5 ms·

Just to be clear, a third party can definitely arise in America (it has happened before), but the FPTP system means that one of the existing parties must die in

by furyg3 6y ago

Just to be clear, a third party can definitely arise in America (it has happened before), but the FPTP system means that one of the existing parties must die in the process.

mschuster91 6y ago
> but the FPTP system means that one of the existing parties must die in the process. 2020 will be really interesting, assumes Trump loses this election... honestly I'd not be surprised when the Republicans break up.
- C1sc0cat 6y ago
  I must admit as an outsider I think that might happen. The GOP needs to do what John Smith, Tony and Gordan did and kick out the entryist faction that is destroying the party but I suspect its to late.
  - reducesuffering 6y ago
    Libertarian Party has been historically closer to the Republicans, and is the 3rd most popular, getting up to 5-6% popular vote in some states. If the Republicans really try to contest a Democratic election win, and fail, that could be the devastating blow that would tip Libertarians into assuming the two-party spot.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      I highly doubt that you could flip the majority of either dominat party into a third party. For a third party to have a chance, you would need individuals from both dominat parties to switch. I say this because most people see their party affiliation as part of their identity and a switch may create substantial cognitive dissonance. Also factor in the combative nature of politics and people won't leave their party if they know it means the opposition party would be more likely to win. It's similar to how many people see this election and the prior election as a choice for the lesser of two evils - it's not about winning, but about the other side not winning. The way I explain my view on the election is that it is a choice between a shit sandwich and a shit sandwich without the bread. Which one is which depends on the topic/policy that matters most to each voter, but they are both terrible choices.
  - runawaybottle 6y ago
    Or another thing that could be very healthy for America is to finally have a few election cycles where both the Dem/Rep candidate are not reprehensible. That stops the narrative from becoming dire as ‘the most important election in our lifetime, and we can’t have a third party candidate stealing votes’. Democrats are particularly guilty of using this excuse over and over, and at some point need to stop resorting to it.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      The problem is that the Democrats literally can't put up a candidate that would even be considered "social democrat" or "centrist" by European standards. Even Biden is center-right from our point of view. Everyone they could put up would just get smeared and mercilessly attacked by the entire political and media right wing, from the far right Tea Party/QAnon/MAGA/Breitbart/Fox following of the Republicans to the fringes of the Democrats, as "socialist", "communist" or whatever. Even Joe fucking Biden who doesn't support something as basic as M4A gets called an "anarchist ally", it's madness. I am not sure how the US is ever supposed to fix this, given literal decades of red scare brainwashing. I'm afraid that the only real way out of the current mess, assuming that either Trump "wins" (or wins for real) or Biden gets locked by a R-majority Senate under "Moscow Mitch" McConnell may/will be some sort of revolution - when there are millions upon millions of people who are out of a job and homeless, who have nothing to lose any more.
    - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
      There's some debate whether it actually happened in 2000 with Nader acting as a spoiler who allowed Bush to win. It certainly became a stock Dem talking point, but it's difficult to be sure whether it really made a telling difference. Personally I don't think America can be fixed at this point. The gap between the tribes is now so extreme it's practically evolutionary speciation, and Democrats and Republicans are barely breeding with each other. This is not a joke. The differences seem to be rooted in psychology - strongly correlated with parenting - and perhaps through inherited brain structure. At some point "They are not like us" stops being rhetoric and becomes biological reality. I think we're closer to that point than we realise - in the US, and also the UK.
- nemo44x 6y ago
  I doubt it. In 2009 the pundits said the Republican Party was over. The economy was in shambles and Democrats had just acquired control of the house, senate, and executive branches. By 2016 the Republicans had it all back as well as 34 governorships. It took only 2 years to get Congress back. People spoke of a Democratic Party that had no future and even the chance of a constitutional convention if republicans could get a few more seats in 2016. It’s easier to make a claim for power when you don’t have it. Governing is harder than organizing and campaigning. Both parties over the last 2 admins could have done whatever they wanted at certain points but still weren’t able to. We don’t have M4A and we never built the wall. Democrats will get power, be accused of overreach at some point from republicans and of not living up to promise by some democrats creating disillusion. And then pass the power back.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    I think there was a huge latent undercurrent of racism/tribalism that was activated by Obama becoming president.
    - nemo44x 6y ago
      Possibly but it’s interesting that so many Obama voters went for Trump. It could have been the perfect storm though as Clinton is a very polarizing figure. I don’t think most Trump voters (or Americans) are racist, at least by the definition of the word most people outside the university system today use.
      - mschuster91 6y ago
        > Possibly but it’s interesting that so many Obama voters went for Trump. They hoped for change ("yes we can", "change we need"), but Obama failed to deliver as he was blocked by the Republican Senate for six years straight (thanks to "Moscow Mitch" McConnell). Trump and his "we will drain the swamp for real this time" message was exactly the right thing to offer to this voter group, especially as the Democrat candidate was Hillary Clinton - as "establishment" as one can be. If there's one thing that Obama and the then-Democrat leadership abysmally failed, it is that they did not use the House+Senate+Presidency tripe majority to actually enact change in the first two years. I bloody hope that the Democrats can gain the Senate and especially that Biden will have learned his lesson!
- pessimizer 6y ago
  They've been absurdly successful, I'm not sure why they would break up. The Democrats are in far more danger - this is a must win (although I also think it is a likely win.) The Democrats have had, for the past two cycles, approximately 40% of their base support a candidate who refuses to join their party.
  - api 6y ago
    Both things can be true. Trump was to Republicans what Bernie is to Democrats. Look into how many Republicans are chasing radical stuff like Qanon. Both parties and the entire political orthodoxy is in for a huge shakeup. Nobody really loves the mainstream of their party right now.
    - alisonkisk 6y ago
      That's self-contradictory. The mainstream loves the mainstream of their party. What is true is that most people are more suspicious of all politicians, thanks to the Internet's information distribution peers. No shakeup of the orthodoxy will change that.
  - afjl 6y ago
    40% is an extreme overestimate.
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      In some states the 2016 primary was strongly against (maybe even 70%+?) the establishment candidate. Using superdelegates to steamroll that primary cost them the election.
  - alisonkisk 6y ago
    Sanders is a Democrat for all practical purposes. He caucuses with Democrats and his voter base is Democrats. The Republicans have not been absurdly successful in an democratic support sense. over the past 25 yesrs, they've steadily increase their reliance on electoral college bias, voter suppression, and a Republican judiciary. When the party's success depends on Supreme Court decisions made by a previous President they helped get installed by the Supreme Court overruling the voters, they are on very thin ice democratically. Republicans haven't won the popular vote for a non-incumbent since 1988, or 1980 if you consider VP GHW Bush as an incumbent.
- indigochill 6y ago
  The Republicans are in a weird place lately. There are definitely divergent camps within the party, but I suspect none is confident enough to split off and try to run separately from the others (and sacrifice the "Republican" brand). Perhaps exemplified by how Tea Party and Libertarian folks vote Republican because they don't have enough political clout to get anywhere on their own. I'm sure the same is true on the liberal side (Green Party?) and I'm just not as familiar with that side. So I guess what I'm saying is I would be surprised because I don't think any single camp within the Republican party is dominant enough to beat the rest of the party. But on the other hand I was surprised when the party picked Trump as their candidate, so I could be surprised again.

by furyg3 6y ago

Just to be clear, a third party can definitely arise in America (it has happened before), but the FPTP system means that one of the existing parties must die in the process.

mschuster91 6y ago

> but the FPTP system means that one of the existing parties must die in the process. 2020 will be really interesting, assumes Trump loses this election... honestly I'd not be surprised when the Republicans break up.

C1sc0cat 6y ago
I must admit as an outsider I think that might happen. The GOP needs to do what John Smith, Tony and Gordan did and kick out the entryist faction that is destroying the party but I suspect its to late.
- reducesuffering 6y ago
  Libertarian Party has been historically closer to the Republicans, and is the 3rd most popular, getting up to 5-6% popular vote in some states. If the Republicans really try to contest a Democratic election win, and fail, that could be the devastating blow that would tip Libertarians into assuming the two-party spot.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    I highly doubt that you could flip the majority of either dominat party into a third party. For a third party to have a chance, you would need individuals from both dominat parties to switch. I say this because most people see their party affiliation as part of their identity and a switch may create substantial cognitive dissonance. Also factor in the combative nature of politics and people won't leave their party if they know it means the opposition party would be more likely to win. It's similar to how many people see this election and the prior election as a choice for the lesser of two evils - it's not about winning, but about the other side not winning. The way I explain my view on the election is that it is a choice between a shit sandwich and a shit sandwich without the bread. Which one is which depends on the topic/policy that matters most to each voter, but they are both terrible choices.
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  Or another thing that could be very healthy for America is to finally have a few election cycles where both the Dem/Rep candidate are not reprehensible. That stops the narrative from becoming dire as ‘the most important election in our lifetime, and we can’t have a third party candidate stealing votes’. Democrats are particularly guilty of using this excuse over and over, and at some point need to stop resorting to it.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    The problem is that the Democrats literally can't put up a candidate that would even be considered "social democrat" or "centrist" by European standards. Even Biden is center-right from our point of view. Everyone they could put up would just get smeared and mercilessly attacked by the entire political and media right wing, from the far right Tea Party/QAnon/MAGA/Breitbart/Fox following of the Republicans to the fringes of the Democrats, as "socialist", "communist" or whatever. Even Joe fucking Biden who doesn't support something as basic as M4A gets called an "anarchist ally", it's madness. I am not sure how the US is ever supposed to fix this, given literal decades of red scare brainwashing. I'm afraid that the only real way out of the current mess, assuming that either Trump "wins" (or wins for real) or Biden gets locked by a R-majority Senate under "Moscow Mitch" McConnell may/will be some sort of revolution - when there are millions upon millions of people who are out of a job and homeless, who have nothing to lose any more.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    There's some debate whether it actually happened in 2000 with Nader acting as a spoiler who allowed Bush to win. It certainly became a stock Dem talking point, but it's difficult to be sure whether it really made a telling difference. Personally I don't think America can be fixed at this point. The gap between the tribes is now so extreme it's practically evolutionary speciation, and Democrats and Republicans are barely breeding with each other. This is not a joke. The differences seem to be rooted in psychology - strongly correlated with parenting - and perhaps through inherited brain structure. At some point "They are not like us" stops being rhetoric and becomes biological reality. I think we're closer to that point than we realise - in the US, and also the UK.
nemo44x 6y ago
I doubt it. In 2009 the pundits said the Republican Party was over. The economy was in shambles and Democrats had just acquired control of the house, senate, and executive branches. By 2016 the Republicans had it all back as well as 34 governorships. It took only 2 years to get Congress back. People spoke of a Democratic Party that had no future and even the chance of a constitutional convention if republicans could get a few more seats in 2016. It’s easier to make a claim for power when you don’t have it. Governing is harder than organizing and campaigning. Both parties over the last 2 admins could have done whatever they wanted at certain points but still weren’t able to. We don’t have M4A and we never built the wall. Democrats will get power, be accused of overreach at some point from republicans and of not living up to promise by some democrats creating disillusion. And then pass the power back.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  I think there was a huge latent undercurrent of racism/tribalism that was activated by Obama becoming president.
  - nemo44x 6y ago
    Possibly but it’s interesting that so many Obama voters went for Trump. It could have been the perfect storm though as Clinton is a very polarizing figure. I don’t think most Trump voters (or Americans) are racist, at least by the definition of the word most people outside the university system today use.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      > Possibly but it’s interesting that so many Obama voters went for Trump. They hoped for change ("yes we can", "change we need"), but Obama failed to deliver as he was blocked by the Republican Senate for six years straight (thanks to "Moscow Mitch" McConnell). Trump and his "we will drain the swamp for real this time" message was exactly the right thing to offer to this voter group, especially as the Democrat candidate was Hillary Clinton - as "establishment" as one can be. If there's one thing that Obama and the then-Democrat leadership abysmally failed, it is that they did not use the House+Senate+Presidency tripe majority to actually enact change in the first two years. I bloody hope that the Democrats can gain the Senate and especially that Biden will have learned his lesson!
pessimizer 6y ago
They've been absurdly successful, I'm not sure why they would break up. The Democrats are in far more danger - this is a must win (although I also think it is a likely win.) The Democrats have had, for the past two cycles, approximately 40% of their base support a candidate who refuses to join their party.
- api 6y ago
  Both things can be true. Trump was to Republicans what Bernie is to Democrats. Look into how many Republicans are chasing radical stuff like Qanon. Both parties and the entire political orthodoxy is in for a huge shakeup. Nobody really loves the mainstream of their party right now.
  - alisonkisk 6y ago
    That's self-contradictory. The mainstream loves the mainstream of their party. What is true is that most people are more suspicious of all politicians, thanks to the Internet's information distribution peers. No shakeup of the orthodoxy will change that.
- afjl 6y ago
  40% is an extreme overestimate.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    In some states the 2016 primary was strongly against (maybe even 70%+?) the establishment candidate. Using superdelegates to steamroll that primary cost them the election.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  Sanders is a Democrat for all practical purposes. He caucuses with Democrats and his voter base is Democrats. The Republicans have not been absurdly successful in an democratic support sense. over the past 25 yesrs, they've steadily increase their reliance on electoral college bias, voter suppression, and a Republican judiciary. When the party's success depends on Supreme Court decisions made by a previous President they helped get installed by the Supreme Court overruling the voters, they are on very thin ice democratically. Republicans haven't won the popular vote for a non-incumbent since 1988, or 1980 if you consider VP GHW Bush as an incumbent.
indigochill 6y ago
The Republicans are in a weird place lately. There are definitely divergent camps within the party, but I suspect none is confident enough to split off and try to run separately from the others (and sacrifice the "Republican" brand). Perhaps exemplified by how Tea Party and Libertarian folks vote Republican because they don't have enough political clout to get anywhere on their own. I'm sure the same is true on the liberal side (Green Party?) and I'm just not as familiar with that side. So I guess what I'm saying is I would be surprised because I don't think any single camp within the Republican party is dominant enough to beat the rest of the party. But on the other hand I was surprised when the party picked Trump as their candidate, so I could be surprised again.