It's been a looming threat that democrats would ruin their (limited) success by pursuing the same strategy. goodness-knows, i've felt that a left-wing progressive party needs forming out of the centrist- party-formerly-known-as-the-democratic-party. (shall we win in name only and to hell with issues?)
Right wingers, excuse me, conservatives talk a good game about seceding or separating, but in the end, they value organizational strength and will line up with the Republicans every time. Though don't call it fascism for nothing.
@ 2, third parties that originate in the extremes do nothing but get the opposite party elected. That's why it's a great idea for the teabaggers to form a third party and a disaster when you hear that on the left.
In the history of the United States, the only successful third parties were the ones that formed out of the ashes of hopelessly divided and dysfunctional ones. The Democrats out of the Democratic Republicans, the Whigs out of the Federalists, and the Republicans out of the Whigs. If a third party successfully rises out of the GOP's division, it will be the result of the mainstream Republicans leaving it to the teabagging vultures, not the other way around.
Whoops, got my history a little bit mixed up. The Federalist Party basically disappeared; for a while America just had one major party (The Democratic Republicans), and they split into the Democrats and the Whigs.
As long as we retain this voting method, we'll ALWAYS have just two parties to choose from (yeah, there'll always be various third parties that have zero chance of winning too, but they're irrelevant in the grand scheme of things).
@ 12, that's a good point, but I'd also blame third parties that simply don't put in the work of party building. It's hard and it simply does not bring gratification to have a few people elected to a few city councils and state houses, so most of them just go right ahead and nominate someone (preferably a celebrity, no matter how Z-list they may be) for president, and get them petitioned onto ballots in a few states, sometimes many, seldom all. Even the Libertarians, the oldest alternative party around, never seem to field candidates in local races, even in solid red strangleholds, or try to lure away or find common ground with small-L libertarians within the GOP.
@12 hear hear! (@14... whut?) the best alternative voting scheme (and, alas, one that would *never* implemented) would be something like populist/plurality voting. so simple! (unlike ranked voting which unaccountably scares folks): in such a scheme you could vote for as many of those running as you like, and the one with the most votes in the end wins. (if you vote for everyone running you've essentially not voted) so, let i like gore and nader and vote for both.... no spoilers.
I thought RushBo had been leading this Nationalist Party for nearly two decades now. Maybe Weiner is so consumed with envy he can't see it.
Such movements are never short on demagogues, if not leaders.
Just keep saying, "we will continue to partner with willing Republicans to pass our top priorities for the country - immigration reform, gun control, and tax code reform."
The rest will happen without us, increasing the schadenfreude.
@8
@12
So the plan should be to form a voting bloc instead of a whole party.
Then use that bloc to elect politicians who will vote to get the voting rules changed at your state level.
That way 3rd parties can be more easily elected at the local level.
But that will take a lot of work by a lot of people at the grassroots level.
Because having just 2 electable parties is more efficient when you personally have millions of dollars that you plan to "invest" in a campaign.
How can we encourage this? Build them a nice party house out in the desert, and promise them an unlimited supply of cocktail weiners (you know, the dinky ones)?
Quasi: resembling; seeming; virtual: a quasi member.
Pseudo: not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham.
Crypto: a person who secretly supports or adheres to a group, party, or belief.
So, he's virtually pretending to secretly support Marxism? I guess that means he's not a Marxist then, and apparently, not even trying very hard to be one.
Nationalist Party sounds descriptive, but it's too long. If only there were some way to say the same thing in only two syllables. Something with easy name recognition
Michael -- don't you know someday a
Spike'll
Grow right through the woodwork
And come out through your palm...
We was listenin', yeah we was listenin'
To the Devil's Radio
In the history of the United States, the only successful third parties were the ones that formed out of the ashes of hopelessly divided and dysfunctional ones. The Democrats out of the Democratic Republicans, the Whigs out of the Federalists, and the Republicans out of the Whigs. If a third party successfully rises out of the GOP's division, it will be the result of the mainstream Republicans leaving it to the teabagging vultures, not the other way around.
As long as we retain this voting method, we'll ALWAYS have just two parties to choose from (yeah, there'll always be various third parties that have zero chance of winning too, but they're irrelevant in the grand scheme of things).
Right?
@12 has a point. After WW II the parties fixed our system to prevent competition of ideas.
Such movements are never short on demagogues, if not leaders.
The rest will happen without us, increasing the schadenfreude.
@12
So the plan should be to form a voting bloc instead of a whole party.
Then use that bloc to elect politicians who will vote to get the voting rules changed at your state level.
That way 3rd parties can be more easily elected at the local level.
But that will take a lot of work by a lot of people at the grassroots level.
Because having just 2 electable parties is more efficient when you personally have millions of dollars that you plan to "invest" in a campaign.
What a meaningless phrase.
Quasi: resembling; seeming; virtual: a quasi member.
Pseudo: not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham.
Crypto: a person who secretly supports or adheres to a group, party, or belief.
So, he's virtually pretending to secretly support Marxism? I guess that means he's not a Marxist then, and apparently, not even trying very hard to be one.
Michael -- don't you know someday a
Spike'll
Grow right through the woodwork
And come out through your palm...
We was listenin', yeah we was listenin'
To the Devil's Radio
-Robyn Hitchcock