What would need to be done to make our system a 3 party system?

Question

It seems people are tired of both major parties and looking for another..but none of them seem to take hold
Why is that?

Answer 1

Often general elections have rules that allow any number of candidates names to be placed on a final ballot as long as those candidates meet some minimum requirements, often based on signatures of support gathered. This type of general election promotes coalition building outside of the election process. These coalitions or political factions have, over time, become formalized associations called political parties with rules and procedures for selecting the candidate most likely to win in order to put forward the strongest candidate for the General Election. In such a system the two most well organized and unified parties will ultimately have recurring success. Since there can only be two successful parties, then the two parties often become more like coalitions of factions that would have otherwise been their own discrete parties in other electoral systems. These unified parties are held together despite their differences because their common political beliefs outweigh their differences and because of the threat of vote splitting.

Vote splitting can affect the outcome of an election when a plurality and not majority is required to win. In this scenario, two candidates which may represent a majority political viewpoint both receive votes that would have otherwise gone to the other candidate and thus "throwing" the election to a candidate that may have received far less than majority support. A Two-round system with a non partisan primary reduces concerns over vote splitting, because the top two candidates' names from the primary will be printed on the final ballot. In this scenario, the voter still has an opportunity for tactical voting to select the better or least bad candidate in the final election.

Two party systems by their nature allow third parties to occasionally supplant one of the two major parties. For example, the Labour Party in 20th century United Kingdom, or arguably the Republican Party in the 19th century United States, but only at the ultimate expense of a former major party (the Liberal Party and the Whigs, respectively). The overall system re-stabilizes into two-party mode after a three-party interlude - see Duverger's law.

Duverger's law is a principle which asserts that a [plurality rule] election system naturally leads to a two-party system. A two-party system often develops spontaneously from the single-member district plurality voting system (SMDP), in which legislative seats are awarded to the candidate with the most total votes within his or her constituency, rather than apportioning seats to each party based on the total votes gained in the entire set of constituencies.

The most obvious inhibiting feature unique to the SMDP voting system is purely statistical. A small third party cannot gain legislative power if it is based in a populous area. Similarly, a statistically significant third party can be too geographically scattered to muster enough votes to win seats, although technically its numbers would be sufficient to overtake a major party in an urban zone.

Answer 2

We have a three party system right now. We have a small group of left wingers who are the noise of the Dem Party and we have some radical right wingers who think they are the Republican Party. Millions of Dems voted for Bush twice because he was the most moderate candidate. We have the vast majority of voters who are moderates and elect candidates who are moderates. Thats why we have had Dem and Repub Presidents in the last few years. The Repubs are the most moderate party (who would have thought) and the Dems are the most absurd national party putting up people like Gore and Kerry because the elite left owns that party. If the Dems would run someone like Governor Richardson they would win hands down but there is a massive tussle over who gets to ruin the party this time around, Hillary or Obama. Fred Thompson is a plain spoken moderate and could easily win the White House if he can make the extremists in the Repub Party go lay down. We have a three party system in effect now though we don't officially have a Moderate Party. The national news media loves the left and reports daily as though it is a foregone conclusion that the Dems will win the next election but they have been doing that since Carter was around and are wrong every time. And cannot understand it. Cuz all politicians and newspeople are out of touch but they don't know it.

Answer 3

I don't believe the two party system is Constitutional and it will take a lot of Americans demanding that the elections be opened up to allow any law abiding citizen to get on the ballots. What we have now is a system that blocks Independents or average citizens from getting on the ballot. Think about it, if you have a big ol party in power and they set the rules so that the average Joe has to jump thru a bunch of hoops and the process is exorbently expensive. Then they are safe and really have no competition. What needs to happen is the ballots to be opened to anyone who is not a criminal and only citizens should be allowed to give to any canidate and the amount should be no more than a couple hundred dollars per donor and the tv channels must give even air time to all canidates. No advertising. In other words create a system by and for the people.

Answer 4

Abolish the Electoral College!

It completely negates all votes for 3rd party candidates. In most areas only the top candidate gets any votes anyway, so the third party has absolutely no chance.

One person one vote would give 3rd parties a chance. Increase awareness by getting the media (huge supporters of both parties) to stop contributing so much.

Make the races less money focused. Basically you have to buy your way into office now. So unless you can sign on with a party and a business to back you you have little chance. This is not what was intended.

It wouldnt be hard to set aside a certain amount of gov't money for campaigns, then divide it evenly among the candidates. No contributions at all means the candidate also isnt indebted to anyone once he's gotten there, and it would level the field so that only the people get to chose who goes in.


By the way, Washington specifically warned against a two party system as it would tear the country apart. Anyone else see his point?

Answer 5

Interesting article about this in the NY Times on Sunday about how Mike Bloomberg may not be running for President as much as he is running for kingmaker status. Here's how it broke down:

Mike Bloomberg wins one big state (NY, Ohio, Florida, California) and gets those electoral votes. Neither of the other candidates get the required 270 votes for an electoral college victory and so Bloomberg essentially brings coalition politics to America. He agrees to a power sharing of the executive branch with whichever Party he selects.

Here's the explanation from the article:

"With his king-making bloc of votes, an independent candidate could broker a deal with one of the candidates, European, or Israeli-style. Cabinet posts could be divvied up (say, Senator Chuck Hegel as defense secretary). Specific policies and spending commitments would be agreed to (say, plans for immigration and health care, two top national priorities for the mayor)."

What is important is that there is no constitutional or legal reason that there are only two parties, and a number of times third parties have been very important to elections: 1800, 1824, 1876, 1948, 1968, 1992, 2000. Remember: the Republicans were a third party until Lincoln suprised everyone. We could have a three party system but money stands in the way of a candidate financing themselves. Not an issue with Bloomberg.

Answer 6

One of the reason none of them seem to take hold is because most of the third parties are one issue parties.

What would it take to get a third party? Some one with some money (ala Ross Perot). who's got some ideas on how to change the system, and can intelligently communicate those ideas. Remember this, however, if the person who wins as a third party candidate for President would probably not have the support from Congress to get much done unless he also has some senators and representative elected from his party.

Answer 7

It would take serious election reform, including making it possible for *anyone* to run for office and eliminating all private contributions to parties or individual candidates.

Eventually, someone not affiliated with the Democrat and Republican parties will win the White House. That will mark a new chapter in our country's history.

Answer 8

We (the citizens, whoever we are anymore) would have to vote for a national third party candidate in such overwhelming numbers that there could be no doubt who won. The other parties exist to keep that from happening.

Answer 9

The media is obligated (to corporate interests) to suppress third parties.

By the way, if you don't like America you can leave. lol Always wanted to say that, but now I feel empty inside.

Answer 10

Get rid of the Constitution (the Democrats' dream). It mandates the winner-take-all political election system we have. Winner-take-all rewards and magnifies the two top political party and renders all others superfluous.