Is a third party viable in American politics?

I though there was.

@ChazMaz What is a viable third party with enough strength to win elections now?

There should be a fully fledged Communist Party with lots of media presence, to make the people realise that the Democratic Party is far from socialist

“a viable third party with enough strength to win elections”

Well, that is another thing all together. :-)

No. I doubt it ever will be.

This bothers me not at all. In other countries with more than 2 political parties, the only way to govern is for several parties to form a coalition.

In America, we have the same thing—the coalitions are the political parties. The Democrats and Republicans are not monolithic blocks (obviously, look at how the Democrats are infighting over health care). Each party is a loosely held together federation of a bunch of smaller miniparties vying for control.

A viable third party would be nice, but is unlikely. All of the current groups may do okay in arenas lower than the state level, but the state and national levels are sewn up so tight that the most a third party candidate will accomplish is grabbing the disinfranchised getting them together and then throwing that additional wieght behind one of the other candidates in the end.

I don’t think a third party is viable, remember Ralph Nader? The idea seems to come and go and we do have a couple of senators who were elected independent. I dont see the independent party taking a strong hold and any other party will just take votes from the existing party i.e the Tea Party is taking away from the Republican party and if they form a major voting voice in 2010 or 2012 the Democrats will take the election.

No, the other parties have too much power to allow it.

So, no one thinks that the changed demographics in the Republican party is the harbinger of some new political entity?

Eventually the Federal Reserve will take possession of the Government.

Oh wait. It already has.

@pdworkin
Well the moderates may break off and form a Moderate Conservative Party, leaving the GOP to its fascist demise.

@pdworkin, what changed demographics? They’ve been old and white for a while.

The Republicans have always been this weird three ring circus between free-market worshipers, evangelicals, and warhawk nationalists. Sometimes these three groups get along pretty well and synchronize their mythologies (so you get people who say America is a Christian nation and Jesus wants them to bomb Iraqis). But other times, like with Ross Perot and perhaps now with the teabaggers, one of these groups feels marginalized and march to their own drummer. I’m hoping the teabaggers go third party in 2012, that would be wonderful. Or better yet, Sarah Palin’s fans.

@ragingloli That’s more along the lines of what I was wondering. What has happened to Conservatives? Where are the Buckleys, the Goldwaters, the Rockefellers?

“Where are the Buckleys, the Goldwaters, the Rockefellers?”

They made their money and got out before it cost them too much.
Besides they are old school. No place for that any more.

It is a New World Order.
They never did like to share.

@Qingu I have never seen center-right Republicans this marginalized before, White though they may be.

As it has happened, obviously it’s possible. Joe Lieberman was elected as an independent. There have been other successful third party candidates in the past. Teddy Roosevelt won as the candidate of the Progressive (Bull Moose) party. I suspect the likelihood of a third party candidate is dependent on numerous factors, but ultimately it comes down to the question “Do I vote for the lesser of two evils in the established parties, or do I take a chance on an unknown?”

A strong third party is rare in the history of the US. Strong is a relative term, of course.

Every time there is a significant third party in US history there seems to be a paradigm shift going on. Strong third parties are typically damaging to only one of the two major parties. A few examples:

The Whig party, strong from roughly 1834–56 was divided over issues giving birth to the Republican party. The third party was the Republican party in 1856. Divided, Buchanan (Democrat) became president.

The Republican party itself experienced a schism when its progressive wing didn’t want to give up power. Teddy Roosevelt (BM) ran against Taft (R ) and Wilson (D), effectively handing the presidency to the Democrats. The Democrats at that time also described themselves as progressives. The BM party was dominated by the personality of TR, so it did not remain a political force after he left the scene.

There are several examples of the Democrat party experiencing divisions that let to the Dixiecrats and States Rights movements. Ultimately, these movements were absorbed by the Republican party or re-absorbed by the Democrats after the peak of the civil rights era.

The election of 1992 is yet another example of the Republican party being divided. Many Republicans abandoned GHW Bush in favor of HR Perot, helping Clinton to win the Whitehouse.

In this last election, many disenchanted socialist-leaning Democrats jumped back on the bandwagon after years of voting for relatively small and insignificant socialist-leaning candidates that have inconsistently been able to appear on the ballot for the presidency. I know, I’m one of them and I know many others just like me. As long as the Democrats keep coming our way, there will be no need to break away. Those who think like I do sense that the Democrat party in the US has the potential to become more like its more palatable European cousin—the Social Democrats.

The Republicans are currently experiencing some soul searching. They are having a difficult time reclaiming the core issues that have kept this diverse group together in the past. I sense that the Libertarian-leaning and Constitutionally obsessed Republican wings of the party were very much disappointed in GW Bush, and regarded him as a “Big government” Republican. They tended to opt out of the last election because John McCain was viewed as continuing those policies. So, there is a potential splintering of the Republican party that could lead to a significant party by 2012. But this will only happen if the Republicans remain divided and are not successful in the H and S elections of 2010.

In the absence of a strong showing by Republicans in 2010, a third party will be born. Its core will be the two disappointed wings of the party that I mentioned before. I don’t believe they can muster any more than 20% of the electorate, despite the fact that the bulk of the Republican party members could potentially go their way. Why? Fear of being divided? Ironic, huh? Obama wins a second term in 2012, for this reason alone.

@davidk Thanks for the thoughtful post.

I’ve always hoped for a more powerful green party in the US.