As has been said, having a viable third party is impossible in a first-past-the-post electoral system. Since literally no on in the United States is advocating for electoral reform there will never be three major parties here. Even if either party's supporters are suicidal enough to try, the first time a Democrat is elected in Wyoming since the GOP and "LiberTEA" party split the conservative majority or a Republican wins in Maryland after Democrats and "Progressives" do the same with a liberal majority they'll learn their lesson.

Sigh....I'm just curious how many of you advocating for a third party are the same ones that were yelling and screaming when the Tea Party *dared* to voice an opinion and exercise the legitimate rights under the current procedures of the House and Senate.

For all intents and purposes, the Tea Party *is* the closest thing we have to a third party, as it is at odds with both the Republican and Democrat parties. But, as they obviously more closely align with the Republicans, they choose to NOT split off as a third party (as was suggested by some early on) because then you lose the control of the House...

The idea of a third party from a practical standpoint is that you need two parties to caucus to gain control....so that is what the Tea Party is - it's the third party that chooses to caucus with the Republicans. Let 'em get enough representatives and we'll see what happens with them as a "party".

There are also other third parties -- the Green Party, Libertarians, etc. They are all legitimate "third" parties, and there is nothing inherent in our system that says we are a "two party" government. We are an "as many as can get elected" government, in *fact*.

So, if you want a third party, then get some press and make it happen. Better yet, get a candidate that isn't a wack-job that holds appeal to people...and then get another and another across the country enough to make yourself viable.

"You can't just blame the electoral system, in the US the entrenched interests and corporate funding do have an impact."

They have an impact on a lot, but not there only being two parties. It's been that way since at least the middle of the 19th century, with only regional exceptions. First-past-the-post electoral systems least to two-party political systems.

The only way to get a third party is by significant constitutional reform. People who think we really need a third party should spend more time pushing for that if they're serious about accomplishing their goals.

"that is what the Tea Party is - it's the third party that chooses to caucus with the Republicans."

That's not even close to true. The tea party is just a label for Republican politicians at this point. At best, they're people of a certain ideology practicing entryism, but even that's over stating their separation from any other GOP office holder.


"there is nothing inherent in our system that says we are a "two party" government. We are an "as many as can get elected" government, in *fact*."

That's true in the sense that it's not illegal to have more than two parties. But if you think first-past-the-post (or winner-take-all, as we more often call it in America) doesn't heavily, heavily favor a two-party outcome then you're just ignorant of how the voting system works.

@Invictus
The Tea Party isn't a political party, it's a minority caucus within the party that wants to grow to be the majority of the party and assert control of the national party apparatus.

That's exactly what I said.

The only thing which would make the tea party a third party, would be if a break-away group of republican moderates joined the middle with the democrate moderates (and took over whichever house...) - but doing so seems undemocratic, ideally you want to stand for election one day and keep standing fo the same thing until the next election - though having a 'next election' shouldn't be too hard in this day and age, where we can collect and count 300 million votes in ten minutes - if we tried.

@" It's been that way since at least the middle of the 19th century, with only regional exceptions. First-past-the-post electoral systems least to two-party political systems."

My point was, the UK has first-past-the-post and manages to have more than two parties (admittadly not the same pluraity as Eire, but better than the tiny percet of votes going to the greens and communists in the US)

The British and American political systems are incomparable, orathiac.

Sure Britain has well over two parties, but rarely are more than two competitive in any given constituency. That's a result of first-past-the-post in elections. If you're Labour in the shires you probably will vote for the LibDem to keep the Tories out, since there simply aren't enough Labour supporters to have any shot at winning.


As for all that stuff about counting 300 million votes in ten minutes, that's nonsense. As is talk about a "next election." In another split from the UK's system, there is absolutely no way to hold a general election in the United States except for in November of even numbered years. It's all governed by the calendar.

Often there are two-and-a-half parties in DS systems. Certainly I wouldnt count more in the UK, Labour and Tories control 86% of the Commons, with Libdems taking only 8%, the others taking 2% or less.

And don't forget that Ross Perot was able to swing 18% and 8% of the electorate his way. There's enough space for a third party, there's just a huge barrier in terms of campaign financing and media leverage in the US.

@ Invictus
I know, but I said it more clearly.

Yes, 300 millions votes counted in 10 minutes is just an example of how far behind the times the current electoral system is; it was not practical to hold elections more regularily 200 years ago. There is no reason that a 'government shutdown' couldn't have meant an automatic recall and re-election (for example, in many parlimentary systems it is possible that failing to pass a budget will collapse the government and force a new election, or a least have a vote of no confidence...)

And your point about lib dems is well taken. But i can see little reason why a third party in some districts in the US could not compete and end up as king-maker in congress (for example)

Election reform is perfectly reasonable. Strict election timetables is a rather odd quirk of the US system.

Awesome...you guys totally make my (unspoken) point related to which of you was bleating on about the Tea Party during the latest crisis.

So wait...the Teat Party IS or IS NOT a distinct sub-group of the Republicans, almost a third party? Because a couple weeks ago, they, the Tea Party, was so distinct from Republicans that they were labeled to be "at war" with the Republicans. There was a "civil war" within the Republicans party and the "Tea Party" was holding John Beohner and the country hostage....

And today...oh...the Tea Party? They're just a minor caucus within the Republican party. <yawn...> Move along...move along....nothing to see here.

Actually, the Tea Party movement in the US is *specifically targetting* Republicans.
They are the closest thing that you will see to a Third Party but, recognizing the electoral system that we currently have, the Tea Party doesn't run at the Election level, but they choose to target Republicans at the *primary* level.

So you have 3parties...A: Republicans; B: Tea Party; C: Democrats.

PrimaryElections: It's "A vs. B" and "C vs nothing/Other C"

Then move on to the elections, it is "(A or B) vs. C"

It *is* a Third Party...one that is smart enough to not devastate it's closest *ally* by running against them in the elections, but instead wisely chooses to fight them prior to the election in the primaries, and then caucus with them within the government as a whole so as to keep the Speakership, commitees, etc under the control of the ally (R) party.

@krell, that is a good explaination - though it goes against certain principles of democracy, i think, if only republican party members can vote in the primary. I think that is excluding people from the democratic process - never-the-less it is a choice forced on the tea party by the out-dated US electoral system; so good work on them for managing to effectively game the system!

I didn't say they were a minor caucus... they're a minority caucus, which is a subtly but importantly different thing. They're a minority in numbers, but exert tremendous influence over the whole party, largely because they're some of the most successful fundraisers the Republican Party has. They're also great at getting the vote out.

Orath, Who votes in a primary is a state/local decision, not a Federal one.

In a way, this method is better than a true 3 party system for the R/TP's,because without dividing the vote in the main election, they have a larger chance of one of them or their ally getting the seat, especially if they continue to separate themselves from the Republicans ideologically, and gain national leaders other than Sarah Palin to carry the water...like the much villified Cruz, who in fact will become a powerhouse in the next election cycle.

@hecks - minority in numbers - and yet the gains the Tea Party has made in a relatively short time - using the Primary strategy - are *astounding*. In a couple more elections cycles, the Tea Party will rule the R's side of the ticket, and the RINOS will be the minority.

@Krellin,
That's certainly their plan. I question whether their agenda will fly everywhere, though. Their support in some areas seems to be eroding.

There was a suggestion (by someone above) of having more than one round of voting - which works - but this extra round seems exclusive and hence undemocratic.

Whereas STV simulates multiple rounds with a single visit to the voting booth. Everyone votes once, a winner is chosen. There have been numerous new election systems devised (mostly by mathematicians) in the last two hundred years, most of them are better in various ways than first-past-the-post.

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV - also called ranked preference and some other names I'm too lazy to look up) would instantly solve the "If I vote for C, I'm just helping A beat B" conundrum. It's simple enough for (most) voters to understand, easily implemented, and with computer tabulating is almost as easy to determine the result as the current system. Several state affiliates of American 3rd parties use it without too much problem.

@Hecks - meh, their support is fading? I don't buy that. I believe the media is reporting that...but this is the same media that puts heads of the Democrat party in front of cameras on political shows on Sunday to "give advice" to the Republicans on how to win. Uhhhhh....yeah...

You want to see the support for the Tea Party in action, you look at the turn-out for a Ted Cruz speech versus a Hillary Clinton speech, and I'll tell you who has a fired-up base.

And wait until Obamacare premiums really start hitting, and the reality of Obamacare's impact on the individual wallet becomes more than just a talking point, and becomes an actual household budget item, and you'll see support for the Tea Party soar.

i.e. Democrats take a shellacking in the 2014 mid-terms...

@Krellin,
Admittedly, I may be outside the mainstream on that living, as I do, in Maine, home of pro-choice Republicans, pro-gun Democrats, and an Independent senator. We're a compromise-minded people. But around here, our Tea-Party-supported governor is looking likely to get defeated by *both* a Democrat and an Independent. He may even face a primary challenge.

@Hecks - Tea Party candidates are people...some will be good, some will suck. Same as Democrats and Republicans....there's good and bad everywhere. But the line between Republican and Democrat is so blurred in recent years, between Bush's out-of-control spending, and the the current crop of Republicans that caves to Harry Reid every fight...it's hard to tell the difference some times from a practical tandpoint. The Rhetoric is different...the outcomes seems disgustingly common. Heck, you can even look at differences in tax policy (Clinton tax rates vs. Bush "tax cuts")...who gives a rat's ass...it isn't the tax rate that's the problem; it's the spending - and neither party has the balls to cut spending. You could raise the tax rate on the richest Americans to 90% and you still wouldn't solve the budget problems...so all the tax rate arguments are just bullshit...and thus, as long as both parties are spend-a-holics, the insubstantial difference over tax-rates is meaningless - either way, China is our eventual slave-master.

China only owns something like 20%'of the US national debt, the vast majority is owned by Americans. (if my info is correct)

Great....so you go ahead and call your debt in, OK? We'll see how well the US responds.

China, on the other hands, has nuclear weapons, a growing international prestige, and is calling for an end of the US dollar as the base of international finance.

I'm far less concerned about those dusty saving's bonds you have than I am the Chinese.

I know....banks hold the debt or whatever....blah blah blah. Meaningless.

krellin, if the Tea Party is a party rather than a descriptive term for some Republicans, who's the chairman? Where are they on the ballot? How does one join? How does one leave? Where's the organization for the Tea Party as distinct from the Republican Party?

You're using "party" meaning a group of like minded people to be the same things as a formal political party. As usual, you're making a fool of yourself over semantics. In no meaningful way is the Tea Party a political party distinct from Republicans. They are a group within the Republican party, overlapping with other groups like some libertarians and some evangelicals. The "party" part of the name is just a pun on the Boston Tea Party, not a claim to be a distinct partisan grouping.

"It *is* a Third Party...one that is smart enough to not devastate it's closest *ally* by running against them in the elections, but instead wisely chooses to fight them prior to the election in the primaries, and then caucus with them within the government as a whole so as to keep the Speakership, commitees, etc under the control of the ally (R) party."

Then they are not a third party. They are a part of the Republican party.

Wouldn't your idea also make Tea Partiers the RINOs?

The American system with three truly viable political parties would spell the end of our current constitutional system. For those of you unfamiliar with your country's constitution, imagine a president being elected absolutely independently from the popular vote and by and large through back room wrangling. If the republicans were smart, the would push like hell for a viable third party as deadlockinf an election completely neutralizes populous liberal powerhouses and puts power in the hands of the more numerous Wyoming's and Alaskas.