Why aren't third parties more successful in American politics?

Question

I have an idea, but I'm wanting to hear some opinions on this

Answer 1

Lack of the money needed to compete, and usually lack of candidates with national name recognition (which takes money to overcome). Ross Perot in '88 was running even with Clinton and Bush Sr. until he dropped out (then returned), but he was very rich and had been portrayed as a hero in a movie about his efforts to get his people out of Iran while President Carter failed to get government employees out.

I think another factor is that 3rd parties seem to put all their efforts into trying to elect a Presidential Candidate who has no chance of winning. I'd rather use the Presidential Campaign primarily as a tool to unify a nationwide effort to help elect local candidates who could then work their way up to Federal offices and eventually one might become President.

Another problem is that 3rd parties portray themselves as victims because they aren't included in debates. In this country victim=loser in too many people's mind. I think 3rd parties would do a lot better using creative marketing techniques to make up for the lack of money. Try to make their fund raising efforts and rallies "fun" and positive. Talk about what can be accomplished even if they can't win the Presidential Election.

Third party candidates should also avoid bashing the "major" party candidates too much. That only helps the "major" parties to convince voters that they must vote for "the lesser of two evils." The third party may be trying to convince voters that both parties are just as bad, but that is not likely to work. For example, I see abortion and capital punishment both as wrong, but if I bash the Republican for supporting capital punishment and the Dem. for supporting abortion funding, many prolife voters who also oppose capital punishment will decide one is worse than the other and vote for the "major" party candidate they disagree less with, rather than risk throwing the election to the one they disagree more with. Better to tell the voters that the country has survived many sub-par Presidents in the past and will do so again, and that neither of the "major" party candidates is all that bad (but our candidate is better because ... ).

http://www.yaktivist.com
Polite Discussion, Respectful Disagreements regarding nonlethal alternatives to Abortion, Death Penalty, Lethal Weapons. (Also open to discussions about alternative candidates such as Joe Schriner or drafting Ron Paul as an alternative party candidate or Unity 08 candidate... links below.)

Steve makes a good point too. 2008 may be the year for multiple alternative parties if the "major" contest is between Hillary and Rudy. They are both so close on some issues that I think a lot of people could be convinced they can risk supporting a third party (they both support gay rights, abortion rights, and capital punishment for example). I could see some conservatives willing to vote for someone who opposes both abortion and gay rights, while consistent ethic liberals vote for someone like Joe Schriner who opposes both capital punishment and abortion.

Answer 2

American society can't handle change.
They fight it at all costs.
The society as a whole is bigoted, as far as religion is concerned.
The American society cannot see the benefits of a three or more party system because they really don't have the their eyes on the rest of the world or they would know that multi party systems work (Americans are inward looking which is the society's biggest fault). If the U S leaves the middle east "COMPLETELY" and not meddle in their affairs as they have for the last 60 years or so you will find that the violence towards the U S will die down very quickly. But if the U S continues to meddle in the affairs of the middle east it will only get worse.

Answer 3

Personally, I think it's simply because we don't need a third party - we need a third and a fourth at the same time.

A third party will always serve to take away votes primarily from one other existing party, which will make the other existing party dominant. Those who supported the third party will then see the consequences of their actions, and won't vote for them again (this is precisely what happened with the Green Party in the 2000 election, where it got almost 4% of the vote, which dropped to less than 1% in 2004 when because those who voted green felt they might have created a Bush presidency).

What we need is two more parties to be formed at the same time. One can take votes from Democrats, the other from Republicans, and then people will feel free to vote their conscience.

Or, even better, what we need is ranked-choice voting.

Answer 4

I believe it's a byproduct of the voting and election process that dominates most political constituencies in the US, the "winner take all" method (also known as plurality) of awarding offices.

Look at the Electoral College as an example. Essentially, the candidate who receives the most popular votes (this doesn't have to be higher than 50%) receives ALL the votes for that particular state. This method has a tendency to create collusion and factions, as multiple parties tend to split votes that are wasted on candidates that could not possibly win.

In some European nations, some votes and seats are awarded by a percentage of the vote, also known as proportional representation. For example, if party A receives 30% of the popular vote and party B receives 50% of the popular vote and party C receives 20% of the popular vote, seats are awarded accordingly.

Answer 5

with a view to respond to your question you may first evaluate what style of electoral policies and company united statesa. is operated decrease than. united statesa. is a single-member district plurality equipment, additionally ordinary via fact the "first previous the post equipment," wherein a rustic is split into single-member districts and in each district the candidate with the main votes (the plurality) wins. Plurality structures tend to have some appealing advantageous factors, alongside with small districts and electorate being waiting to renowned their representative. vote casting is easy to understand and the style of plausible applicants is frequently low. the reason of it fairly is that plurality structures close out smaller events except their votes are focused in small districts. Even medium sized events (25%) whose votes are unfold gently around the rustic can are available 2nd everywhere and nevertheless lose each seat! The tendency for plurality election policies to create a 2-occasion equipment is ordinary as Duverger's regulation, after a well-known French political scientist.

Answer 6

MONEY!!!! The two main parties get all the money. That and too many people are bonded with their party and are unwilling to switch even though neither current party reflects the wishes of the populace. Its unfortunate but for too many people its "my family has always been democrat/republican and so am I."

Answer 7

Lack of money, lack of ballot access and decades of "Republocrat" domination.

Answer 8

$

Answer 9

Do you reckon it's because our country is based on a two party system? DUH!