posted
Answer came there "no-one, you rotten Limey".
Fine, I'll take that on the chin. However, having followed the capers of Clinton, McCain, Obama, and Romney for the last couple of months one thing strikes me as conspicuous by their absence: Where are the other political parties?
I apologise up front for being ignorant about the voting process in the US Presedential elections, but do you really only get to choose between the Democrats and the Republicans?
posted
Michael Bloomberg may still be considering an independent run.
Bald, Jewish, independent billionaire from Manhattan? Sure, it could happen.
Generally, though, the minor parties and indeps don't get much press until after the primaries are over. And then, only if they look to have enough support to steal a significant number of votes from one of the major party candidates. They don't choose candidates by the primary system, either; they go with the time-tested, traditional method of the smoke-filled back room.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without IRV or an equivalent, there's no point in voting third party; contenders not in the main parties typically just give power to the most diametrically opposed candidate (see, Nader and Bush).
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I apologise up front for being ignorant about the voting process in the US Presedential elections, but do you really only get to choose between the Democrats and the Republicans?
The practical answer: yes. There are two -- and, charitably, possibly three -- smaller parties. But due to the way things are set up, none of them are serious contenders; in general, as previously noted, voting in numbers for a small-party candidate is a good way to ensure that your least-favorite major-party candidate wins.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven: Thanks Tante. From the media hullabaloo it appears that there *are* no smaller parties.
The US electoral system pretty much makes all the smaller parties irrelevant. To the best of my knowledge there are currently parties (other than republican or democrat) represented in the US house of representatives or Senate. All the state governors are currently from the two major parties and you could probably count all the representatives from the smaller parties who have positions in state legislatures in all of the 50 states on one hand.
I just looked at a website that lists list public elected offices held by Libertarians (perhaps the largest small party). While the list is quite long, all the people on the list are in small volunteer local positions like the city planning board or small town mayor. None of them hold positions of significant power.
So while there are small parties, unless their is a major change in the US electoral system they have no real chance of winning the Presidential election. For most practical purposes, they don't exist.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, we get the occasional person elected from a third party here in CA-- but it's usually for the school board or something.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Guys, you are helping to guide me through the fog of media!
Here in this region of Spain there a host of parties vying for the vote (I say *the* vote, as I don't have one here either). Literally from fascists to communists. It's the "joy" of proportional representation that a wide spread views are represented in government.
Of course the "pain" of proportional reperesentation is that with such small and fragmented groups within the parliament a working consensus is sometimes hard to achieve without vicious horse-trading after the election.
As an example, the State of Navarre did not announce the winner of the state elections last year for weeks as no clear majority could be achieved among the elected parties.
Still it keeps the politicians happy, and off our backs for a while
FWIW - over here Obama as having the whole thing in the bag, as if the Republicans had already lost the election.
Should be interesting to see how it really pans out later on in the year.
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether he runs as a third party or not, I am going to vote for Ron Paul. The only thing that could change my mind is if he endorses another contender like the Constitutionalist or Libertarian party.
I have been a fairly consistent republican in my voting on the Federal Level, but I have lost almost all respect for my party.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
This past Friday, an article in a local paper mentioned in passing that he'd dropped out of the race. I e-mailed them, but got no response. It's annoying.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Generally, though, the minor parties and indeps don't get much press until after the primaries are over. And then, only if they look to have enough support to steal a significant number of votes from one of the major party candidates. They don't choose candidates by the primary system, either; they go with the time-tested, traditional method of the smoke-filled back room.
Not true. The Greens (and the Libertarians, I believe) both hold primaries, where they can. Unsurprisingly, the two large parties (along with the less organized smaller parties) make it more difficult to do so.
quote:I apologise up front for being ignorant about the voting process in the US Presedential elections, but do you really only get to choose between the Democrats and the Republicans?
Actually, in America you vote for people, not parties. The election process begins with many many people as potential candidates, and ends with only one. So, depending on how early you become involved, you can support any one of many people.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For whatever reason, this is why I used to like the political situation in Canada. The existence of one viable left-wing party (the NDP) and two viable right-wing parties (the Reform and Progressive Conservatives, the first being much more conservative) kept the governing centre-left Liberals from drifting too much to one side while still providing viable alternatives for voting.
(Viable in the sense that you can vote and your vote won't be "wasted" as long as your choice wins the riding, rather than the US where your choice has to win the whole state ... admittedly a simplification but it gets the idea across)
(there is also the Bloc, but I'm not a fan of their influence on politics)
The problem is that in the current day, the Reform took over the Conservatives and moved it futher to the right, not leaving much room for fiscal conservatives that are still allergic to social conservatism. Oh well.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually find the primaries much more exciting then the presidential election. In the presidential election, it is much more us vs them. I have pretty strong beliefs and there is little chance that I will vote for the other side in the actual presidential election (not saying no chance, so I do still look at the other side). But in the primaries, I can pick more specific for the platform. The debates might actually sway me from one candidate or another. Of course, the big negative to the primaries is that as a Texan, this is the first year I have had a vote that matters. But still, primaries are far more exciting for me.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jesse Ventura and Joe Lieberman are notable independents, though Joe Liberman basicallly came into prominence as a democrat and then broke off.
One reason the parties are so entrenched is their power over committee structure within Congress. When your party is a majority, this causes your seniority on a committee (such as Judicial committee, Armed Forces committee, etc) to be activated. They have these committees in the senate and in the house of representatives, I believe. There are other rules such as the ones that came into play during recent Supreme Court nominations that serve the interests of the parties.
And this primary process is revealing how the party establishments in the states are much more powerful than most of us realized.
A few years ago we had a number of threads striving to define what constituted a party alignments and what constituted liberal or conservative.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not surprised that the parties are so powerful in primaries. I mean, when you get down to it, it's their thing. There's nothing in the constitution that mandates how a person can become a presidential candidate, with or without parties. It's up to the states, on a state-by-state basis, in the general sense, and since the parties have a vested interest in getting their preferred people in slots, it's up to the parties in the specific case.
I'm not really bothered by it, not at the same deep, fundamental level other folks here have felt. To paraphrase Leslie Gore, "It's their party and they can lie if they want to."
posted
Yes, there is nothing to stop anyone at all from declaring a presidential campaign. There are rules concerning getting one's name on a ballot, and the thing Nader has been shooting for is that if you get 5% of the vote, you are eligible for federal funding of your campaign in the future.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Jesse Ventura and Joe Lieberman are notable independents, though Joe Liberman basicallly came into prominence as a democrat and then broke off.
Heh. Lieberman was a Democrat like McCain is a Republican.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quite frankly, without one of the major parties behind you, you can't really finance a credible challenge in the presidential race unless you're independently wealthy.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anti Maven, the multi-party system, like Spain leaves the system a little unsettled, and would seem to favor only short term government initiatives. I used to be a fan of the old Mexican system. They had three parties, the PRI, which always won, the PAN, which was a rightist, Catholic party, (you couldn't take communiton for a period after the election if you didn't vote PAN) and the PPS a leftist party. The PRI paid the bills for all three parties. If PAN started to move up in popularity, the PRI moved their platform to the right. If PPS started to get any noticable number of votes, then PRI moved to the left. In a presidential election the PRI often won 85% to 90% of the popular vote. The system was conducive to long term planning and projects, as there was continuity of purpose. The system isn't working that way now, though. V. Fox is a PAN President, although the PRI still controls the legeslature. It worked for most of the 20th century, however.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, it was conducive to long-term planning, but only at the behest of the tiny elite in charge. What's the use of long-planning if it's only for the benefit of a minority?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: (there is also the Bloc, but I'm not a fan of their influence on politics)
Whenever I think of the Bloc, I think back to those glorious days that they formed "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition".
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
