former Libertarians, because an Independent has the right to be on the ballot, and we don't need to be behind Nader 100%, we need to support his right because it's our right too.
I think the way to go is like Ron Paul, join many parties, or be like Nader and don't join any. I'm with Nader, who was hurt by Ron Paul's run more than anything because people like me spent allot of money and time caught up in the excitment of the rEVOLution. But it was also pretty apparent that Ron Paul had no intention in winning, as many of us really hoped we had a chance in the GOP because of Ron Paul, but Ron Paul cured me of the GOP for good. Nice people, corrupt party, just like the Democrats, just like Nader said in 1996. Like Ron Paul, Nader is often spot on. So, I'll continue to help independents and third parties stand for issues the major parties won't touch because they are corrupted.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
quitter
That's not a revolution.
(^_^)We need to build political strength and political will?*&^
We need to build political strength and political will.
That's not quitting
That's experience, as I continue to support those who support my issue, cannabis, doesn't matter what party, least we forget how many would not support Ron Paul ONLY because he was GOP. I almost got clobbered at a peace rally just for asking, "Do you know who Ron Paul is?" Someone from the back shouted, "A Republican!" Those who didn't run to hide from me were waving their peace signs at me as if they were going to hit me if I came any closer.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
major 2 the same
Most people don't know that both major parties are controlled by the same people. The money changers control the parties. For the average working person it is to the point that it makes no difference who gets in office
That was extremely well said.
It's UN-WIN-ABLE and futile to fight it now.
We tried and tried and tried.
We became Ron Paul delegates.
We gave our time, effort and money to the most noble campaign EVER.
We tried to teach people what truth is.
We told everyone that there was FINALLY a man of principle they could choose.
It was America's last best chance.
But they are JUST TOO BLIND and therefore IGNORANT.
Now about all we can do is buy gold, guns and supplies.
Then wait for the system to collapse, hang on, and seek out the correct thinkers like the Ron Paul types who were smart enough to do the same.
"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul
I suggest a two-tier approach.
We need to work through the existing parties AND a Third Party that we choose to bear our standard.
Why?
1. It's ridiculous to attempt to take over the Legislative Branch or state governments using a Third Party as a base. It's just not going to happen. People will vote Democratic or Republican in most races.
2. It's ridiculous to attempt to take over the Executive Branch using the Republican Party as a base. If we didn't learn that lesson last year, we may be past learning. The Republican nominee in 2012 will not be Ron Paul. It will be either Sarah Palin or some male counterpart who can be summed up with the phrase, 'New World Order Boy'.
I'd like Ron Paul to switch parties and run on a Third Party, because I would like to vote for him for President of the United States. That's why I'm here in this movement. That's why I donated to the money bombs. I wanted to see Ron Paul elected president.
I cannot vote for him in November if he isn't nominated.
And if he cannot be persuaded again to switch parties, I would like to vote for someone else whose belief system is like Ron Paul's. No one who fits that description will ever be the presidential nominee of the Republican Party.
And if you think the presidency isn't the most important thing, you're kidding yourself.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
I don't disagree with you about having a affiliated 2nd party
I don't exactly disagree with you about having an affiliated 2nd party that bares our standard. I mean I've always been Libertarian and on numerous occasion have given money to the party (however not during the last election), so I wouldn't mind having a place to really call home. That being said though, I just can't foresee a presidential win through such a vehicle- not unless the citizens become rabid for republicrat's blood. Which I concede may happen due to the economy and other recent events- however I have my doubts. It would take a lot some drastic voter block shifts, and a mighty coalition of the people already in the Third parties in order to make it work though.
That is why I have been saying that I currently support using the Republican party. I detest the idea of having my name on their register but as you pointed out (which I agree with completely), the Legislative Branch should be strategically taken through this means.
By the way keep the drawings coming! Your an excellent artist!
Thanks!
And we can support both party concepts. If I was running for Congress tomorrow, I'd probably go Republican..maybe even Democrat.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
I'd support you in either.......
I'd support you in either party. From your posts, and art, I think I have a good grasp of where you stand- which is what matters.
Liberty Candidate Winners are either Dem or GOP - Face facts
Last November voting Result Facts
58 million voted Republican
67 million voted Democrat
2 million maybe voted other parties
All the Liberty minded voters need to stop wasting their time with other parties and the ones who are Liberty minded and dont vote need to get on board with the GOP - Focus on the primaries when majority of sheeple dont come out to vote. Work Smarter not harder!
Oh by the way around 100 million didnt even vote in November
You're missing the point of a third party.
First of all the winner take all 'system' that you blame (partially) for our current state of affairs is not a product of our Federal Government, but rather our State Governments and the two major parties: The former utilizes 'winner take all' in order to improve the bargaining power, and clout the state wields in the Presidential race; the latter simply wishes to create a pool of electoral votes that it can consider safe. At any rate these aspects of the presidential selection process, as they have been implemented at the state level, can be rolled back via a gorilla political campaign run at the local level. In essence changing that aspect of the system is not impossible -- there are serious efforts to do it in California, and some States, such as Maine, already allocate electors proportionally.
However, that aside, my main contention with what you have written is that you're missing the point of a third party: The goal is not to take over a majority of the legislature/capture the presidency; the goal is to hold the balance of power and play the other parties off of one another.
In order to do this you don't need to win the Presidency, and you don't need a majority in either the House or the Senate. You simply need a handful of representatives or a couple of senators--- just a couple enough to allow you to sneak your agenda through, and get some press.
The small government movement apparently has the ability to raise significant quantities of cash. Maybe not enough to be competitive in a billion dollar presidential race, but enough to fund some decent battles for representation in the legislature and that's where we have to start. I'm certain that we can pick off some seats-- I mean, for the love of God if Al Franken can become a Senator anything is possible. After you win a seat or two then you have a presence on the national stage, a story worthy of the news, and you've dispelled the myth that third parties cannot win.
If running and winning as a third party proves to be too hard the first time around, then we should simply run candidates run as Republicans or Democrats in order to bypass ballot access concerns/media bias. Once our guys are in they can then defect from whatever Party they ran as and then form a new Party. The result will be the same: A New Political Party with some seats. (This tactic is not all that far fetched-- there are precedents for an incumbent bailing on his party and winning as an independent.)
Lastly I will point out that if we form a separate party and manage to get some congressional representation then our bargaining power will be undiluted. Our Representatives will be free to form inter-party alliances, and casting well thought out 'lesser of two evils' votes in order to advance our political agenda: the restoration of economic liberty, personal liberty, and the end of our interventionist foreign policy. Plus having visible representation will make the other parties more amenable to our agenda-- its one thing to know that some of your constituents are Ron Paul Republicans... its another thing to know that they're capable of winning elections all by themselves.
Third parties may be the 'unlikeliest of winners', but for the past hundred years, every time those of us interested in having a smaller, less belligerent government have placed our faith in the Two Party System we have been made into losers; it is time to strike out on our own.
I can see your point..
However my point was never that Third parties are not valuable, or that they are not capable of winning elections. My whole admittedly long and drawn out post was in regard to not betting the farm on a Third party presidential candidate this upcoming election. Hence the reason that all my examples pertained to presidential elections. In that respect the playing field is a stacked deck and thus people shooting for a winning Third party entry will likely be let down.
I was not making the point that you needed the presidential nomination to wield change. However with unconstitutional power vested in executive orders, as well as the rampant reinterpretation of constitutional authority, we would have to pull some serious political backing to repeal things such as the 14th, 15th, and 16th amendments (all of which are unconstitutional and usurp power from the citizens of the states). A president whom is on the same page would be extremely valuable, and almost a necessity. I say that mainly because American citizens are very confused about what his/her actual constitutional authority, and that fact would work against us. Especially if they are a charismatic president- I mean look at Roosevelt.
I say
United the third parties under Ron Paul for 2012.
We must reach out to them for the sake of our nation. What little is still left at that time. They too must realize that they are not helping but hurting our cause. To restore this nations constitution and repeal unconstitutional amendments and executive orders.
If Ron Paul runs again he should have a sit down with the heads of the fellow third parties and unite them. Unite the clans. Just like Wallace did.
And yes we should stay in the Republican party. Its the ONLY way we will win.
Down with the dividers who clamor for a new third party and a third party run.
That is a coffin where we all would be allocated then buried.
Nicely said.
Like I've stated in some of my other posts I have nothing against 3rd parties but in today's system, with the odds stacked against them, they are not where we should be placing our candidates or votes. Just as you said we should consolidate their votes with ours into a "Big" party block which votes for our constitutional candidates- at least until we have broken through the monopolies and created a fair playing field for all parties. After we have corrected the damage done to the Constitution and we are once again back to a Jeffersonian Republic- then we can dissolve into our respective parties which seek to better the system within its constitutional limits. Unity will be the key to taking our country back.
I totally agree. The
I totally agree. The libertarians have invested so much and should have had some people in Congress by now had there been any fair chance. Their results are only indicative of a 2 party system that has the game wrapped up tightly against outside parties. Moreover, the debate system is run by the republocrats so how on earth would a 3rd party expect to gain the vital attention needed during the debate process? They did this (changed the organization from the league of women voters) directly following Perot's candidacy and the attention he garnered during the debates. They weren't going to let that happen again.
From your post:
* The two larger parties have monopolized the support money which runs the elections.
It is for this reason that, as long as we continue to use the "Party System" (in any form), we'll have the best government that (a handful of powerful people with) money can buy.
We're debating the wrong question here!. We don't need (or want) a Third Party. We need to get rid of (as in permanently ban) the Two we already have. The only thing the Two-Party system is good for is to limit (and control) the public debate and to keep it within a narrowly-defined and carefully-selected, meaningless populist drivel... soundbites designed to maintain the illusion of our participation.
Republicrats-Demoblicans.... there IS NO DIFFERENCE. Do you want mustard on your cheesburger, or would you like cheese on your mustard burger? Get it? They don't care who wins, because the agenda has long-since been decided. It's like gambling on WWF wrestling.
Nobody on this forum will EVER have a say in what the real RNC Platform contains (or the equally well-crafted DNC either for that matter). Political Party Membership is reserved for the important people (and that ain't us).
For all the talk here on DP about "Ending the Fed" (which I agree with wholeheartedly), putting a permanent end to the structural corruption inherent within the "Two-Party System" oughta be a walk-in-the-park!
The third party thing
does not work because they have people running for president and govenor and state super intendent and senate but for the most part they leave the local stuff alone. They start off biting off much more than they can chew, then whine about why they failed.
The very very few people that have ran third party in pretty local stuff do kinda well. A couple of years ago a constitution party guy got on the montana state senate. But as far as I know he was the only one in the whole stinking party that ran for something that local. I havent paid attention since then though so things might have changed.
We on the other hand are starting locally and moving up and guess what it is working.
Uh, what?
ALL of the LP's elected officials are local, so I don't get WTF you're talking about, because the facts destroy your positions.
Sorry I havent seen any locol Lp
In my state or any other party for that matter. When I could first vote in 2004 I was in the constitution party and was upset that almost all their guys were running for non local potitions. Kinda burned mu up especially when I went to their websites and pointed it out and got chewed out for it.
Don't under estimate us
We are having great success nationwide in becoming the new republican party. We have people getting elected to county committees and sitting on state party decision making committees.
We will be well poised to make massive inroads in 2010. This will set us up perfectly for the 2012 election cycle.
Don't get distracted. Stay the course.
Keep up the good work!
You guys are patriots!
Teddy Roosevelt couldn't do it...
..and neither can you!
A(nother) third party is a waste of time, money and effort.
I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...
I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...
My sentiments exactly.
-------------------------------------
Its a stacked deck. Therefore until that's rectified it should be considered unfeasible.
So Is The Thought
of the Republican party embracing the philosopy of Non-Inteverventionism
Very Unlikely - folks .... Repubicrats like their wars - that will never change - the message of Ron Paul should be presented far away from the
liars and cheaters that are the Republicans....
I'm not saying we become Republicans forever until death
I'm not saying we become Republicans forever until death. I am stating that the only way we win without war is by infiltrating one of the BIG parties and gutting them from the inside. The Democrats once were pro state's rights, nonintervention, and for small government, however during the days of Wilson they were done the exact same way were proposing. Then it was further purged when Roosevelt took hold. Many of the old democrats became Libertarians or Republicans.
Once the ship has been taken over and we have begun stabilizing the country we could also make it our goal to fix our system so 3rd parties are welcome to compete on even ground. However until we break up the blockade through the take-over of a BIG party, the third parties are just going to sit out there in the ocean treading water.
Once we fix the system, and all the unconstitutional amendments to our Constitution I myself would push to dissolve the party reforming it as a new entity- but not until we have won.
M A Rothschild
Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.
Miamisburg, Montgomery County, Ohio
No matter how we get in office.....
No matter how we get in office that would be one of the first orders of business. I would also suggest moving to repeal the 14th and 16th amendments. The we could attend to the rest- lots of work to do.