WI: Viable Third Party

[Beck Reilly]

What if...

A viable third party (does not have to be a historical party) broke into the spotlight? Say, there's a party of the North, West, and South. Each receive fairly substantial portions of the electoral college (enough so that it is thrown into the House).

How many times would something like this have to happen before the method of electing a President would be changed? For instance, changing the word "majority" to "plurality" might solve most of the problems.

Anyways, how many times must the election be thrown into the House before a serious push would be made to fix the election process? What effects would this have on American politics? Would there need to be more changes?

 

[Valamyr]

Ah, a great POD. What if, indeed, America was a democracy.

I think it would be a great change for the USA and the world. I've always been of the belief that a bi-partisan system is bound to become almost as static and polarized as a monarchy or dictatorship. Having power bounce back between two groups with almost similar ideologies is bad.

Having a 3rd party take power will help have more new ideas circulate around, but more importantly, itll make things much easier for other upstart parties, allowing them to eventually build themselves into a force if the people likes their ideas. In most democratic countries this process (building a new party to power) takes 4 or 5 elections, but they get there if they are serious. We've seen it often on both the provincial and federal scenes in Canada in the 20th century.

I think the results can only be healthy. It helps make people still believe in democracy and helps gets the vote out. (40% of americans vote in federal elections on average... 70% of canadians, though its been a bit lower this year... about 61%, largely due to the late date picked)

So, my plea for multipartism aside, if that had happened in the past, i think the results would have profoundly changed the world by now. The only question is when? And also, which ideology for this third party? A real left-wing party? An extreme right? Religious zealots? Its obviously critical to know.

 

[Beck Reilly]

So, my plea for multipartism aside, if that had happened in the past, i think the results would have profoundly changed the world by now. The only question is when? And also, which ideology for this third party? A real left-wing party? An extreme right? Religious zealots? Its obviously critical to know.

Well, at the moment, I am working on a TL in which Tom Dewey wins the election of 1948. What I am envisioning at the moment is a split in the Republican Party in 1952: about two-thirds staying with Dewey (Liberal Republicans) and one-third leaving with Robert Taft (Isolationist, later Conservative Republicans). Then, because of the split in the Republican Party, I plan on leaving the Southernors in the Democratic Party. Anyways, over time, I plan on having the political parties fall in like this:

Liberal Republicans - A moderate-to-liberal party, much like OTL's Democratic Party. Popular in the Northeast and California.

Conservative Republicans - A moderate-to-conservative party, comprised of OTL's conservative Democrats and McCain-ist Republicans. Popular in the Upper Midwest and West.

Democrats - A conservative, Christian-oriented party, comprised of OTL's Southernors and Bush-ist Republicans. Popular in the South.

As elections go on I plan on having the Democrats become more and more conservative, eventually surpassing the Conservative Republican Party formerly headed by such conservatives as Barry Goldwater and James Rhodes. Overtime, the two Republican parties (the Conservative faction will eventually rename themselves the Constitutional Party) will become firmly entrenched. There will be a few minor parties represented as well (hard-right and hard-left parties).

 

[robertp6165]

What if...

A viable third party (does not have to be a historical party) broke into the spotlight? Say, there's a party of the North, West, and South. Each receive fairly substantial portions of the electoral college (enough so that it is thrown into the House).

How many times would something like this have to happen before the method of electing a President would be changed? For instance, changing the word "majority" to "plurality" might solve most of the problems.

Anyways, how many times must the election be thrown into the House before a serious push would be made to fix the election process? What effects would this have on American politics? Would there need to be more changes?

This is almost ASB territory. The problem faced by any third party in the United States is that the Republocrats and Demopublicans write the laws which govern elections, and they do so to make sure that no third party ever has a serious chance at the Presidency. That is why there are "winner take all" rules in force in all States for purposes of determining who gets that State's electoral votes, for example, and these make it virtually impossible that the scenario you propose (having the election thrown into the House by a third party candidate) would ever happen. And third party candidates have a difficult time even getting on the ballot in most States...again due to the laws written by the Republocrats and Demopublicans.

To make this work, you really would have to assume a POD during the Constitutional Convention in 1787, make the Founding Fathers realize that political parties were going to develop and needed to be regulated from the outset (the Founders, while wise in many areas, were incredibly naive in assuming that political parties would not arise here). Perhaps include in the Constitution rules codifying exactly how national elections are to be carried out, instead of leaving the details of this to the States (it is the fact that the rules for Federal Elections are actually written at the State level in most cases which allows the Republocrats and Demopublicans to write the rules so as to exclude third parties). And definitely include a provision which specifies that electoral votes shall be apportioned according to each candidate's share of the popular vote...no "winner take all."

 

[Beck Reilly]

This is almost ASB territory. The problem faced by any third party in the United States is that the Republocrats and Demopublicans write the laws which govern elections, and they do so to make sure that no third party ever has a serious chance at the Presidency. That is why there are "winner take all" rules in force in all States for purposes of determining who gets that State's electoral votes, for example, and these make it virtually impossible that the scenario you propose (having the election thrown into the House by a third party candidate) would ever happen. And third party candidates have a difficult time even getting on the ballot in most States...again due to the laws written by the Republocrats and Demopublicans.

I disagree. This, while true for start-from-scratch political parties, is not true of breakaway factions from existing parties. The very sitution of throwing it into the House has happened more than once (in 1800, 1824, and 1876) and could have happened (with shifts in voting patterns in less than 4 states)because of breakaway third parties in 1948 and 1968.

 

[Chrispi]

For third parties to be viable you would need

• the House of Reps to be elected by PR (within each state, of course.) Even here, the parties form coalitions for the Presidency.
• strong regional parties, which will in turn cause a 1860-like crisis.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

This is almost ASB territory. The problem faced by any third party in the United States is that the Republocrats and Demopublicans write the laws which govern elections, and they do so to make sure that no third party ever has a serious chance at the Presidency. That is why there are "winner take all" rules in force in all States for purposes of determining who gets that State's electoral votes, for example, and these make it virtually impossible that the scenario you propose (having the election thrown into the House by a third party candidate) would ever happen. And third party candidates have a difficult time even getting on the ballot in most States...again due to the laws written by the Republocrats and Demopublicans.

To make this work, you really would have to assume a POD during the Constitutional Convention in 1787, make the Founding Fathers realize that political parties were going to develop and needed to be regulated from the outset (the Founders, while wise in many areas, were incredibly naive in assuming that political parties would not arise here). Perhaps include in the Constitution rules codifying exactly how national elections are to be carried out, instead of leaving the details of this to the States (it is the fact that the rules for Federal Elections are actually written at the State level in most cases which allows the Republocrats and Demopublicans to write the rules so as to exclude third parties). And definitely include a provision which specifies that electoral votes shall be apportioned according to each candidate's share of the popular vote...no "winner take all."

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to just eliminate the Electoral College completely and let the candidate who wins the most votes in the entire US election...er...win the election? (As an interesting exercise, try explaining the Electoral College to a foreigner some time) This doesn't require a POD before 2001, when Hilllary suggested it, becoming about the 250 millionth person to do so in the nation's history.

The problem is; do you REALLY want a third party?? If you eliminate the Electoral College you will almost certainly get one, then you'll eventually get a third and a fourth, then another and another.

Germany had something like 30 parties just before Hitler came to power. Disgust at the paralysis this brought to government was a major factor in putting the paperhanger into power.

 

[DuQuense]

Back in the 80's the Speaker of the Illinios house of Repersentives introduced a Bill to double the number of Siginutures Needed to put a third party on the Ballot, the bill also cutin Half the Time allowed to collect the sigs. The Bill was cosporsed by the Minority Leader, and passed by 98%.

The reason given

If there are more than two parties on the Ballots-the voters will be too confused, and won't know who to vote for.

In the 1980's the Democrats & Republicans each sent their 50 mill$$, and for each $ spend, the national media threw in 4$, for a total of 250 mill$$ each. The Libertarians spent 4 mill$, for which the national media threw in 25 cents, per $$ spend for a total of 5 mill$$.
The Democrats and the Repulicans each got +/- 50 million votes, whilelibertarians got +/- 1 million votes.

When you look at the cost /vote you have to wonder what if the Libertatians had been given the same 50 million Federal Tax $$ the Democrats & Republicans got. This is What made Perot such a threat, he had the 50 mill.

 

[Landshark]

Ok, I'm not American but I feel a sudden overwelhming desire to start a revolution in Illinios and put some state senators up against a bullet pocked wall.

 

[Torqumada]

Please see my post in the chat section on the Republican and Democratic monoploy on US politics and a possible way yo break the stalemate.

Torqumada

 

[sikitu]

Folks,
Maybe some comments from the German point of view. We currently have two major political parties (Social Democrats and Christian Democrats), plus about three or four that also have some importance (Green party, Free Democrats, Socialists, others such as National Democrats only of regional or temporary significance). Due to the fact that a party must have at least 5% of the votes to enter parliament, there is not the problem which the Weimar Republic used to have.

Anyway, I think that one needs more than two political parties in parliament to have at least some range of opinions. Actually, I never really understood the difference between Democrats and Republicans in the US...OK, I'm joking here, caught!

From our experience in Germany, althoguh often differences between the large parties are rather minor, especially the Green party and the Free Democrats contributed a lot to legislation. I doubt that they would have achieved that without having seats in the Bundestag.

 

[Torqumada]

Libertarins don't accept Federal matching funds on a matter of principle. They feel that the government shouldn't be subsidising political campaigns. It does hamstring them, since they are the most successful 3rd party in the US (they have the most people in office of any 3rd party in the US) and very few people even know they exist. More money would certainly help them.

Torqumada

 

[God_of_Belac]

The 30 political parties in 1930 were not the reason why the Nazis took over. In fact, most of the 30 were small, breakway groups that two years later all joined the Nazis, but even tehn accounted for less than half of the Nazi strength. The important parties (KPD, SPD, Centre, DVP, DDP, DVNP, and NDSAP) numbered seven, and the three parties beginning with D were all in a bloc. The Nazis took power becase the D bloc joined them as a way of getting a parliamentary majority for themselves, thinking that they could control Hitler by making him Chancellor and denying his party any of the important cabinet positions. They were wrong, but it wasn't the multiplicity of parties that did it.

The deadlock was caused on the one hand by the fact that the Nazis had 37% of parliament while the communists (KPD) had 15%, and they collaborated on no-confidence votes every time anything was brought up (bringing down the government every session), and on the other hand by the fact that Bruner, Von Papen, and Hindenburg, the people in charge until Hitler took over, actively wanted to destroy the Weimar Republic and so forced a deadlock. Number of political parties had nothing to do with it.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Just to clarify further the situation in Germany pre 1933. They actually had more parties pre 1914 when the Reichstag was elected by a majority system

The problem was not the many small parties but rather 2 VERY large parties a Nazi Party that took orders from Adolph Hitler and a Communist Party that took orders from Joe Stalin.

These parties together won, I believe, more than half the vote. This may not be unrelated to 40% unemployment

 

[robertp6165]

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to just eliminate the Electoral College completely and let the candidate who wins the most votes in the entire US election...er...win the election? (As an interesting exercise, try explaining the Electoral College to a foreigner some time) This doesn't require a POD before 2001, when Hilllary suggested it, becoming about the 250 millionth person to do so in the nation's history.

But the Republocrats and Demopublicans would NEVER allow this, because it keeps them entrenched in power. And actually, it is not the Electoral College itself, but rather the winner-take-all rules which govern the apportionment of votes in the Electoral College, which causes the problem.

The problem is; do you REALLY want a third party?? If you eliminate the Electoral College you will almost certainly get one, then you'll eventually get a third and a fourth, then another and another.

Germany had something like 30 parties just before Hitler came to power. Disgust at the paralysis this brought to government was a major factor in putting the paperhanger into power.

There are some...myself included...who might argue that a little "paralysis" in our government would be a good thing. A government that does nothing is a government which is not harming the freedoms of it's people.

 

[sikitu]

The deadlock was caused on the one hand by the fact that the Nazis had 37% of parliament while the communists (KPD) had 15%, and they collaborated on no-confidence votes every time anything was brought up (bringing down the government every session), and on the other hand by the fact that Bruner, Von Papen, and Hindenburg, the people in charge until Hitler took over, actively wanted to destroy the Weimar Republic and so forced a deadlock. Number of political parties had nothing to do with it.

Who is Bruner? I agree on your comments, however. Actually, most of the parties in the Weimar Republic did not support the democratic ideas at all. This includes DVP and DNVP, at least most of the time, and of course KPD and NSDAP. The center party was in a true dilemma at the end of the Republican era because its leader Brüning ruled via directives issued by Hindenburg, virtually ignoring parliament, and it became worse under von Papen and von Schleicher.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

But the Republocrats and Demopublicans would NEVER allow this, because it keeps them entrenched in power. And actually, it is not the Electoral College itself, but rather the winner-take-all rules which govern the apportionment of votes in the Electoral College, which causes the problem.

There are some...myself included...who might argue that a little "paralysis" in our government would be a good thing. A government that does nothing is a government which is not harming the freedoms of it's people.

Or protecting them either. Do you want a government where monthly layoffs and pay suspensions are commonplace in the Military, the Diplomatic Corps, Immigration, the FBI, CIA etc etc etc. One of the only good things the 94th Congress (the one elected in 1994) did was give us a look at a government where one contentious faction had both the ability and the willingness to shut everything down if it didn't get its way.

Look at the scenarios above, despite the fact that they didn't really have 30 parties to deal with (OK it was'just' 7 and two were bigger than the rest. I said it was a major factor, not the only one, and to most German voters it was that) they still look like cases of 'wagging the dog' to me and I don't see how any of them could have come about in a two party system.

My major problem with a multiparty system is that I don't really see how it guarantees anything except that whoever is President will probably have had an absolute majority of votes cast AGAINST him/her in the election. I find it maddening that some guy who got 49.5% (whatever) has then acted constantly as if he had a 'mandate'. Just think of how it would be if 40% really was one.

 

[Michael]

What is the electoral college? Is that were it is based on regions they control?

 

[Dave Howery]

OK, leaving aside the bitter political tripe, when would have been the best time for a viable 3rd party to rise in the US and stay there, alongside the current 2 major parties? T. Roosevelt's Bull Moose party? Ross Perot's party (whatever the heck it was called)? The tough part of this scenario is keeping the new third party from taking the place of one of the other two (like the Republicans did to the Whigs).
I'm not sure just what a third party would appeal to. The two party system we have now roughly enfolds everyone to either left of center or right of center. Any party appealing to the far right or far left alone won't have much support, since, despite what it seems from the comments you hear from Americans on this board, most of us are not fringe..... the vast majority are moderate, close to center. A new party would have to be able to take away a big chunk of these moderates to be viable.
I could see the rise of three parties along the lines of far left, far right, and moderate. However, this would be essentially a one party nation, as the last one would have an overwhelming majority...

 

[Ace Venom]

The solution to this problem is obvious. A lot of the problems surrounding the joke of the two-party system we have in the US stems back to the American Civil War, where politics became extremely polarized. The Northern victory cemented the Republicans as a viable party and greatly damaged the Democrats to the point where it took years for a Democrat to get elected to the White House.

A Southern victory may damage the prestige of the Republican Party, depending on when the South can win. Let's say the South can hold back major Union advances in 1864, prompting McClellan to win the election of 1864 by a slim majority and allowing the Democrats to grab a majority in the House of Representatives. Lincoln, not wanting to allow McClellan to give away too generous a peace, calls for a truce with the rebels.

Politically, this triggers damage to the Republican Party. Radicals (whichever Radicals managed to hold onto their seats) will villify Lincoln for grasping defeat from the jaws of victory. The Democrats will be saying, "If you listened to us from the beginning, this never would have happened."

As a result, the Republicans split into two factions: one in favor of big business and industry and the other based on temperance and more radical issues (this faction will probably merge with the Socialist Party). So as a result, you'd get Democrats (conservative), Republicans (liberal) and Socialists (reactionary). I don't know how viable the Socialists could be as a third party because that mostly depends on regional rather than person-to-person politics.