What third party in America today has the best chance of replacing a major one?

[KingOrfeo]

I mean "best chance" on a very slim-chance scale, of course, what I'm describing hasn't happened in America since the Republican Party was founded. What it would take to change the two-party system to a multiparty system is a different discussion. Assuming some third party might rise to join the two-party system and supplant/marginalize either the Dems or the GOP, what would it most likely be like, and why?

Politics1.com calls the following the "Big Three" third parties in America today:

Constitution Party

Former Nixon Administration official and one-time Conservative Coalition chair Howard Phillips founded the US Taxpayers Party (USTP) in 1992 as a potential vehicle for Pat Buchanan to use for a third party White House run -- had he agreed to bolt from the GOP in 1992 or 1996. The USTP pulled together several of the splintered right-wing third parties -- including the once mighty American Independent Party (below) -- into a larger political entity. The USTP renamed itself the Constitution Howard Phillips (USTP) 1992Party in 1999. The party is strongly pro-life, anti-gun control, anti-tax, anti-immigration, trade protectionist, "anti-New World Order," anti-United Nations, anti-gay rights, anti-welfare, and pro-school prayer. When Buchanan stayed in the GOP, Phillips ran as the USTP nominee in 1992 (ballot status in 21 states - 43,000 votes - 0.04%), 1996 (ballot spots in 39 states - 185,000 votes - 6th place - 0.2%), and 2000 (ballot status in 41 states - 98,000 votes - 6th place - 0.1%). The party started fielding local candidates in 1994, but has fielded disappointingly few local candidates since 1998 (except in a handful of states). The party received a brief boost in the media when conservative US Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire -- an announced GOP Presidential hopeful -- bolted from the Republican Party to seek the Constitution Party nomination in 2000 (but the erratic Smith quit the Constitution Party race a few weeks later, announced he would serve in the Senate as an Independent, and subsequently rejoined the GOP by the end of 2000). At the 1999 national convention, the party narrowly adopted a controversial change to the platform's preamble which declared "that the foundation of our political position and moving principle of our political activity is our full submission and unshakable faith in our Savior and Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ" -- although the party officially invites "all citizens of all faiths" to become active in the party. Any national candidate seeking the party's nomination is explicitly required to tell the convention of any areas of disagreement with the party's platform. The CP's 2004 Presidential nominee, attorney Michael Peroutka, had ballot status in 36 states (144,000 votes - 5th place - 0.1%). Former three-time GOP Presidential candidate Alan Keyes -- a former Ambassador during the Reagan Administration -- bolted to the Constitution Party in 2008, but was defeated for the nomination by fundamentalist pastor Chuck Baldwin (note: which prompted Keyes to immediately create his own rival conservative party). In the 2008 election, Baldwin had ballot status in 37 states and won 196,000 votes (5th place - 0.15%), the CP's best showing to date. In 2010, former Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA) joined the CP and was elected to the CP National Executive Committee. Other related sites: Constitution Party News and Constitution Party Discussion Forum.

Green Party.

The Green Party -- the informal US-affiliate of the leftist, environmentalist European Greens movement -- is one of the two largest third parties in the nation. The party regularly fields candidates for local, state and federal offices in many states, and has established active state affiliate parties in nearly all 50 states. The Greens scored a major political points when it convinced prominent consumer advocate Ralph Nader to run as their first Presidential nominee in 1996. Spending Vote Green Partyjust over $5,000, Nader was on the ballot in 22 states and carried over 700,000 votes (4th place - 0.8%). In 2000, Nader raised millions of dollars, mobilized leftist activists and grabbed national headlines with his anti-corporate campaign message. Nader ignored pleas from liberal Democrats that he abandon the race because he was siphoning essential votes away from Al Gore's campaign -- answering that Gore was not substantially different than Bush. In the end, Nader was on the ballot in 44 states and finished third with 2,878,000 votes (2.7%). More significantly, Nader missed the important 5% mark for the national vote, meaning the party remained ineligible for federal matching funds. Until 2001, the Greens were largely a collection of fairly autonomous state/local based political entities with only a weak (and sometimes splintered) national leadership structure that largely served to coordinate electoral activities. That faction -- formerly named the Association of State Green Parties (ASGP) -- was the larger and more moderate of the two unrelated Green parties. The ASGP voted in 2001 to convert from an umbrella coordinating organization into a formal, unified national party organization. Nader made another run in 2004 -- but ran as an Independent. Instead, Green Party General Counsel David Cobb of Texas won the Presidential nomination (ballot status in 29 states - 120,000 votes - 6th place - 0.1%). Cobb argued the party needed to nominate a candidate who openly belonged to the party (note: Nader had never joined) and was pledged to building the party at the local level. Cobb ran what was seen as a "safe-states" strategy -- a controversial move whereby Cobb only made major efforts to gain votes in states where a strong Green showing would not compromise the ability of the Democratic nominee to defeat Bush in the state. Democrats appreciated the move, but it weakened Cobb's message. For 2008, the Greens dumped the "safe states" strategy and instead tried to run a more aggressive campaign wherever possible. Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) joined the Greens in 2007, moved to California, and easily captured the Green nomination in 2008. McKinney was on the ballot in 32 states and garnered 161,0000 votes (6th place - 0.1%). Look for her to run again in 2012. Official Green Party links include: Green Pages (newspaper), Global Green Network, Green Party News Center, Campus Greens, Lavender Green Caucus, National Women's Caucus, Disability Caucus, Coordinated Campaign Committee, and Green Party Election Results. The Green Party Platform sets forth the party's official stances.

Libertarian Party.

The LP, founded in 1971, bills itself as "America's largest third party" (and, along with the Greens, are definitely among the two largest third parties in the nation). The Libertarians are neither left nor right: they believe in total individual liberty (pro-drug legalization, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-home schooling, pro-gun rights, etc.) and total economic freedom (anti-welfare, anti-government regulation of business, anti-minimum wage, anti-income tax, pro-free trade). The LP espouses a classical laissez faire ideology which, they argue, means "more freedom, less government and lower taxes." Over 400 LP members currently hold various -- though fairly low level -- government offices (including lots of minor appointed officials like "School District Facilities Task Force Member" and "Town Recycling Committee Member"). In any given election year, the LP fields more local and federal candidates than any other US third party -- although the LP has clearly been eclipsed by the Greens in size since 1996 in terms of having the largest third party following and garnering more media attention. Ed Clark for President / David Koch for VP (Libertarian) 1980 Former 1988 LP Presidential nominee Ron Paul is now a Republican Congressman from Texas -- and made a libertarian ideological run for the a 2008 GOP Presidential nomination (although Paul remains a "life member" of the LP). The LP's biggest problem: Congressmen Ron Paul and Paul Broun, humorist/journalist PJ O'Rourke, the Republican Liberty Caucus and others in the GOP who attract ideological libertarians into the political arena by arguing they can bring about libertarian change more easily under the Republican label. In 2008, former Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA) and former US Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK) both switched to the LP and campaigned for the party's Presidential nomination -- and Barr won the nomination. As the LP nominee, Barr had ballot status in 45 states and captured 525,000 votes (4th place - 0.4%). In terms of results, the LP hit the high point in 1980 when LP Presidential nominee and oil industry attorney Ed Clark -- with billionaire industrialist David Koch as his VP runningmate and campaign financer -- carried over 921,000 votes (1.1%). Subsequent LP nominees for the next dozen years, though not as strong as Clark, typically ran ahead of most other third party candidates. The late financial consultant and author Harry Browne was the LP Presidential nominee in 1996 (485,000 votes - 5th place - 0.5%) and 2000 (386,000 votes - 5th place - 0.4%). Computer consulant and tax-resister Michael Badnarik was the LP Presidential nominee in 2004 (397,000 votes - 4th place - 0.3%). And, FYI, the LP typically obtains ballot status for the Presidential nominee in all 50 states. The LP also has active affiliate parties in every state. The party has been divided for years between two fighting factions: a more purist/hardcore libertarian group and a more moderate "reform" faction. The hardcore group are uncompromising anarchistic-libertarians in the Ayn Rand mold. By contrast, the moderates are interested in focusing on only a handful of more popular issues (drug decriminalization, gun rights, tax cuts, etc.) in exchange for attracting a larger number of voters. Allies of the hardcore faction firmly held control of the party from the late-1980s until the moderates seized control at the 2006 national convention and gutted the party's original platform. Other related LP sites are: the LP News (official LP newspaper), College Libertarians (official student group), GrowTheLP.org (official LP outreach), Libertarian Reform Caucus (LP moderates), LPedia (official LP Wiki history site). The LP web site features a link to the World's Smallest Political Quiz -- designed by LP co-founder David Nolan -- and take the quiz to see if you're a libertarian (a bit simplistic, and slanted in favor of the LP, but interesting just the same).

And then there's a whole list of other American third parties of various stripes, Communist to Nazi. Some appear to exist only as websites, others run actual candidates for office.

 

[unregistered]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

There exists a politicasl cohort that isnt represented by either party: Its the group that really pays all the taxes, serves in the military, does most of the real work that gets done, and generally keeps its nose clean. The High Proletariat Class or anyone who's non-management. The worker-bees. The folks who join the PTA and American Legion and Polish-American Club. They bowl and fish and play softball.

The GOP and Democrats pretty much represent the right & left of the elite and executive class. The folks who join country clubs and yacht clubs and play tennis.

 

[Liar]

You're forgetting the Tea Party, they just elected more members of Congress than Any of those others.

They elected Republicans. The Tea Party is a political movement whithin the GOP.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ham Murabi]

There exists a politicasl cohort that isnt represented by either party: Its the group that really pays all the taxes, serves in the military, does most of the real work that gets done, and generally keeps its nose clean. The High Proletariat Class or anyone who's non-management. The worker-bees. The folks who join the PTA and American Legion and Polish-American Club. They bowl and fish and play softball.

The GOP and Democrats pretty much represent the right & left of the elite and executive class. The folks who join country clubs and yacht clubs and play tennis.

You must have missed the Bush years, when the Republican party represented the not quite as much left as the Democrats but more liberal than JFK portion of the population.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You must have missed the Bush years, when the Republican party represented the not quite as much left as the Democrats but more liberal than JFK portion of the population.

The late Ron Silver said that Dubya woulda been the darling of the Democrats had he not prevailed over Gore. I think most Republican pols secretly yearn to be Democrats.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Liar]

Only because the Democrat Party will not tolerate a conservative thought. I doubt that McConnell or Boehner would agree that they are in lock step with the establishment Republicans, so in essence they do represent a good start for a third party, a Conservative Party.

Whut? The reason the Tea Partiers run as Republicans instead of as a third party is because the Democrats don't want them? I think you missed my point.

When they start running (T) representatives en masse instead of placing them in (R) primaries, I'd say you're right. What I've seen so far has has mostly been a movement of trying to change the direction of the GOP (along with the public discourse). Which they've done with a reasonable amount of success.

 

[Wok]

I mean "best chance" on a very slim-chance scale, of course, what I'm describing hasn't happened in America since the Republican Party was founded. What it would take to change the two-party system to a multiparty system is a different discussion. Assuming some third party might rise to join the two-party system and supplant/marginalize either the Dems or the GOP, what would it most likely be like, and why?

Politics1.com calls the following the "Big Three" third parties in America today:

Constitution Party



Green Party.



Libertarian Party.



And then there's a whole list of other American third parties of various stripes, Communist to Nazi. Some appear to exist only as websites, others run actual candidates for office.

I would guess the Libertarian Party.

 

[Wok]

Whut? The reason the Tea Partiers run as Republicans instead of as a third party is because the Democrats don't want them? I think you missed my point.

When they start running (T) representatives en masse instead of placing them in (R) primaries, I'd say you're right. What I've seen so far has has mostly been a movement of trying to change the direction of the GOP (along with the public discourse). Which they've done with a reasonable amount of success.

From what I see, the tea party resembles an ad-hoc PAC than a political party.

 

[Shagly]

Frat party.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Wok]

I think if the Pubs revert to establishment politics, the American people who are mostly conservative, will start another party that runs their conservative candidates.

As you suggested yourself, conservative candidates were elected via tea party. With that said, why form a third party when the tea party has been very successful at backing candidates with the money, influence, and all the rest of it? Sure, they run as Republicans, but that is the only way to win at the moment, right?

 

[richard_daily]

The tea party has a strong chance of replacing republicans, and then fading into obscurity soon after.

 

[Peregrinator]

For the last election, rather than vote for the Washington insider and the lightweight or the lightweight and the Washington insider, I decided to vote third party, in hopes that a lot of other people would do the same thing and the Dems and Reps would notice, possibly giving us good choices next time. Besides which, I was living in Oregon at the time, a state which doesn't matter in national elections usually and was going to be swept by Obama anyway.

I read the platforms of each of the also-ran parties, and couldn't believe how dumb most of them were. Hawaiian independence? That's a Green issue? The Constitution party mentioned God every six words. God who?

I voted Libertarian in the end, though the Libertarians are incredibly stupid about environmental issues. Still was the only reasonable choice, it seemed to me at the time.

 

[Wok]

For the last election, rather than vote for the Washington insider and the lightweight or the lightweight and the Washington insider, I decided to vote third party, in hopes that a lot of other people would do the same thing and the Dems and Reps would notice, possibly giving us good choices next time. Besides which, I was living in Oregon at the time, a state which doesn't matter in national elections usually and was going to be swept by Obama anyway.

I read the platforms of each of the also-ran parties, and couldn't believe how dumb most of them were. Hawaiian independence? That's a Green issue? The Constitution party mentioned God every six words. God who?

I voted Libertarian in the end, though the Libertarians are incredibly stupid about environmental issues. Still was the only reasonable choice, it seemed to me at the time.

I have discussed things with green-leaning libertarians. It was an interesting conversation. The thrust of the argument was property rights meant preservation of the environment. I wondered how that could be, because environmentalism is usually seen as intervention. He argued if one person pollutes, another individual suffers. There were other topics covered that day, but still...

 

[Peregrinator]

I have discussed things with green-leaning libertarians. It was an interesting conversation. The thrust of the argument was property rights meant preservation of the environment. I wondered how that could be, because environmentalism is usually seen as intervention. He argued if one person pollutes, another individual suffers. There were other topics covered that day, but still...

Well, yeah. I've had that discussion on here a few times as well. I think I even started a thread about it. I got that answer, and was told that the government was the largest polluter in the country. Presumably that means that less government equals less pollution, because naturally industry won't pollute if there are suddenly no more government controls.

The answer to neighbors upstream dumping their garbage in my water is to sue them. Which means years of hassle while I find some other way to get water and/or pay to have their shit removed from it so I can use it.

 

[cjh]

Well, yeah. I've had that discussion on here a few times as well. I think I even started a thread about it. I got that answer, and was told that the government was the largest polluter in the country. Presumably that means that less government equals less pollution, because naturally industry won't pollute if there are suddenly no more government controls.

The answer to neighbors upstream dumping their garbage in my water is to sue them. Which means years of hassle while I find some other way to get water and/or pay to have their shit removed from it so I can use it.

Lawsuits aren't a truly satisfactory answer when the harm is death or a debilitating injury.

And it's not satisfactory when the person causing the harm is broke.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Only because the Democrat Party will not tolerate a conservative thought.

If only!

I doubt that McConnell or Boehner would agree that they are in lock step with the establishment Republicans, so in essence they do represent a good start for a third party, a Conservative Party.

What you're talking about is a paleoconservative party. I'd say that's . . . not a non-starter, but definitely a non-runner. Look at the 2011 Pew Political Typology. Staunch Conservatives are 9% of the general public, 10% of registered voters. And it is they, not the Libertarians, who are the potential base for a Conservative Party/Tea Party/Constitution Party/America First Party/Paleocon Party. And they're dying. Staunch Conservatives have the oldest average age of any typology group, and that's not a stage-of-life thing, it's a generational-culture thing -- as they die off, they will not be replaced in commensurate numbers by younger Staunch Conservatives. They'll be around and in the game for a while yet, but with a little less numbers and relevance every election cycle.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Some not all, only those previously known as Rockefeller Republicans.

See the Pew Typology again -- there are still Main Street Republicans and they outnumber the Staunch Conservatives. Of course, it's not clear they are as liberal as the party's old Rockefeller-Republican wing.

Staunch Conservatives
9% OF ADULT POPULATION /11% OF REGISTERED VOTERS

Basic Description: This extremely partisan Republican group is strongly conservative on economic and social policy and favors an assertive foreign policy. They are highly engaged in politics, most (72%) agree with the Tea Party, 54% regularly watch Fox News, and nearly half (47%) believe that President Obama was born outside the U.S.

Defining values: Extremely critical of the federal government and supportive of sharply limited government. Pro-business and strongly opposed to environmental regulation. Believe that military strength is the best way to ensure peace. Highly religious; most say homosexuality should be discouraged by society.

Who they are: More than nine-in-ten (92%) non-Hispanic white and 56% male. The oldest of the groups (61% ages 50 and older). Married (79%), Protestant (72%, including 43% white evangelical), and financially comfortable (70% say paying the bills is not a problem).

Lifestyle notes: Many are gun owners (57%) and regular churchgoers (57% attend weekly or more often), and fully 81% are homeowners. More watch Glenn Beck (23%) and listen to Rush Limbaugh (21%) than any other group.

Main Street Republicans
11% OF ADULT POPULATION /14% OF REGISTERED VOTERS

Basic Description: Concentrated in the South and Midwest. Main Street Republicans differ from Staunch Conservatives in the degree of their conservatism and in their skepticism about business. They are socially and fiscally conservative but supportive of government efforts to protect the environment.

Defining values: Highly critical of government. Very religious and strongly committed to traditional social values. Generally negative about immigrants and mostly opposed to social welfare programs. But much less enamored of business than Staunch Conservatives, and less supportive of an assertive foreign policy.

Who they are: Predominantly non-Hispanic white (88%), with two-thirds living in the South (40%) or Midwest (27%). A majority are Protestant (65%, including 38% white evangelical). A large majority (69%) are generally satisfied financially.

Lifestyle notes: Most (84%) are homeowners. About half are gun owners (51%) and regular churchgoers (53% attend weekly or more often). Nearly a quarter (24%) follow NASCAR racing. About half (51%) watch network evening news.

So? Are these Main Street Republicans RINOs or not?

 

[Peregrinator]

Lawsuits aren't a truly satisfactory answer when the harm is death or a debilitating injury.

And it's not satisfactory when the person causing the harm is broke.

Exactly. A lawsuit doesn't clean up the mess either. I've never understood why people think they're a solution to stuff like this. Anyone who believes that should take a trip to the site of the Exxon Valdez spill and see the mess that's still there despite all the lawsuits in the world. It's also instructive to see how Exxon's lawyers dragged the thing out for decades.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Some not all, only those previously known as Rockefeller Republicans.

Schlubville is pretty conservative and almost entirely GOP in terms of elected officials. But almost all of them go whichever way fills their purse the most.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The tea party has a strong chance of replacing republicans, and then fading into obscurity soon after.

Well, then, some right-of-center party would emerge to represent the masses of conservative Americans; can't see them going voiceless, nor converting leftward en masse.

But the Dems at all levels would have a free field for one or two election cycles, until the new conservative party got its act together. That would be interesting.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I would guess the Libertarian Party.

I do note that in the new Pew Typology, for the first time, there is a category of "Libertarians" numerous enough (9% of public, 10% of voters) to form a separate typology group. This is much larger than the LP's active membership, of course, but they could be a potential base for LP organizing -- but only if the LP's moderate wing wins out over its ideological wing (their conflict is described in the OP); because moderate libertarianism is as American as overeating, but radical libertarianism has about as much appeal to most Americans as radical socialism.