It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Death of the Third Party

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   
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?




posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 12:13 PM
link   
While the current environment is not helping the third parties, the death of them was already written in stone some time ago.

Last 2 elections I have talked to people to try and get them to vote for a third party, and the answer was always the same... they have no chance to win.

IF you can get them to talk about it for a while, and explain the 5% goal and what it can do for a third party then maybe you can change their mind but most people will forget by voting day and just punch the letter they are used to punching.

I did not vote for trump last time, and I will not vote for trump if he runs again, I will push VPOA in the governors race in hopes of reaching the 5% needed for my state so a VPOA candidate can be on the ballot for the presidency.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   
"Independents" became to dependent.

The 3rd Parties have all failed to convince anybody they are worth a plugged nickle.

They keep putting pennies on railroad tracks and the pennies keep getting flattened.

The true "3rd Party" are Democrats that don't vote.

"We are Watching and We See You"



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   
There was last time I looked 5 parties that can field enough ballot boxes in enough areas to theoretically win the white house. They are: Democrat, republican, constitution, green and libertarian.

I myself would like the "none of the above" option on a ballot. Imagine having two politicians spending billions of corporate money and both getting trounced by a please try again with better candidates decision. It won't happen, but I can dream.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I think think it was the stooges Gary Johnson and Jill Stein that torpedoed 3rd party support this past election.

They collectively undid all the progress Ron Paul had achieved for 3rd parties over the previous 15 years or so.

What's driving people away from the leftists is their hypocrisy, vitriol, hate mongering and lies.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Libertarian is the only way !



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I think the third party is more vibrant than ever, it's the Democratic party that's experiencing death throes.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I have voted Libertarian on more than one occasion.

I think the real problem right now is the growing radicalism of the Democratic party.

You see the two parties as indistinguishable.

They were truly headed that way at one time, however actual conservatives are making inroads on taking the Republican party back.

Democrats, on the other hand, appear to have been overwhelmed by the fringes of the party.

So before anyone is going to worry about getting some serious third-party action going the Democratic party needs put in its place.

An opinion, as always.




posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   

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?


The problem is the math never works in favor of a third party. You just wind up taking votes from on of the other two parties resulting in one of them winning... i.e, Ross Perot got Clinton elected.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   
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!



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   

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!



Both Trump and Sanders were third party candidates... however, they can't win on their own.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

The 3rd Parties have all failed to convince anybody they are worth a plugged nickle.


No, the Two Party + MSM System has blocked their messages while speaking only in terms of the Two Party + MSM System, they've hoodwinked everyone into beLIEving that the GOP represents conservatives and the DNC represents liberals.

And everyday here I see people propagating out at everyone else the endless array of vernacular (words) that carry on that only one or only the other (tunnelvision) perception of reality (which is 100% prescribed to US by the Two Party + MSM System).




posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   
“oh amygdala have mercy on the poor bastard“
-Patches
a reply to: xuenchen



edit on 10-10-2018 by Athetos because: It was patches not Micolash, Host of the Nightmare



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

For me, the hope of at least a third party died in 2000. Ralph Nader had gotten the nod from the Green Party and was their candidate. When the first debate between Gore and Bush came around, Nader was polling respectfully. He was not invited to join them in the debate. At the time I understood the conservatives not wanting him on stage but even the ''liberal'' Gore would not let him join.

In fact, Nader was not even allowed in the building for fear that the crowd would demand him to get up and debate. He was not even allowed into one of the satellite viewing rooms. The police were called and they took him from the building to a remote location so that he could not be a spark of rebellion to the sham proceedings.

That was the day any vestiges of hope I had in the Democrat Party ended. Clearly they were complicit with the Republicans to keep the whole process under control.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
Libertarian is the only way !


Not as long as they pick people like Richard Barr and Gary Johnson/Bill Weld. And I have voted Libertarian.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   
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.

See: www.cnn.com...

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.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

With the swing to radical leftists and radical rightists that both parties have demonstrated a moderate third party might stand a chance of tearing moderates away from both parties. Moderates who want a moderate government.

A well known candidate or even one who is not so well known might step forward and on the strength of their fame or personality alone, along with their moderate stance might be something to hope for.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 01:32 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 01:45 PM
link   

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.

See: www.cnn.com...

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.


I'd argue only about 1/4 of eligible voters are even intelligent and informed enough cast a vote... I don't believe everyone should be voting.

Democrats push everyone voting as it is far easier to manipulate the emotional and uninformed.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   

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.



There are a lot of procedural dirty tricks the parties use to shut down opposition. Here in Chicago, they frequently challenge petitions/signatures required to get on a ballot because they know the opposition doesn't have the resources/time to fight effectively and run a campaign.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join