TheAgitator.com
Third Party Woes
Monday, November 3rd, 2008My Fox column is up early this week. It looks at how Congress and state legislatures have essentially codified the two party system, making it almost impossible for third parties to compete.
18 Responses to “Third Party Woes”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
It is one of the reasons I’m tempted not to vote.
You know in economics competition does the following, lowers prices, constrains costs, and spurs innovation. Without competition you get higher prices, higher costs, and less innovation.
In politics I wouldn’t be surprised if the the reason the two parties are essentially the same with only minor differences is due to the fact that there are just two parties. Stay close to each other and thus you only hav to make minor policy adjustments to try and win. I don’t know if allowing a third, fourth,…,nth parties would help with this, but I’m thinking it might. The could all converge, but then again striking off for a very different part of the “policy space” could also result in victory.
It also puts the lie to Obama’s campaign slogan: change we can believe in. There will be no change. Hell I bet an Obama Administration will just love all policies invading privacy that the Bush Administration has pioneered. Once you have power, why give it up? If you think Obama will you are a naive fool
P.S. The “you” above is the indefinite you, not anyone in particular.
Looking forward to more hate mail, Radley? I’m betting some Fox News “readers” (not that all Fox News fans are illiterate, but a lot of them seem to scan headlines and not actually take time to read or consider articles) will take offense to the idea of including “fringe” party candidates as a voting possibility, as it would hurt the carefully crafted black and white worldview that neocons have been pushing for most of the last decade.
[...] Read the whole article here. [...]
Yes they’ve successfully divided “we the sheeple.”
Great article, Radley.
It’s amazing how the two parties only seem to agree when it serves them instead of the people they are supposed to be representing.
I am reminded of the episode of M*A*S*H where B.J (or maybe it was Trapper) and Hawkeye decide to give Frank (or maybe it was Charles, it’s probably been 20 years since I watched it…) a birthday present. They decide they will have a big fight and make him happy that they are not getting along with each other. In the end, it was all for show, although they did start to take the fake fight too seriously for a while. I wonder where the writers got the idea (-;
In the end, we are left with a tough choice:
Make a point by voting for a small party, or vote for the person who seems to be the least dangerous. It’s not an easy choice, I can see Obama implementing a lot of “change” that will end up being impossible to undo. But in my view, checking that box next to McCain is not really a vote *for* him, either.
Yet another good article from FauxNews’ Token libertarian.
Originally, the people of this country established a government with powers clearly limited by the Constitution, with the stated purpose of preserving our freedom and liberty, and which was empowered to govern solely by the consent of the governed.
So much for the consent of the governed. As for preserving peoples’ freedom or liberty, I’d suggest that the higher priority of our two party duopoly is preserving government itself.
Heads they win. Tails we lose.
Happy Voting!™
Excellent piece of writing. A coherent description of why we are in the position we now find ourselves with regard to our lack of representation.
I am starting the Tea Party to remove much of the Tea Baggage now holding seats in Washington. In two years, let’s elect some some Tea Baggers and send the Tea Bags to Washington.
Sound absurd? Not when compared to what is now taking place in Congress.
Some people cite the Realignment of 1896 as the end of third party candidates. Since that time, both parties have made overt efforts to curtail voting. The contemporary belief that Americans are lazy, stupid, or just don’t care is inaccurate. Excluding voters or making it harder for people to pay the costs of voting means fewer voters. When costs go up turnout goes down and both parties are better able to control elections. None of which is news.
A two party system, in and of itself, is not “bad”. The real issue (imo) comes down to accountability. Within our system, it is very difficult to hold a particular candidate responsible for a particular action, even though we often try.
It seems like reform is overdue, but how that gets done is a mystery.
And of course, all codification of parties is in direct violation to Freedom of Choice, freedom of association, and several other freedoms which We the Peopel retained for ousrselves. So once more our elected rats have tried to screw us with no vaseline by stealing authority that they DO NOT have. Spread the word. Continue the fight. Maintain the course.
We the People are in charge and We the People as individuals may choose to vote for whomever we want and to belong to whatever party we wish. There is NOSUCH thing as compelling government interest unless and until We the People codify such into our rules for the government known as the Constitution.
Dominus providebit!
A long, long time ago some guys had an idea about getting things changed. Of course, that was 1776 and their notions today would likely get one thrown in prison today.
“It is one of the reasons I’m tempted not to vote.”
So don’t, Steve. You’ll have infinitely more impact by not voting.
As for the “two-party” system, what two-party system?
There is only one party — the party of State, two wings of the same bird of prey.
“Originally, the people of this country established a government with powers clearly limited by the Constitution, with the stated purpose of preserving our freedom and liberty, and which was empowered to govern solely by the consent of the governed.”
In an otherwise great comment rests this mythical view of American exceptionalism.
The Whiskey Rebellion and the Alien and Sedition Acts put the lie to this myth, and these events occurred in the 18th Century.
There is/never was a social contract. Popular sovereignty is a three-card monty dealer’s diversion.
Cynical in CA,
Is that CA as in California? Sheesh, we should meet at a bar and get pissed tomorrow eveing!
I’m very, very tempted to go home and just drink some scotch. The only reason I’d vote in this election is to vote no on Prop. 8, the proposition that wants to change the CA consititution to prohibit gay marriage.
It is things like that that make me think you are 100% correct with the notion that voting is state sanctioned violence. I know many gay couples that will be devestated if their marriages are nullified by passage of prop 8.
Aww, Hell you are right, it is state sanctioned violence.
evening*
A nice piece, but I wonder if you need to argue about motive. Campaign finance regulations are put forward to solve certain problems (you might not think they’re real problems, mind you). Every solution is incomplete, so it spawns more and more complex regulations, to fix the holes in the previous regulation. The eventual result is a set of regulations that spans a football field.
I think your argument is strongest when you exhibit the current byzantine system as an inevitable outgrowth of complex regulations, not some sort of plot to keep third-party candidates off of the ballot.
Hey Steve, glad we see eye-to-eye on the voting debacle. I do live in CA, Orange County in general and Tustin in particular, if you are among the few who know where that is. Where you at?
I think it is important to keep arguments as separate from the arguer as possible. I take no credit for the formulation of the logical arguments about the nature of voting and violence — they exist independent of the person making the argument and they stand on their own.
Regarding gay marriage, it is pathetically ironic that gay people are looking to the State for the “freedom” to marry. The only true freedom in marriage is if the State has no authority over it. In a free society, marriage would be a pure business contract between consenting adults (as many as desired and of whatever gender mix).
Gay people are like dogs who carry their leashes to their masters, which makes them no different from any other constitutionalist.
To those who would label me a hater for such words, it would be most edifying if you would address the arguments instead.
Chino. Up the 57, and out the 91 a bit.
Completely agree with that.
I think it is safe to say this applies to most people in this country not just gay people. Hence there really is no bigotry since it doesn’t hinge specifically on being gay or not.
Cool, I know Chino. Got friends in the hills.
I should have specified gay statists in my previous post — I’m sure there are some gay anarchists out there somewhere and I meant them no offense.