Comments on: Not Spencer: McCain or Obama = Not the most important political decision of our era

By: Spencer

Spencer — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:43:03 +0000

And I don’t think funding is the issue – as Obama has proven, you can be funded without the deep pockets.

The big issue is that the power is all based in either of the two parties. Breaking the system would require breaking their stranglehold on the process.

By: radiocynic

radiocynic — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:28:53 +0000

A valid argument, Jack.

Not to bring up my “moderation is good” stance again, but I can’t help but wonder if a well-funded third party that TRULY steered a moderate and centrist course might actually make a difference (even with the awkwardness of the electoral college.)

It’s oversimplifying, but the main problem in recent years with the ineffectiveness of third parties is that they’re still usually offering rightish candidates (Perot) or leftish candidates (Nader) who simply cost votes to their Republican or Democratic counterparts.

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 21:47:01 +0000

I hear that…I do not know if the REPs and the DEMs actually collude to keep third parties down; but they both at least keep the deck stacked against third parties on their own terms. I know Perot scared the dickens out of the GOP back in the day.

By: Spencer

Spencer — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 02:49:07 +0000

I would also add that the two party systems create rules that guarantee that third parties can’t make a dent. Look at the independents in the senate, they generally caucus with one party or the other. The committees are based on party affiliation. In states, the districts are drawn by the majority party.

I don’t know this to be true, but it looks as if both parties work together to make sure there will never be a true third party. I think they realize many Americans are disappointed in the options and would jump at another option.

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:32:14 +0000

I think I would have liked your grandfather. The point is that third parties really cannot make a dent in the actual process of getting elected; Perot took almost 19% of the popular vote but it never really mattered he did not get a single Electoral College vote. The GOP knew it was safe in not addressing his issues on the economy and never bothered to change its polices. Had they Bush Snr might have pulled out a win; or many voters whom did not waste their vote with Perot may have voted for him as in a three or four way race the high 30%’s will get you a win.

Also with third parties so hobbled people push their cash on the two major parties with find raising. A third party for some interests would be better than pouring money into lobbyists.

By: Cyn

Cyn — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:55:06 +0000

Interesting argument, Jack. I agree that the Electoral College doesn’t make for a true (people’s choice) election — but maybe I don’t see how it suppresses third party candidates…when historically those third party candidates haven’t come anywhere close to winning the popular vote anyway. Am I missing something obvious?

BTW, my grandfather was responsible for putting cheese in a can (he was a pioneer in the field of “food aerosols.”) So I found your reference a funny co-incidence, especially as he would have most likely agreed with your points here.