Is it time for Third-Party Politics to be brought into play?

There was a time in 1852 when a vote for the new "Republican Reform Party" was just a "wasted vote" and/or "a vote for the other guy" but despite that, it did not turn out all bad ... at least by some accounts.

In 1860, two election cycles later, not only was this no longer a "third party" but they had won the presidency.

With all the controversy over super-delegates and voterless election of delegates in states refraining from a popular vote ... as far as it can be said to actually be a popular vote ... is it time for both sides of the political partying aisle to pack up and move to a third-party (or fourth-party) ballot?

The current Establishment Elite and American Aristocracy have seemingly made it impossible for a third-party candidate to get into a debate, much less into an actual competitive election, but if it were to happen, would you be willing to "waste" your vote?

It seems to me that if everyone who said voting for a third party candidate was a wasted vote would actually vote that way, we could change the status quo in a single election cycle. Personally, I would rather waste my vote than decide on and actually try to select the "lesser of two evils" ... which is by definition, still (s)electing evil.

I know there are a lot of voters feeling disenfranchised in both of the political parties so I am curious what disenfranchised voters on both sides of the aisle think about this?

Could Bernie and Trump both run as independents and tilt the status quo over far enough? If ever there was a time to make a stand at the ballot box, this does seem to be it.

Your thoughts?

Yep, started the procrastination party. Well, I'm going to... soon.

a reply to: TinFoilSuit

It would seem an almost impossible task at this point, but it did happen in Canada as well with the rise of the NDP. The problem is that the two establishment parties always make it incredibly hard for the third party, hence the third party fails with its hands on the reins.

At this point, I would say that getting Trump in is enough to shake up the corruption to enable a real third party. If he runs on Republican ticket he may very well transform the party into something different. Good or bad, at least it would be activity towards something other than the same ole same ole establishment and status quo Hillary will bring.

You can't build a fresh new better building in the space of the old one until you tear the old one down. It seems this has to occur in most of the world considering how ingrained the corruption is everywhere.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: TinFoilSuit

If Bernie and Trump were really outsider candidates they would have run as third party candidates.

Their outsider images are purely advertising. I refuse to buy into it. Obama pretended to be an outsider, too.

A good and valid point to be sure ... but as has been noted, had they run as independent or third-party candidates they likely would barely have merited a passing footnote in the annals of elections. As it were, can they now, from where they are, make a very real difference at this point that could benefit third party candidates at a later date? If Bernie or Trump were to run as an independent ... and actually win, it most certainly would ... but even if they were to lose? Would the effect be lost on the Establishment Elite and the American Aristocracy altogether? Would it maybe at least begin the necessary process to bring about real change?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: TinFoilSuit
A good and valid point to be sure ... but as has been noted, had they run as independent or third-party candidates they likely would barely have merited a passing footnote in the annals of elections. As it were, can they now, from where they are, make a very real difference at this point that could benefit third party candidates at a later date? If Bernie or Trump were to run as an independent ... and actually win, it most certainly would ... but even if they were to lose? Would the effect be lost on the Establishment Elite and the American Aristocracy altogether? Would it maybe at least begin the necessary process to bring about real change?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I think if either of them split from their parties after initiating their campaigns as a democrat and republican they would have easily gotten the 5% needed to get ballot access and public funding.

Okay, I can think of a great many reforms that need to be made ... or that at least would help to prevent the increasingly pervasive oppression of our current form of governance ... but you bring up another interesting point ...

Should all candidates be limited solely to public funding to fund their campaigns? If so, what would prevent them from funneling everything through pacs, unions and other corporations as they do now?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Obama pretended to be an outsider, too.

How soon some people forget...

I fell for it the first time in 2008, hook, line, sinker. Never again.

a reply to: TinFoilSuit

The U.S. already has a " Third Party " and also many more after that.

Here is the list.

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm all for listening to whatever a legitimate third party would bring to the table. However, you can't just throw a third party at the National elections and pretend it's going to be effective. While most of the current movements are a bit too extreme to the right or left for my tastes, it takes a long time to establish a new party as viable, through winning local elections, state seats, etc., and then demonstrating a effectiveness at those levels to serve the people in a different AND positive way.

Once you have enough of that third party elected to U.S. Congress, then you have a viable third party Presidency candidate, but not until then. What good would it be to vote in a third party today, when it's an automatic lame duck Presidency? Congress, as a whole dominated by the two primary parties, won't work with a third party President.

You want to see how ineffective a third party President would be at this point? You'll find out if Trump gets elected. That's the closest thing to third party President any of us are likely to see for a long time.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: TinFoilSuit

The U.S. already has a " Third Party " and also many more after that.

Here is the list.

en.wikipedia.org...

I think most everyone is aware there are a number of political parties besides the RNC and DNC.

"Third Party" is a catch-all term to describe a hypothetical party that gets the same ballot access and public funding as the republican and democratic parties.

3rd party so far has only ever swayed Independents and Republicans in any amount of meaningful numbers. Democrats always stick to their same awful candidates.

Having looked at this there are ways for a third party to run, though it would be very difficult and hard going, and have to be step by step in the process.

If you were to set up a third party, the first thing to do, is get the feet wet at the local level, city and county governments. That way one can learn from the lessons of running and losing a campaign, as well as winning. From there, it would be more of a challenge to get into the state level of government. Once they have established at the state level, say the legislature, then to move into a more state office, like govenor, and maybe get into congress. But keep the focus on the state level, that way the party then can show that it can govern. Then slowly spread and move to other states, making inroads, here again at local levels then state and finally into congress. One one has enough seats in the House and Senate, then it would be feasible to make a run for the White House, cause by that time frame the idea and name is on everyones mind.

a reply to: TinFoilSuit

If you want a third-party to deliver a platform rivaling the Democrat and Republican parties, it probably won't happen. The only way to take on the two party system is to side with neither. When you vote third party your basically sending a message saying: I'm ready to vote, but only for those who earn my support. You won't 'win', but you will start showing you have standards. Right now most people are showing they have no standards for who they support, as long as it's the lesser of two evils.

So, if enough people set some standards, the two parties will be forced to recognize them to keep a third party from threatening them. That's the only meaningful victory I can see for for a third party in America.

a reply to: usernameconspiracy

You want to see how ineffective a third party President would be at this point? You'll find out if Trump gets elected. That's the closest thing to third party President any of us are likely to see for a long time.

Sigh.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

"Third Party" is a catch-all term to describe a hypothetical party that gets the same ballot access and public funding as the republican and democratic parties

Why do you need public funding ?

The UKIP Party was born here in the U.K. 25 years ago by one man, Alan Sked. He had no funding and his message was spread by " word of mouth " At the 2015 General Election UKIP gained 13% of the popular vote.

Let me also put this to you. The 1776 American Revolution. What public funding did the revolt leaders obtain ? Their revolution and their force for change was all done by " word of mouth"

In a nutshell, if you have the right message then people will listen. You start with the foot soldiers, the pamphlets and the door knocking to get your message across.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: MotherMayEye

"Third Party" is a catch-all term to describe a hypothetical party that gets the same ballot access and public funding as the republican and democratic parties

Why do you need public funding ?

Apparently, it takes a lot of money to run for POTUS in the U.S. (Not that I condone that kind of campaigning.)

So...you would need it to level the playing field.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

So...you would need it to level the playing field.

A new political party has never started on a level playing field.

They have to start at the bottom and work their way up. That's how politics work. Nothing happens " overnight "

The U.K. Labour Party was started by The Trade Unions. They had no wealthy backers. In fact the opposite was true. Wealthy people tried to stifle their very existance.

All a third party needs is repetitive national media coverage.

It's way over due for third party Independents to have a chance. Hopefully the direction that the Two Party system is going people will be more aware to it as Independent voter numbers have been growing over the years. Trump and Sanders alike should split off from their parties. Looks like they may when all is said and done, or at least with the GOP it seems to be. The Dems, with Hillary, not so much so far anyway.