Here's a crazy idea for ya : stop having third party candidates. Just vote for third parties. Get them some actual parliamentary seats before you decide they should be leader of the free world, mmkay ?
'muricans. Sigh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU
I don't know much about American history, and I haven't found any concise account of the causes if the Whig's vanishing as one if tge two big American parties. So it clearly has happened before, but why/how?
ReplyDeleteYes, let's work on that massive constitutional overhaul that will make America a parliamentary democracy that everyone's talking about lately.
ReplyDeleteOr they could just campaign within the existing system to win specific seats, instead of the absurdity of trying to go from zero to President.
ReplyDeleteDavid Tweed It's not hard to sort out: Abraham Lincoln is the first Republican president. The Whig ship ran up onto the political shoals over the issue of slavery. Whigs were always businessmen, the then-Democrats were the old Jeffersonian agrarians. But the Democrats had their own issues: they looked pretty good, theoretically, but couldn't govern their way out of a wet paper bag.
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor Why go from zero to POTUS? Because it worked for Abraham Lincoln - and a presidential candidate forms the nucleus of what we call a Grass Roots organisation here in the USA. We don't have a parliament, where smaller parties can form coalitions. It's a republic, where nothing happens without getting your skull damaged in the scrum of party politics. They're gigantic asteroids, some of them: look at the Chixulub Crater the Tea Parties inflicted on the Republican party. George Wallace, that racist old scamp, made the Republicans pander to the white vote. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, oh these third parties don't necessarily expect to win. But they can take votes from others. Arguably, Ralph Nader spoilt Al Gore's run for POTUS, taking votes from him in Florida.
ReplyDeleteDan Weese But you have political parties, and you can directly elect representatives for certain areas unless I'm much mistaken ?
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor Technically, we have both national and state political parties. Senators weren't directly elected until the 17th amendment to the US Constitution was ratified. We still don't directly vote for POTUS or VP, we vote for electors for the Electoral College.
ReplyDeleteThe America republic should have been re-engineered after the American Civil War. The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the US Constitution emerge around this time, but we didn't draft a new constitution - and by my lights, we should have done. Problem is, our constitution can be amended. It's technically possible to summon a constitutional convention, but it's an insurmountable hurdle.
If you're interested in the rationale for the US constitution, you may find the Federalist Papers of interest, written by several of the constitution's authors. Dense, brilliant stuff.
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/
We don't have a Parliament.
ReplyDeleteEuros. Sigh
Dan Weese It's mainly this specific aspect I'm interested in. It's still not clear to me what, if anything apart from convention, makes it difficult to elect third-party candidates to parliament/government/whatever, as opposed to the virtually hopeless task of trying to go directly to POTUS.
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor I've talked to some Green Party people here on G+ and asked the same question. I haven't received a substantive answer. It may have something to do with Federal Election Commission recognition.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fec.gov/
Third party candidates, like parliamentary minorities in the UK, have considerable influence on government policy. Ross Perot's candidacy affected budget policy: everyone wanted his voters, you see.
fec.gov - Federal Election Commission Home Page