A Gallop poll shows that fifty-two percent of Americans want a third party — a continuing majority from earlier polls showing as much as 58% who oppose the monopoly of power by the two leading parties. The question is how we can call ourselves a democracy when the two parties are able, through ballot barriers and other means, to prevent a major third party from emerging in the United States. I previously wrote about these barriers and the need for a third party.
For civil libertarians and others, this coming election is a painful example of the crushing monopoly exercised by the Democrats and Republicans. It is impossible for many civil libertarians to vote for Obama given his horrendous record in blocking the torture investigations, continuing military tribunals, re-asserting the right to assassinate American citizens and other policies. The White House, however, is continuing the same cynical calculus used previously by Democratic candidates that civil libertarians and liberals have no where to go. Currently the leading voice against torture, foreign wars and secret prisons is Ron Paul on the Republican side, not Barack Obama.
This poll is an embarrassment in showing that, despite widespread and long-standing unhappiness with both parties, citizens will again be forced to chose between what they view as the lesser of two evils.
Even in the Democratic primary, voters will have no choice as engineered by the Democratic National Committee under the control of the White House. The result is no choice for many voters. We are living through a political crisis in this country and we need fundamental political reform. We have become a nation of lemmings who continue to follow the formula blue state/red state politics imposed by two controlling party machines. Worse yet, we have become a nation of chumps who insist on dozens of different types of bleach to chose from (despite the fact that bleach is chemically identical) but accept that their government will only practically be chosen from one of two parties.
Jonathan Turley
Tony C, You still think you were right. There is no point in having this discussion with you again. Russ Feingold, the person that you were so opposed to, was one of the best senators in the Senate. The tea party guy that replaced him is in for 6 years.
are sb is … oh, never mind
Tony C.,
The LWV to which I belong did a 2 year study about 8 years ago on the feasibility of multi parties here in Ohio and what would have to be done to make that possible … the number of laws that would have to be amended or revoked are staggering. Both democrats and republicans through the years have crafted so many that fully 1 year of the study was spent researching all the legislation on the books. We hired a lawyer and a law clerk to help us.
The two parties have really managed to create a monopoly for themselves.
The League is always interested in creating the best atmosphere in which to encourage the largest voter turnout … we were all fairly shocked when we finally understood the enormity of the task to clear the path for multi political parties … shocking the League is pretty hard to do.
@Swarthmore: And Scott Walker caused enough pain and outrage to put Democrats in the streets and all over the country, and that has caused FIVE marginal Republican state senators to face recall drives, and I think will cause some of them to lose their seats, and there is a possibility Wisconsin will turn Democratic and overturn the anti-union bullshit and will actually strengthen unions in Wisconsin.
If you go back and read what I wrote then, I clearly said I thought things had to get worse to get better, that we had to ditch old Democrats and suffer through a cycle of Republicans in order to get new Democrats. Do you think the former office-holding Democrats in Wisconsin would end up passing laws to strengthen unions in Wisconsin? We may not do it now, but it would not be even a remote possibility if the guard had not changed.
Wisconsin is not proof I was wrong, it is an example of where I was right. You have an irrational insistence on risk-free improvement. I said it would get worse before it got better, and it got worse, and it sure looks like it could get much better.
It is scary. House republican Armed Services Chair proposed it.
Swarthmore,
I saw that article about the unlimited authority. That is scary!
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/congress-poised-to-give-president-power-to-continue-gwot-indefinitely.php?ref=fpa
Many of the independents are anti-union with a libertarian streak.
oops thinking
Tony C, Your strategy worked well last fall. Stay home and let the tea party win. That thinkimg got Scott Walker elected in Wisconsin.
@Blouise: Interesting stats. Shall we form a party? How are you on the stump? Buddha and Raff can be your legal advisors…
SwM,
It’s kinda fun watching all the pros try and analyze them during each election season
The independents are the swing voters. One of my sisters is an independent and she is much more conservative than I am. She voted for Bush in 2000. She voted for an independent in 2004 and she voted for Obama in 2008. She plans to vote for Obama in 2012. The candidate that captures the independent vote wins. The tea party candidates received the majority of the independent votes in 2010.
To all intents and purposes there is already an informal third party sitting in the wings and they outnumber which ever recognized party may be standing on the stage. 37 percent of all American voters now call themselves independents or unaffiliated voters; 34 percent identify as Democrats; 28 percent as Republicans with the number of identified independents significantly increasing in the 18-29 year age group (Nov 2010)
I am certainly not suggesting that all independents would choose the same third party but their numbers indicate the dissatisfaction with the two established parties and that dissatisfaction will become even more evident as the 18-29 years old group matures.
It may be, given time, the two establish parties will collapse due to ever decreasing numbers but I’m not willing to count on that.
Right now these independents can find a small voice in the 33 states that have open primaries and caucuses but their choices are almost always limited to the candidates associated with either the Democrats or Republicans. In the 17 states which don’t have open primaries or caucuses the independents have no voice as they must declare Democrat or Republican in order to get a candidate ballot.
It is quite possible that in these 17 states the number of voters who consider themselves independents is higher as some of them might declare in order to get a candidate ballot if there is someone they particularly like or … intensely dislike.
Paving the way for additional parties would have to be a concentrated and organized effort in each state to change the laws that republicans and democrats have enacted over the years to restrict new parties. Until that is done the vote will continue to be suppressed as those who like neither candidate will stay home. Of course corporate donors like things the way they are … they only have to worry about contributing money to 2 parties.
Glad things are looking up for Obama after the vicious attacks by the birthers and racists. Definitely voting for him.
The greatest trick a third party could ever pull is convincing the world it did exist.
The only way out of the dilemma is to hijack an existing party, as has happened to the Republicans more than once (at least the Christian Coalition, and now Tea Party).
We progressives and civil and social libertarians have not done that; I thought we had a chance with Obama, but as Turley points out, I cannot vote for Obama again either.
The only way to get a third party is going to be splitting an existing party in half whose collective membership comprises somewhere around 2/3 of the voters, so the three parties that result will be roughly equal.
That means hijacking the Democratic party, and redefining it. I do not think it would be difficult to govern to please 60% of Americans, and to do that with fiscal responsibility and transparency.
Rafflaw,
I think what you just said is a huge part of why you’re right about no national 3rd party in your lifetime; politically active people think it’s true, so it is. The two parties have an unspoken gentleman’s agreement to convince everyone that politics is Binary.
3rd party? I want a 2nd party. There is little real difference between the two parties.
Sadly the way the system is set up it is almost impossible for a viable 3rd party to rise up to be able to be elected to the presidency.
In 2012 the only thing a 3rd party presidential candidate will do is to ensure the re-election of Obama.