It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Reading through ATS today a wild thought struck me, is the modern political climate in the US purposely designed to put the Third Parties back in their place?
What led me to this thought was a common statement I've seen crop up across social media, ATS included. Generally it goes something like, "I'm an independent and I've never voted for X party before but this next election I'm voting X party all down the ballot."
Obviously on ATS you can replace X with Republican. But elsewhere I've seen people say similar things about the Democrats.
It just seems interesting that the big two parties are seemingly going out of their way to increase hyperpartisanship right after a Presidential election that showed the clear growing influence of independent candidates.
Did the "uniparty" (to quote a term I've seen used here on ATS) feel their power and influence slipping away and collude together to force people to choose a side, stripping the Third Parties of their growing base?
Despite what people may claim on here the Democrats and Republicans in power are pretty much indistinguishable. It has been shown in the past that they'll say and do anything to retain their power and influence. So is it really that far fetched to think that they would artificially create a political climate that drives people to them?
What do you think? Have the independent candidates lost the gains they made in 2016? If so, do you think it could be due to a ploy enacted by those already in power?
originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Xcalibur254
I actually think the exact opposite is happening. I think 3rd parties have a better chance now than they ever did of becoming a contender. Trump is a shining example of why, and he pretty much iced that cake.
Here's the thing though, for the foreseeable future any of these 3rd party candidates are going to have to be willing to sign up with whichever party (democrat / republican) is more desperate to get someone in office.
Once politicians accept that they're all whores anyway, what does it matter what party you get elected with.
When the republicans turned against Trump and showed their true "establishment" colors, all bets were off.
The old two-party system has been dead for a long time, people just didn't realize it. Now they do. (and if they can't they're short-bus window lickin' stupid!). There's still two parties alright, but their names are:
1. The Establishment
2. The Outsiders
There you have it, folks!
originally posted by: xuenchen
The 3rd Parties have all failed to convince anybody they are worth a plugged nickle.
originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Xcalibur254
I don't know if its the parties that are killing 3rd party chances or if its just the way the system works. Other countries have multiple political parties and a tradition of forming co-alition governments. But I'd bet those are all Parliamentarian type systems?
You said "interesting that the big two parties are seemingly going out of their way to increase hyperpartisanship right after a Presidential election".
That's a function of two things I think. One is, its a business model. The rabid hate, vitriol and divisiveness is a big money maker, particularly for the Dems.
The other reason the hate and divisiveness is promoted is to increase voter turnout. Both of these parties have a serious problem........they aren't popular. In order to maintain the fiction of legitimacy, the parties have to generate enough interest to draw as many people as possible to the polls.
Only 55.4% of eligible voters turned out in 2016 POTUS election. Trump garnered a 26% of the vote, as did Hilary by a very marginally 26.5% v. Trump's 26.3%.
See a problem there? I mean, honestly, is winning 26.3% a legitimate "mandate" to do anything? For all practical purposes, Trump came to office with Zero Political Capital. Worse however, the low turnout naturally gave the Dems the opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of the election and the government thereby so formed.
Voila, you got an ongoing Constitutional crisis.
The "Progressive" answer to this problem, always preferring to lessen freedom and impose obligations with fines attached, is to legislate Mandatory Voting with fines for abstaining. By doing so, insuring that something like near 100% of eligible voters actually go out and cast a vote, insures "legitimacy" to the results and the government so formed.
That's all well and good but fails to address the core of the problem, i.e. the abysmal quality of people running for office.
originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: TonyS
To give you a hint about the problems a third party candidate faces, the VPOA reached all the goals set by Georgia then with about 10 days to go till the dead line they moved the finish line then didn't notify us till about 5 days were left.
States like Oklahoma require you to win 5% of the popular vote in the governors election to be eligible to be on the ballot for the presidency.
I imagine many other states have similar pit falls.