The New York Times on a bevy of Christian rightists beginning to plan a third party run if the GOP nominates soft-on-abortion Giuliani.
Bill's 43 percent and 49 percent wins. How much do you think a religious right third-partier would get in a major-party Clinton-Giuliani matchup?
At least 30%, unless he or she can't even pretend to be reasonable on non-religious items. I'm sorry, but the simple advertisement of Giuliani in a dress buggers a lot of Republicans the wrong way.
They'd get a lot of the gun vote, that's for damn sure.
They wouldn't get mine.
The next president of the United States will be the major party
candidate seen as the most anti-war. Ruddy doesn't need a split
vote to lose to Hillary.
Since there is only one GOP candidate percived to by more against
the war than HRC, there are only two possibilities. The next POTUS
will be either Hillary Clinton or Ron Paul.
Nothing like a third party run to show a seemingly powerful electoral faction their utter insignificance and impotence on their own. Go for it!!
If Republicans conclude that their candidate is toast, a great number of them could jump to a righty version of Ralph Nader.
Obviously, their overall percentage doesn't matter, it's whether
they could carry states or cause the GOP to lose one or more
states. Looking at the 1996 map, the South might turn blue.
Would this cause the other parties to try to hold on to
fundamentalist voters, or would they give up on that? No matter how
much they reached out to fundamentalists, the new party could go
them one better. If the GOP doesn't reach out, what exactly would
the GOP platform be? Besides corporatism, what would they have to
offer?
I think a 3rd, abortion-only party would fare about as well as Pat Buchanan on the Reform Party ticket...
Dunno, always thought that the Republican marriage these days
(libs, paleocons, and religious nutters) was as dumb as the
Democratic poor-schmucks and rabid racists marriage of
yesteryear.
Wouldn't American politics be a little more healthy with, instead
of two mushy parties, four or so more consistent parties (like, a
Lib party, a Religious Con party, a Social Dem party, and probably
a populist/nativist party)?
Of course, the greatly increased power of the modern presidency
makes such a system less attractive...
One hopeful scenario for all of us would be several parties which would split the vote in such a way that it would make it easier for a pro-American candidate to win or at least make a strong showing. By "pro-American" I mean someone who's generally moderate, has a slightly libertarian view on social issues, and who opposes illegal activity (unlike the Dem leadership, the GOP leadership, and most libertarians).
Plus, the constant whining from our corrupt elites would be incredibly entertaining.
They wouldn't get mine.
Mine neither, but I think a Rudy's guns + abortion stances alienate
a whoppin' big chunk of his party.
Of course, my Bay Area ex-hippy sister tells me she wouldn't vote
for Hillary if she was running against Nixon.
Giant douche vs. turd sandwich indeed.
They'd get a lot of the gun vote, that's for damn sure.
They wouldn't get mine.
Or mine.
religious right candidate would get 12% of the vote if it were clinton/rudy
The polls would show them getting less and less as the election drew nearer. As always happens to third parties.
Wouldn't American politics be a little more healthy with,
instead of two mushy parties, four or so more consistent parties
(like, a Lib party, a Religious Con party, a Social Dem party, and
probably a populist/nativist party)?
Yes, because we essentially have an Oligarchy as it stands
now.
The two parties pretend to hate each other, but all they really
hate is the idea that we can all do things for ourselves...
I'm the fundy's worst nightmare: An atheist... with a
gun!
So all I need is a gun? Sweet.
Plus, the gun should stop my fundy band-mate from sending me emails
with YouTube videos from the Evangelical Cable Channel.
He insists on trying to save me, and it's really fucking
annoying.
I agree with Elemenope.
One way to make this happen would be to change the Senate from the
obsolete and undemocratic 2/state system to a proportional
representation system.
He insists on trying to save me, and it's really fucking annoying.
Next time he tries to do this, just tell him you've become an
advocate for the Ministry of Torque & Recoil.
/I still need a motorcycle.
Unless they ran a charismatic candidate who was strong on other
issues they won't even get on the ballot in most States.
If Ron Paul sticks to his promise not to run as a
3rdParty/Independent the only spoiler scenario I could see would be
a left anti-war candidate.
Which Parties,other than the LP , have guaranteed ballot
access?
Which Parties,other than the LP , have guaranteed ballot access?
Usually the Green Party.
OK so if the fundies move to a third party, the economic conservatives can move into our camp. If we can then get people on the left who are not in favor of big government on board we could have a winning libertarian ticket. Of course, pigs could start flying as well.
joe-
Nice idea, but it will never, ever happen. The equal apportionment
of the Senate can only be changed by the unanimous consent of the
states. Any other amendment can be ratified by 3/4, but there's an
exception for amendments affecting Seante apportionment. Check out
Article V if you don't believe me.
thoreau,
I know, it's a pipe dream.
The power to block it is held by those who believe that their
current DIDproportional representation is a God-given right.
They're better than us, you see, because they live in areas with
lower population densities.
The power to block it is held by those who believe that
their current DIDproportional representation is a God-given
right.
joe:
Civics lesson: Senators represent STATES
Math lesson: 50 States, 2 Senate represenatives for each =100
Unless one of those States has 3 or more Senators that sounds
pretty proportional
Joe-
I think it'd be better for each state to have four Senators. Two
elected directly, two by the state legislature. State governments
need representation in the federal government to stop unfair things
like unfunded mandates.
I THINK THAT LESS THAN 50% OF MY FINGERS LOVE ME.
EXTRA MAPLE SYRUP TAKES CARE OF THAT, THO.
What was the push for direct election of senetors caused by? I've read that it was part of the wave of populism at the turn of the previous century, but was there more to it than that?
What was the push for direct election of senetors caused by?
I've read that it was part of the wave of populism at the turn of
the previous century, but was there more to it than
that?
The progressive movement wanted more "democracy" in the federal
government. As I said before, I wish they would have pushed for two
directly elected Senators in addition to the two elected
by the state legislatures.
PS - the wiki page for the '92 election has an interesting set of candidates.....
What was the push for direct election of senetors caused by?
I've read that it was part of the wave of populism at the turn of
the previous century, but was there more to it than
that?
If I'm not mistaken, congress was notoriously corrupt at this time.
This was thought to be a good check on that. They missed the boat,
but they did at least have some reasoning behind it.
Long time no see, Akira! Back for good, or just checking
in?
Poking my head back in to let everyone know I'm alive. I've talked
to my shrink and I've been diagnosed with rapid-cycling bipolar
disorder. I've been taking my meds and trying to keep my exposure
to stuff that upsets me (i.e. politics and religion) to a
minimum.
Besides, with the number of Szazians hiding around here, I wouldn't
want to be accused of "making up" my condition.
Thank, SIV, I hadn't realized that Senators represent
states.
Don't tear your rotator cuff patting yourself on the back for
adding that observation to the conversation.
Civics lesson for you: the term "proportional representation"
refers to the distribution of seats in a legislative body based on
the % of the total vote won be each party contending in an
election.
"Civics lesson for you: the term "proportional representation"
refers to the distribution of seats in a legislative body based on
the % of the total vote won be each party contending in an
election."
Having 2 senators from each state was for the purpose of giving
small states more strenth in comparison to the large states to keep
the large states from running the whole show, that is, to allow for
the promotion of the interests of the small states. That way, the
agricultual interests of the small states, for instance, could be
represented and all policy wouldn't be formed only in favor of the
large manufacturing states, for instance.
What was the push for direct election of senetors caused by?
I've read that it was part of the wave of populism at the turn of
the previous century, but was there more to it than
that?
Those currently pushing for it are generally leftists in populous,
liberal states looking to increase their numbers and ratchet up the
power of the federal government at the expense of the states. You
know, the ones who believe it is "THE United States", not "THESE
United States" -- said quibble about terminology being the driving
cause of the Civil War.
Poking my head back in to let everyone know I'm alive. I've
talked to my shrink and I've been diagnosed with rapid-cycling
bipolar disorder. I've been taking my meds and trying to keep my
exposure to stuff that upsets me (i.e. politics and religion) to a
minimum.
Great...what we all need is another nut job with a gun.
One more reason I need to lay in more ammo.
RJ,
Yes, that was the original intent - although, as Rhode Island and
Maryland demonstrate, the "large/manufacturing -
small/agricultural" distinction doesn't really hold up.
Something else we've learned since then is that states' interests
and voting patterns don't seem to arrange themselves based on state
population. Rhode Island and New York vote together a lot, Texas
and Alaska vote together a lot.
But what do I know? I didn't even realize that there were people
"currently pushing for" the direct election of senators. Seeing as
how senators have been directly elected for about a century.
One way to make this happen would be to change the Senate from
the obsolete and undemocratic 2/state system to a proportional
representation system.
Good thing we don't live in a democracy. I for one you hate all the
laws made the the "enlitened" people of California,New York,and
other such states.
It would seem to be the people arguing that their sort deserves a disprportionate voice in government, in order to keep the majority at bay, who need to defend themselves from charges of elitism, Eric.
Somewhat off topic:
My 11:58 comment above shows up on the Huffington Post when I
search "Ron Paul" on their site under the heading "2 hours ago on
REASON
WTF is up with that?
The Senate isn't where you need proportional representation (PR), the House is. Especially in mid-size to larger states, libertarians or other smaller parties would have a chance to elect someone to the House depending on the type of PR that is used.
HuffPo must spider the H&R site for excerpts my comment is gone but other REASON comments are there.That was strange to see my comment over there.
TerryP,
I think having a house with equal-sized single-member districts is
important, because there is value in having purely-local
representation.
As for minority parties, I'd think they'd be better off with a
national PR chamber, so they only need 1% to get a seat.
OK, joe, since this is now a thread about alternative election
mechanisms:
Let's stick to state legislatures, because this is all a pipe dream
at the federal level. I'd have the larger house, the one with 2
year terms, elected by PR, but from large districts of roughly 10
members each rather than state-wide. That way you still get roughly
proportional representation, but also some localism, and you
represent all of the significant factions (10% or more) without
giving soapboxes to the 1% weirdos.
I'd have that house elected by PR, even if it's the less powerful
one, because with the more frequent elections it's the one that has
the best chance of closely mirroring the makeup of the
populace.
I'd elect the other one from single-member districts, but I'd give
each district 2 representatives with rotating terms. That way the
whole state still votes every time but there's more gradual
turnover. And everybody would wind up with quite a bit of
representation: 2 Senators (or whatever the title) and 10 or so
Representatives (or whatever the title).
Not that any of this will happen, but there you go. We can call
this political fanfic, I guess.
Normally, my instinct would be that anything that blocks the
federal govt from getting things done can only be a good thing, so
the Senate's history of obstructing govt action meets with my
approval.
Unfortunately, at this point having more stumbling blocks is also
making it more difficult to repair the damage done to our political
system by joe's ideological forebears back in the 30s. Of course,
until most Americans start realizing that all that govt sugar comes
with a hefty price, nothing would get done anyway, so I'm not sure
what I'm complaining about.
Unfortunately, at this point having more stumbling blocks is
also making it more difficult to repair the damage done to our
political system by joe's ideological forebears back in the
30s.
crimethink-
This might be a valid concern if Ron Paul and folks like him had a
simple majority in the House but couldn't get anything past the
Senate. But we're nowhere near that situation.
While I don't want to see the GOP in power anymore, I don't want to see them get absolutely demolished either. A third candidate running with the support of the Fundies would do that. Clinton would get elected in a landslide and she would assume that would mean she has a mandate. I don't want anyone in office thinking they have a mandate while only getting 40-something percent approval of those who chose to participate.
If the Republicans can't decide on one candidate, it will be a
repeat of '92. Yikes, even a Clinton again.
On one hand, if Clinton gets in, the watchdog conservatives could
try to prevent any screwy legislation. Just like AW Ban of '94. Oh
wait, that's right, it PASSED!
On the other, if Gulliana gets in, the conservatives might not
expect so much screwy legislation, just like the case with George
Bush Senior. New taxes, and a new gun law?! (And I can somewhat
read lips!) The conservatives never saw it coming the first time,
they'll never see it again.
Of course, once it happened, the Republicans were divided, the gun
issue was ENOUGH to make Clinton win. Who would have thought it!
The main reason wasn't even taxes!
Either way, the only good I can see come out of any of this is Ron
Paul, or possibly Fred Thompson.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245