Maybe There Should Be A Third Party -- CBS News/Face The Nation

I want to see who the candidates are before rocking the 2-party boat. I don't know that a third party has ever helped the outcome of an election.

There are some who see 3rd party ascensions as doomed, ultimately, since our "winner-takes-all" electoral college favors political coalitions that just end up as the same old 2 parties, eventually. We might have a brief period of "OK we got the message and we'll play nice" but after a while it's just becomes about the political base again.

We might have a brief period of "OK we got the message and we'll play nice" but after a while it's just becomes about the political base again.

And what's wrong with that? Wouldn't four good years be better than none? We need all the help we can get.

It got Clinton elected-
an, although I didn't vote for him, [I voted Perot] it was 8 years of "bliss" compared to the before an after.

I think at this point there's no way that a Republican could get elected. It's either going to be a Democrat or a 3rd party. Eventually it has to happen. Look at Lincoln ... he was a 3rd party candidate.

Americans are sick of politicians. Why invite more by creating more parties???

Overall, America leans toward being socially liberal and fiscally conservative. We're sick of politicians because they have to tow the party line. And like the Sheiffer commentary insinuates, that means that the parties aren't reflecting America. Let's start a party that does.

...the parties aren't reflecting America. Let's start a party that does.

Great idea, Louie but unless we abandon the electoral college or take Jimmy Pan's suggestion below and adopt instant runoffs, I don't see much hope for a new party to change politics in the long term.

What does make me hopeful is the short term. We've got a rare situation on our hands with no incumbent running for the first time in 80 years. If an independent can shake things up, this is the best time to do it.

I don't see much hope for a new party to change politics in the long term.

Why not? Why couldn't a party form that was both fiscally conservative and socially liberal and make a killing?

Why couldn't a party form that was both fiscally conservative and socially liberal and make a killing?

What, like the Libertarian party? Man, I guess they need to call Madison Ave. for a better, more concise brand name or something that get the point across, like The Party You Were Actually Looking For Over At Least A Dozen Election Cycles (TM).

We don't need more parties represented in Washington as much as we need a devolution of powers from Washington.

The center is still too far to the right for me.

Brava, Rebecca!

I second that!

Okay--what does the "American People" really want? I know what I want but I also realized there are a lot (I'm in the South) here that definitely don't want what I want. The problem with the Electoral College is that it doesn't look at what the people want. I double it's going away soon, though. It's too liberal of a proposition. Just my opinion, but I think any third party candidate will hurt the Democrats and help the Republicans.

I don't know where you all live, but all I have to do is walk into a K-mart, or a Wal-mart and see "real" American people. They want low taxes, social conservatism, and cheap products.

Thanks, Learn Piano and Zeta Price! You made my day. I hope I made yours!

I don't know where you all live, but all I have to do is walk into a K-mart, or a Wal-mart and see "real" American people. They want low taxes, social conservatism, and cheap products.

That's why money matters should be a federal issue and social issues should be left up to the states, so that each state can live how it wants without impeding on different ways of thinking.

Well, that's a thought Bob, but I'm more for a federal government for all the US--I don't want to have another war between the states.

social issues should be left up to the states

We'll always be trying to find the balance, but I don't think we should underestimate the value of a strong federal government. Civil rights and reproductive issues come to mind...

Warren G. Harding, a few months after he came into office in 1921. Had to look that one up ;)

I found it very interesting actually, because it meant that he didn't just siphon off votes from one candidate, he poached from both. It is possible to do, we just have Ross Perot as an example, his draw wasn't quite as wide, but the winner of both elections where he was a candidate received under 50% of the vote.

It can be done, but you need a VERY popular candidate.

Most people don't take them seriously, though. A third-party candidate would have to be a very strong candidate to actually make a difference.

The old "outside" parties won't make it, they have been made to look small in the press so long that they are ignored now as a matter of course. You need solid candidates for state posts nationwide, coupled with congressional candidates and then with an outstanding presidential candidate to call it a movement, but a presidential candidate that makes a better showing, win or lose, than Perot did would be a good start.

So you're not talking about a third party at all then, you're talking about an individual independent candidate? I have nothing against independent candidates, but they are not third party candidates, they're independent. Parties coalesce around common beliefs on issues, not just around an individual. Perot started his 'Reform' party to just support him and, I guess, to have something to run as, and it basically collapsed as soon as he was out of the game because they didn't have a common set of issues, just one person.

No, the Bull Moose or Progressive Party had 16 candidates elected to office at the state and national levels. Teddy by himself was a force and his popularity helped others to succeed.

From your source:

The United States Progressive Party of 1912 was a political party created by a split in the Republican Party

It wasn't formed out of thin air then, but from an already major party splitting. Sure, if either major party split today, then both pieces would retain influence for a while.

It's hard enough for fringe parties to stay in power in parlimentary systems,

What do you mean? In those systems when the Greens win 10% of the vote they get 10% of the seats. How is that hard?

It seems to me that if any third-party in this country were to be successful on the scale that the Dems and the GOP are successful, they would have to work to challenge them on all levels of government. To do that, in my opinion, the third-party would have to be more than just an alternative to the other two when an election rolls around.

Actually, if they're a legitimate party, wouldn't they want to sweep the House and Senate as well.

What do you mean? In those systems when the Greens win 10% of the vote they get 10% of the seats. How is that hard?

Well, what I mean is that in the UK for example, there are still two dominant parties around which the coalitions are formed, the Labour and the Conservative party. To compete against both them and other fringe parties, and to consistently win 10% (or whatever) of a national vote would - I'm guessing - require a party to be solidly organized. If that's true, a contendor third-party here would have to be even more disciplined.

Actually, if they're a legitimate party, wouldn't they want to sweep the House and Senate as well.

That's what I think, they'd have to have bold ambitions. I mean, Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks in Russia used to be a fringe party with almost no support, but they certainly had some bold ambitions, and they succeeded.

An article that just came through the AP Wire put Bloomberg's chances of winning the 2008 election to the test. I don't know why the AP thought it was important to extrapolate on only speculation that he may run, but in any case, this has always been a major stumbling block for third party candidates vying for federal offices:

A problem for any third-party candidate is getting on the ballot in all 50 states, a complex and time-consuming process, but Bloomberg's money could make that easier.

Ergo, money might buy you the organization you need (and the major parties have it) to become a presidential candidate, but organizational support might be the toughest nut to crack.

I'm usually pretty good at finding things on the web, but do have a link that poll, rhodezone?

If wasn't a poll as much as an extrapolation, but I think this Washington Post story came from the same feed.

Here's a link to the NPR story about it on All Things Considered yesterday afternoon.