BF2S Forums Who Killed The Third Party Movement?

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

The only third-party to ever in American history enjoy any success was the Whig party which died out in the mid nineteenth century.

FallenMorgan wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

The only third-party to ever in American history enjoy any success was the Whig party which died out in the mid nineteenth century.

Republicans in 1860 were a third party (albeit made entirely of former whigs)

True.  Lincoln was technically the only third party candidate to win an election.

FallenMorgan wrote:

I noticed that the third party movement is dead, which is a very sad thing.  You could read about it on my blog if you want.  The question is, what killed it?

In my opinion, tv killed the third party movement.  Ever since tv became widely used, in the 70s, 60s, and so on, a third party has not won a state.  The last one was 1968.

I love Mike Gravel.  It's an incredibly sad thing that he's doomed because of his Libertarian party.  In 2004 they only got .12% of the votes.  Very sad in my opinion.

Discuss.

Turquoise wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

I noticed that the third party movement is dead, which is a very sad thing.  You could read about it on my blog if you want.  The question is, what killed it?

In my opinion, tv killed the third party movement.  Ever since tv became widely used, in the 70s, 60s, and so on, a third party has not won a state.  The last one was 1968.

I love Mike Gravel.  It's an incredibly sad thing that he's doomed because of his Libertarian party.  In 2004 they only got .12% of the votes.  Very sad in my opinion.

Discuss.

Gravel comes very close to supporting what I stand for.  But yeah, he has no chance.

The only way third parties will ever be viable is through Instant Runoff Voting.  That will never be implemented, however, because it doesn't benefit either of the big 2 parties.

The brutal finality of a majority vote on a single ballot forces parties with similar tendencies to regroup their forces at the risk of being overwhelmingly defeated. Let us assume an election district in which 100,000 voters with moderate views are opposed by 80,000 communist voters. If the moderates are divided into two parties, the communist candidate may well win the election; should one of his opponents receive more than 20,000 votes, the other will be left with less than 80,000, thereby insuring the election of the communist. In the following election, the two parties with moderate views will naturally tend to unite. Should they fail to do so, the weaker party would gradually be eliminated as a dual consequence of "under-representation" and "polarization." Under representation is a mechanical phenomenon. Elections determined by a majority vote on one ballot literally pulverize third parties (and would do worse to fourth or fifth parties, if there were any; but none exist for this very reason). Even when a single ballot system operates with only two parties, the one that wins is favored, and the other suffers. The first one is over-represented--its proportion of seats is greater than its percentage of the votes-while the party that finishes second is usually under-represented--its proportion of seats is smaller than its percentage of the votes.