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: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

I guess they are trying to avoid costly changes to ballots where a third party doesn't demonstrate enough support to make the expenditure worthwhile? I can sorta see that but......it almost sounds unconstitutional. I guess the candidate can always run as an Independent though.




posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

They push it for two reasons; 1) they assume that regular abstainers will be more likely to vote Democrat and 2) the larger the sheer numbers of votes are cast, the easier it is for them to rig election results.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Yeah, I think I agree with you.

Hence my point about signing up with one of the two established parties, so yes I agree there too.

ETA - In the case of Sanders...the "Establishment" won, and Clinton got picked. That's the risk a candidate runs by playing their hand that way. They might get the carpet yanked out of them in favor of an Establishment insider.


edit on 10/10/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   
The fact of the matter is, it is nearly mathematically impossible to win as an independent. The collective heads of Electoral College would explode!



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS


But you have to run as a party to in theory reach the 5% of the vote to get matching federal funds for campaigns over the next 4 years.


The R's and D's have done a wonderful job of mucking up the waters to slow down the growth of a third party.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Of course they have!

Why wouldn't they do everything in their power to eliminate the competition??

I'm sure this is one of the many areas were democrats and republicans and in full agreement and beer buddies over! Laughing at the American public the whole time.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   
The irony is, once there is a third party, it will become just as partisan as the rest, and it wouldn't be long until people want a fourth party.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 03:38 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?


I think the third parties took a big step last election. Sanders became nationally known as an independent. Jill Stein got millions of votes. Gary Johnson was on some national news shoes. Glen beck endorsed the Constition party candidate at one time.

With the increasing rise in social media for news especially with younger people, third party candidates get way more notice then they did in the past, they don't need to generate millions of dollars in donations to get millions of dollars with of exposure.

There will come a tipping point at some point in the future where we will have multiple third party candidates in congress and a viable presidential candidate.

It will happen sooner or later, it just depends on how fed up we get with the "uniparty" They are no differnt, but we treat it like a college foot ball team...cheering them on when they beat the other team, getting upset when they lose. They're playing us.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Ross Perot's "3rd Party" ended up getting Clinton elected in 1992.

Hip Hip Hooray.

(although Bush may not have been any better) 😃



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


No doubt laughing at us all day long...

but even with all road blocks they place, the biggest hurdle to a viable third party is getting the people to break their programming and vote for someone other than the 2 parties that have systematically broken down our nation.

I cant speak for any other third party, but the VPOA has it in their bylaws that the only salary that can be paid is if someone has won an election.

Everyone that holds a position in the party, does not draw a salary its 100% voluntary.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Third party candidates have to not only win local elections, they then have to be successful in their terms, before any of them will be a realistic Presidential candidate. They have to have success on the local and state level first. So far, they don't have a great track record.

I remember a tea Party candidate winning a Mayoral election in a city near me probably six years ago. He was bat-s crazy, and his actions got him a nice recall prior to finishing his first six months on the job.

Until there are realistic third party candidates, with platforms that aren't half crazy, nothing will change. Gary Johnson? Was that the best the Libertarians had to offer?

You get enough third party politicians with successful tenures at the state level, and you'll see them getting more interest in Congressional races. Until then, those parties are not really viable on the national stage.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Since election contributions are in the billions of dollars for both dem and repub, they can pay media for biased news and muckraking of the other candidates. The current US elections are all about money and where it is spent.

In order for a third party to succeed there needs to be rules on how much each candidate can spend, objective reporting by media, rules concerning defamation of other candidates, and the list goes on. Until then the illusion of a bipartisan political system will rule.

As for election 2016, very little was heard concerning the Independent candidate Sanders and his views, the Libertarian candidate, Johnson just didn't seem strong enough. The news was all over Clinton and Trump. Very little was heard about the other two parties.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

First past teh goal post voting has always assured there could only be two really legitimate parties.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf



But you have to run as a party to in theory reach the 5% of the vote to get matching federal funds for campaigns over the next 4 years.


Didn't know that, you're right about the Dems and Reps being good at protecting their monopoly on power.

But then I thought, "wait a minute........we do have a third party, don't we, the Libertarian Party". I'd think they qualify for matching funds.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Irishhaf



But you have to run as a party to in theory reach the 5% of the vote to get matching federal funds for campaigns over the next 4 years.


Didn't know that, you're right about the Dems and Reps being good at protecting their monopoly on power.

But then I thought, "wait a minute........we do have a third party, don't we, the Libertarian Party". I'd think they qualify for matching funds.


We also have the Green Party and the Constitution party. In fact I think there were close to 40 presidental candidates last election with quite a few getting on multiple states ballots.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Yea, I'd altogether forgotten those other two. Good point!



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS


Nope to the best of my knowledge nobody since Perot managed to qualify for the matching funds.

I could be wrong...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join