http://help-matrix.blogspot.com/2006/10/basic-information-on-amerikas-third.html
Note: The basic information below has some good talking points for open debate, discussion and further analysis.
~Peta-de-Aztlan, Field Coordinator
Email= sacranative@yahoo.com
c/s
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://prorev.com/greenhints.htm
HISTORY'S HINTS FOR THIRD PARTIES
By Sam Smith
Originally published in the Green Horizon Quarterly
Added to all the other obstacles faced by third party activists is a paucity of analytical and historical guidebooks for their struggles. The media tends to be dismissive of third parties and lacking in understanding of their contributions to American politics. While some academics have done fine studies of individual movements and parties, scholars aren't particularly interested in the aggregated effect of third parties. Further, as with journalists, one finds on campus a deep and uncritical reverence for a 'two party system' that has, in fact, formed America's largest conspiracy for the restraint of trade - the trade in political ideas. Finally, activists themselves are usually so involved in what should be that they can forget to look closely at what is and how it works for and against their efforts.
This windshield appraisal of America's third party movements is not for the purpose of proving a thesis, arguing a point or suggesting reforms, but rather to help activists gain a better sense of the political environment in which they have to work. And to help them recognize both the potential and the limits that present themselves.
First, the good news: America's third parties have been immensely important to the country as catalysts of political and social progress. Their efforts lent weight to the anti-slavery movement, to the institution of an income tax, and to women's rights. While most of the power in 20th century politics was held by centrist or conservative white Protestants and Irish Catholics, the major reforms of that period stemmed from three third party movements: the Populists, the Progressives and the Socialists.
One reason journalists and historians tend to discount the impact of third parties is because of their obsession with apexes of power and those who inhabit them. In reality, however, change often comes not from the top or the center but from the edges. Ecologists and biologists appreciate the importance of edges as sources of life and change, whether they be the boundary of a forest, the shore of a bay or the earth's patina so essential to our being that we call the atmosphere. The political edge, at least metaphorically, has many of the same critical attributes.
Third parties have come in all sorts of shapes and colors. Some have aimed at a single issue such as slavery or drinking. Some have been driven by the popularity of an individual such as Teddy Roosevelt or Ross Perot. The ones with the deepest effect on the country's history have tended to be both parties and movements spreading like a virus throughout American culture, such as the Populists, Progressives and Socialists. To be any of these represented a commitment far beyond today's membership in one of the major parties. Finally, there have been statewide parties such as the Farmer Labor Party, New York's Liberal and Conservatives, and the DC Statehood Party that were far more successful within their constituency than many national third parties.
By far the most successful third party in history was the Republican Party which four years after its first run for the White House elected a president, Abraham Lincoln. But this is only part of the story, because two third parties helped lay the groundwork beginning 20 years earlier with the presidential campaigns of the anti-slavery Liberty Party and Free Soilers.
Two other 19th third parties served either as precursors of something bigger, with the Greenbacks, with its emphasis on monetary policy, a warm-up band for the Populists and the Prohibition Party, which got only 2% in its best presidential bid, but won a whole constitutional amendment 50 years after its founding.
In the 20th century, if you wanted to make a big splash in national third party politics, the best way to do it was with a major icon such as Roosevelt, Wallace or Perot. Here are the best numbers for various third party candidates:
Theodore Roosevelt 28%
Perot (1992): 19%
LaFolette: 17%
George Wallace: 14%
Debs (1912): 11%
Perot (1996): 9%
Anderson: 7%
All other 20th century third party candidates got 3% or less, including Debs in three additional runs and Thurmond and Henry Wallace in the hot 1948 race. It is useful to note that all the leading third party candidates - with the exception of George Wallace and Debs - drew heavily from mainstream constituencies rather than running as radical reformers.
Obviously the numbers don't tell the whole story. For example, the New Deal drew from Populist, Progressive and Socialist ideas despite low turnouts for their candidates. The Populists, despite topping out a 9% in a presidential race, influenced the politics of two Roosevelts, Theodore and Franklin.
Still, if you want to affect national politics with a national third party presidential run, history suggests that getting over 5% - preferably closer to 10% - is a good way to start. Otherwise, you can probably expect a less direct impact for your efforts, perhaps decades in the future. And, in any case, you can expect your swing at presidential politics to be fairly short-lived.
That does not mean, however, that these parties - like certain insects - were merely born, had sex, and then died. In fact, some of the third parties had long, healthy lives, in large part because they were as concerned with local as with national results. The Socialist Party is the most dramatic recent example, with a history dating back over 100 years. The party's own history suggest that eclecticism didn't hurt:
'From the beginning the Socialist Party was the ecumenical organization for American radicals. Its membership included Marxists of various kinds, Christian socialists, Zionist and anti-Zionist Jewish socialists, foreign-language speaking sections, single-taxers and virtually every variety of American radical. On the divisive issue of "reform vs. revolution," the Socialist Party from the beginning adopted a compromise formula, producing platforms calling for revolutionary change but also making "immediate demands" of a reformist nature. A perennially unresolved issue was whether revolutionary change could come about without violence; there were always pacifists and evolutionists in the Party as well as those opposed to both those views. The Socialist Party historically stressed cooperatives as much as labor unions, and included the concepts of revolution by education and of 'building the new society within the shell of the old.'"
By World War I it had elected 70 mayors, two members of Congress, and numerous state and local officials. Milwaukee alone had three Socialist mayors in the last century, including Frank Zeidler who held office for 12 years ending in 1960. And the party reports that Karen Kubby, Socialist councilwoman, won her re-election bid in 1992 with the highest vote total in Iowa City history.
Some highly successful third parties never ran anyone for president (except in fusion with one of the major parties). Albeit in a confused and weakened status at the moment, the Liberal Party of New York remains the longest lived third party next the to the Socialists. Founded in 1944 - in a break with the more radical American Labor Party - the Liberals benefited immensely from New York's fusion-friendly election laws, which allowed it to support Franklin Roosevelt in 1944 and to claim credit for giving Kennedy enough votes for his presidential victory. Other nominees of the party have included Averill Harriman, Mario Cuomo, Jacob Javits, Robert Kennedy, Fiorello LaGuardia and John Lindsey. Swinging the gate of New York politics made it exceptionally important.
The Farmer Labor Party in Minnesota lasted 26 years before merging with the Democrats. During that time it elected a senator and a governor. And in DC, the Statehood Party held an elected position for 25 years and some years later merged with the DC Green Party.
As for the Greens, the recent near victory of Matt Gonzalez for San Francisco mayor is the latest sign of success in viral politics of a party that had already elected a score of mayors elsewhere. While SF mayoralty may not seem as important as a Green presidential run, I was shakened from that assumption a few days after election when it suddenly dawned that Gonzalez' race was not just local; for me it meant that there somewhere in America there was a city roughly the size of my own in which 47% of the voters agreed with me. It was a remarkably cheering revelation.
There is, it appears, no one right way to run a third party in the U.S. It always has to be a form of guerilla politics because the rules are so thoroughly stacked against those not Democrats or Republicans. Thus the judging the right tactics at the right time, as opposed to planning moves strictly on the basis of their presumed virtue, would seem to be the wisest course. To slow down traffic I might be morally justified in stepping into the Interstate, spreading my arms, and shouting, "stop," but it is probably not the most useful thing I could do for the cause. Besides, like some third party presidential candidates, I might not have another opportunity. My initial virtue might turn out to have been terminal.
For example, the question of fusion arises periodically. History clearly shows that there is no clear answer as to whether fusion is useful or not as a general principle because sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't. The Liberal Party of New York used it magnificently (thanks in part to the laws of that state) while many feel fusion helped bring down the Populist Party. Beginning in the late 19th century state legislatures began taking action against fusion because, presumably, they thought it was working. And it can be argued that the moves against fusion were part of a broader counter-revolution that included the end of Reconstruction and giving corporations rights of the individual. In any case, today forty states and DC ban fusion.
One may oppose fusion on principal - for it certainly degrades the message of one's party - but how is it that unprincipled opponents of reform also see it as such a danger? These are the sort of questions that Greens need to answer pragmatically without tying themselves into all sorts of moral and ideological knots. The impact could be profound. For example, the ban on fusion is the only thing preventing a third party from running its own candidate for vice president along with, say, the Democratic candidate for president. If Nader had run for vice president in 2000, his vote total would have been much higher and might have revealed far more sympathy for Green politics than is apparent today. Instead of being blamed for 2000, the Greens might have been actively courted for 2004.
Similarly, the question of whether or how to run a presidential candidate needs to be subjected to the lens of history. Again, the lessons are multiple and far from clear. To me, they suggest that a good third party presidential run should be reserved for when the stars are aligned - a major party weak, an unusually popular voice for your own, and a social revolt in the making.
There is one other factor that is truly new in America: the destruction of constitutional government in the wake of September 11. Besides all its other horrors, the developments make it even more difficult for a third party national campaign. But the war or terror is in many ways a war to protect a tiny percentage of the American elite and their capitals of politics and business - much as only ten percent of those in Orwell's 1984 were actually members of the party; the rest lived in a countryside living relatively normal lives.
Oddly, however, this presents an opportunity for the Greens. As I wrote recently:
"At present the Green Party seems exceedingly concerned with whom it will run for president, if anyone. This is a time-consuming, agenda-skewing, image-monopolizing business. . . But what if the Green Party declared itself the party of the countryside, of free America, and set its sights on organizing not just the survival, resistance, and rebellion of the unoccupied homeland, but its revival, its discovery of self-reliance, and its energetic practice of democracy and decency? There is a wealth of electoral opportunity. For example, in 15 states more than half the state legislative seats are presently won without a contest.
"There is a logic to the Greens becoming the party of free America. After all Greens are the party most in the American tradition of decentralization, democracy, and cooperative communities. And they have ample precedent in the grassroots Populist Party which took on robber barons of startling similarity to those now served by the Bush regime."
The important thing, however, in discussing such matters is for Greens to remember that they are members of the same team, selecting the next play not to prove their virtue but to improve their position. The virtue they can take for granted; the position will be determined by each day's practical choices. If there is any virtue to be observed during these difficult decisions it is that of gentleness towards each other. And while there is much to be learned from the past, perhaps the most important is an appreciation for the magnificent uncertainty of the whole adventure.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2004/Aug/31-415672.html
Third Parties in American Politics: Rich History, Many Roles
Interview with Professor J. David Gillespie, Presbyterian College
The Republican and Democratic parties have long dominated the American political landscape. Since 1856, every president elected by U.S. voters has belonged to one of those two parties. Almost every state's governor, members of Congress, and state legislators are also members of these two political groups. But they are not the only political parties active in the United States. There are more than 30 others, which are referred to as third parties.
J. David Gillespie, professor of political science at Presbyterian College and author of "Politics at the Periphery: Third Parties in Two-Party America," notes that third parties have always been a part of America's political process and although a third-party candidate has never won the presidency, the organizations play several important roles -- from educating voters on specific issues to affecting real change in government policy.
Third parties actually strengthen the government, Gillespie says, by providing a legitimate outlet for those unhappy with the status quo. They give "dissidents a chance to air their grievances within the confines of the electoral process," he explains. "And that, then, probably reduces the prospect of more violent or more aggressive kinds of approaches to political action in this country."
According to Gillespie, however, third-party candidates find the chances of actually getting elected very slim. Factors like ballot-access rules, campaign-finance laws, debate-participation policies, and media focus on the Republican and Democratic candidates all combine to keep other parties out of the White House.
In a recent interview with the Washington File, Gillespie talked about dualism in American politics and provided his views on the important roles of third parties.
Following is the transcript of that interview:
QUESTION: The general perception around the world is that the U.S. is a twoparty system. But, recently, I saw a website listing of 37 independent American political parties. So, clearly, third parties play a role in American politics. Could you explain a little about their role?
MR. GILLESPIE: I would say that the American twoparty system is probably the most stable twoparty system on Earth, and there are a number of reasons for that. But third parties have been around since the AntiMasonic Party [which campaigned against secretive, privileged societies] back in the 1820s at the national level, and local third parties existed even before the 1820s. They have been part and parcel of our electoral process throughout most of American history.
The roles that they play in some ways overlap with the roles of the major U.S. parties, the Republicans and Democrats. They help to organize the electoral system by educating voters, and, thereby, organizing voter choices. They play some, usually, rather transitory or peripheral roles, in helping organize the government.
QUESTION: How do they accomplish that?
MR. GILLESPIE: They do some very specific things -- one of which, and it's an ironic role that they probably don't aspire to play, is that they can be sources of release of steam, so to speak. In this way, they can actually strengthen not just the twoparty system, but also the government itself by giving dissidents a chance to air their grievances within the confines of the electoral process. And that, then, probably reduces the prospect of more violent or more aggressive kinds of approaches to political action in this country.
Third parties also do a number of other things. I think they serve certain psychological needs: the big fish in the little pond syndrome. When you create a third party, it may be a very limited-interest party that doesn't have much access to many people. But if you're the candidate, the big celebrity in that party, there can be considerable psychological gratification.
There is also an individual's need to feel a part of a select community, to belong to a certain group of like-minded people, and that is also served by participation in a third party.
QUESTION: Aside from looking at third parties as fulfillment of individual needs, whether of candidates or party members, is there another way to classify them?
MR. GILLESPIE: I think there are three kinds of third parties in the United States.
One of those is the "continuing doctrinal party," and I would say that these are the true minor parties of the United States. They last for several decades at least. They don't have any rational reason for thinking that they're going to ever challenge the duopoly of the Democrats and the Republicans. But whether that happens or not, these people tend to find their gratification in principle and vision and that sort of thing.
These might, for example, include what's left of the Prohibition Party, the oldest living third party in the country [founded in 1869 to oppose the manufacturing and sale of alcohol as a beverage]. The various Marxist parties and some rightwing parties would also qualify for that designation.
These are parties where faithfulness to principle, whatever those are for that particular party, and loyalty to their vision take priority over electoral success.
There is another kind of third party that is associated with what I believe are the most important political functions of third parties, and that would be the contribution to policy making and the potential for actually transforming the twoparty system.
These are what I would call the "shortlived party eruption." The Reform Party, which was founded by Ross Perot, an independent presidential candidate in the 1990s, was an example of that, as was the American Independent Party founded by the George Wallace for President movement in the 1960s and the early 1970s.
There was, also, the Progressive Party in the second decade of the 20th century and the Populist Party in the last decade of the 19th century, and one can go back to the AntiMasons and the KnowNothings and all of that back even earlier in the 19th century.
These are parties that made the greatest contribution to what we usually think of as the most important role of third parties: the contribution to policy making.
Such change in policy usually happens because of fear that a third party is going to become either a viable alternative to a major party candidate, or will contribute negatively to the outcome of an election in a way that will most probably hurt a major party candidate by siphoning off votes from the candidate who is closer to the beliefs of that third party. Right now, for example, the Democrats fear that the third party candidacy of Ralph Nader will take away votes from their candidate in the upcoming presidential election.
What happens then is that the major party that feels threatened will appropriate certain policy positions of the third party.
As to the ability of third parties to affect the transformation of the party system, I think the most important third party of the second half of the 20th century, whatever you think about it ideologically, was George Wallace's American Independent Party movement because it forced the Republican Party to develop a Southern strategy to reorient itself from being a Northern party to being a national party with a strong base in the South, and by taking on the Wallace issue positions like state's rights regarding law and order, and a strong national defense.
I would say the Republicans' Southern strategy in 1968 was a direct result of Richard Nixon responding to those people the George Wallace movement appealed to.
The third kind of third party is what I would call the "nonnational significant other." These are third parties organized either locally or statewide but not nationally. The prime example now, I think, is the Progressive Party of Vermont, which has 15 elected officeholders -- including four members of the state legislature, is a true major party in the largest city of Burlington, Vermont, and can claim long affiliation with Bernie Sanders, the only real Socialist in Congress. There have been many of these effective, non-national parties the FarmerLabor Party of Minnesota and the Progressive Party of Wisconsin, for example.
QUESTION: Does the American political system make it difficult for third parties to compete? Are there disincentives in the system?
MR. GILLESPIE: Absolutely.
I would say that there are, basically, three kinds of constraints on third parties.
One of those is what I would call cultural constraints. There has been a lot written in the political science literature about the sort of natural dualism in American politics: that we divide on many issues, that on any one particular issue, we tend to divide into two camps -- unlike the French, who divide on any given issue into many different gradations. You know, we are prolife or prochoice; we're prolabor or promanagement; we're globalist or antiglobalist, we're feminist or antifeminist, et cetera.
Our cultural divide tends to support a two party system -- according to that theory, at least. My own feeling about that is that it oversimplifies the complex society of the United States, a heterogeneous society in which things are a lot more complicated than that model would seem. But there are some things that could be said by way of cultural dualism that are disincentives to third parties. If we, in the United States, are naturally dualistic, then it is not undemocratic for that cultural dualism, and the twoparty system that represents it, to prevail.
Beyond that, however, there are structural barriers to third parties.
QUESTION: Such as?
MR. GILLESPIE: The number one structural barrier is state ballot access requirements. It is still very difficult to get on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It's improved in recent years, because of third-party candidates like George Wallace, Eugene McCarthy, John Anderson, and Ross Perot who brought court cases against the ballot access system. They got a lot of the most restrictive access laws overturned in federal courts. But it still takes somewhere between twothirds of a million and a million signatures collected nationwide to get a candidate's name on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
There are all kinds of rules and they vary in each state -- if you're a third party or independent candidate, you have to have a lawyer who's an expert on ballot access, and you've got to have a lot of money. Third party campaigns, which tend not to be well financed anyway, spent a good portion of their money just getting on the ballot in each state.
The major party candidates, on the other hand, are able to use their money for advertising and for getting the percentage of popular support that entitles them to federal matching funds.
QUESTION: What about the ability of third party candidates to present their principles, their ideas, to the general public?
MR. GILLESPIE: Well, debate access is another constraint. You know, we've very rarely had a thirdparty candidate on the debate stage with major party candidates. Ross Perot and John Anderson are the only ones that have ever been on a presidential debate stage because, generally, it takes 15 percent of popular support as registered in the various polls to qualify for being part of the presidential debates. Since a candidate cannot gain popular support if he cannot get his views heard, this is a classic example of "themthathave is themthatgets."
So the fact that third parties are excluded from the debate stage is a real disincentive to thirdparty participants.
Still another constraint, probably not intended, is the primary system, an ingenious part of our twoparty structure. The United States has the most open nominating system in the world, and it encourages dissidents who might otherwise go to third parties to try their hand at winning the major party nomination. But, in many states, by the time a candidate does not finish successfully as a major party candidate in the primary election, it's usually too late to go the thirdparty route.
QUESTION: So the two major parties absorb a lot of dissention that might otherwise turn into third party challenges?
MR. GILLESPIE: That's right. Anyone unhappy with how the government is being run can, if he has enough supporters to sign the necessary petitions, put himself on the ballot to change specific things within the system. Even if he doesn't get elected, if he gets a large enough percentage of votes demonstrating popular public support for his party's appeals, at least one the major parties will adopt some of that third party's agenda to stave off defections and gain those votes.
QUESTION: How does a third party get its message out to the general public?
MR. GILLESPIE: There is a lack of media coverage of third party candidates. But, you know, the broadcast media, except for CSPAN, no longer provide gaveltogavel coverage of even the Democratic and Republican National Conventions -- they, certainly, don't give any coverage at all to the party conventions of the Greens or the Libertarians.
Generally speaking, however, there's not much third party activity this year, but you can remember four years ago how much attention was given to Ralph Nader's Green Party candidacy and to Pat Buchanan's Reform Party campaign. There's just not much going on this year with regard to third parties, other than the Nader independent presidential campaign.
So I don't have a lot of reason to indict the media this year. I think the media tend to look at the horse race, and they tend -- even when they're covering presidential primaries -- they tend to want to get it down to two horses in the race. They think that Americans can follow two candidates better than they can follow a larger number of entries in the race.
So I would give them that and, in addition, say that the media do better now than they used to do in regard to covering third party candidates.
QUESTION: Can a third party candidate ever be successful in the American electoral process?
MR. GILLESPIE: I have thought, throughout the 1990s and into this century, that the most likely successful candidate for a major third party campaign -- and the American people have consistently said in surveys that they would like a third major party -- would be a candidate at the militant center. That is, a third party candidate who was not really ideologically left or right, but could pick up on a single, emotional issue and would, then, pose a real third party challenge.
I think, right now, the issue that the two major parties most leave out is an antiglobalist perspective, and I think you see Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan representing the left and rightwing of the antiglobalism issue.
But if anti-globalists came together from both sides of the political spectrum, it would result in a party, basically, that is not separate from the major parties on ideological grounds so much as on antiinsider grounds. If successful, it would be the sort of Jeffersonianshakeup of the people in power that the United States has every 20 years or so.
I think that's what the Reform Party under Ross Perot offered, but it got off track and is now, to a large extent, dead. That's where to watch, though -- not so much on the left or the right -- but at the militant center.
The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. government.
Created: 30 Aug 2004 Updated: 07 Sep 2004
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.thisnation.com/question/042.html
What is the history of "third parties" in the United States?
In many countries around the world, there are several political parties, but in the United States there are only two that are consistently competitive in elections. Why is this the case? And what are the prospects of a third party emerging, such as the Reform or Green Party, that is competitive with the Democratic and Republican Parties? Have third parties ever been successful in American history?
The American system is commonly called a "two-party system" because there have historically been only two major political parties with candidates competing for offices (especially in federal elections). The first two political parties had their origins in the debate over the ratification of the Constitution--the Federalists and Antifederalists. Today, the Republican and Democratic Parties dominate electoral politics. Almost every federal or state-level elected official in the United States is either a Republican or Democrat. In fact, in the United States Congress, there is only one member in the House of Representatives that is not a Republican or a Democrat--Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is an Independent. Every other House member and Senator belongs to either the Democratic or Republican Party.
The American two-party system is the result of the way elections are structured in the United States. Representatives in the Congress and in state legislatures are elected to in single-member districts where the individual with the most votes wins. Because only one party's candidate can win in each district, there is a strong incentive for political competitors to organize themselves into two competing "teams" or parties. By doing so, party members and their candidates maximize their chances of winning elections. (In some countries where there are multi-member districts, parties that win smaller percentages of the vote can often win legislative representation. Consequently, in such systems, there is an incentive to form smaller "third" parties.)
Other features of the American system of elections, such as campaign finance rules, the electoral college and rules giving party candidates ballot access further solidify the two-party system in the United States.
The same features of the American system that have encouraged a two-party system also serve to discourage the emergence of third parties. When third parties have emerged in American political history, their successes have been short-lived.
In most cases, the issues or ideas championed by third parties have been "stolen" by the candidates of one of the two major parties. Sometimes the issue position taken by the third party is even incorporated into the platform of one of the existing parties. By doing so, the existing party generally wins the support of the voters that had been the support base of the third party. With no unique issues to stand on and depleted voter support, third parties generally fade away.
Notwithstanding their lack of staying power, a handful of third party presidential candidates have had a significant impact on electoral outcomes.
The table below [SEE WEBSOURCE @ http://www.thisnation.com/question/042.html ]
summarizes the fortunes of major third party presidential challenges in U.S. History. (Third parties have never made a significant bid for control of either the House of Representatives or the Senate. In fact, only a handful of individuals from outside one of the two major parties have served in the Congress.)
While Ross Perot's showing in 1992 amounted to the best finish by a non-major party candidate in a presidential election since Teddy Roosevelt won 27.5% of the vote in 1912, Perot's Reform Party has failed to emerge as a unified, viable contender. As noted in the table, Perot finished a with a disappointing 8.4% of the vote in 1996. Things have declined so badly for the Reform Party in 2000 that the candidate authorized to call himself the "real" Reform Party presidential candidate is the subject of bitter internal party strife. Pat Buchanan, the best known Reform Party candidate, is unlikely to win more than two or three percent of the vote in November. In fact, polls suggest that Green Party candidate Ralph Nader is likely to win more votes than Buchanan.
What does the future hold for the Reform Party, the Green Party and other "third parties" in the American system? Quite probably, the same fate that has befallen third parties that have come before them. One or both of the two major parties is bound to "steal" their issues, incorporate them into their platforms and absorb their supporters into their ranks.
In fact, the declining success of the Reform Party is due in large part to the fact that both the Republicans and Democrats have taken up the core issues championed by Ross Perot in 1992--balancing the budget and reforming the federal government. The Reform Party, consequently, no longer holds an obviously unique position on the issues that attracted so many voters in 1992.
If the Green Party manages to win a significant number of votes in November, history (including the recent history of the Reform Party) tells us the most likely outcome will be for one of the two major parties (almost certainly the Democratic Party) to adopt the Greens' policy positions to win the support of Green Party voters.
In American political history, third parties have served the important purpose of refocusing the two major political parties on issues they have ignored or dealt with ineffectively.
Rarely, however, does a third party manage to emerge as one of the major parties by knocking an existing one off its roost. The prospects of that happening in 2000 are almost non-existent.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/H/2005/ch14_p11.htm
An Outline of American History (2005)
Chapter Fourteen: Third-Party and Independent Candidates (11/11)
The United States is often thought of as functioning under a two-party system. In practical effect this is true: Either a Democrat or a Republican has occupied the White House every year since 1852. At the same time, however, the country has produced a plethora of third and minor parties over the years. For example, 58 parties were represented on at least one state ballot during the 1992 presidential elections. Among these were obscure parties such as the Apathy, the Looking Back, the New Mexico Prohibition, the Tish Independent Citizens, and the Vermont Taxpayers.
Third parties organize around a single issue or set of issues. They tend to fare best when they have a charismatic leader. With the presidency out of reach, most seek a platform to publicize their political and social concerns.
Theodore Roosevelt. The most successful third-party candidate of the 20th century was a Republican, Theodore Roosevelt, the former president. His Progressive or Bull Moose Party won 27.4 percent of the vote in the 1912 election. The progressive wing of the Republican Party, having grown disenchanted with President William Howard Taft, whom Roosevelt had hand-picked as his successor, urged Roosevelt to seek the party nomination in 1912. This he did, defeating Taft in a number of primaries. Taft controlled the party machinery, however, and secured the nomination.
Roosevelt's supporters then broke away and formed the Progressive Party. Declaring himself as fit as a bull moose (hence the party's popular name), Roosevelt campaigned on a platform of regulating "big business," women's suffrage, a graduated income tax, the Panama Canal, and conservation. His effort was sufficient to defeat Taft. By splitting the Republican vote, however, he helped ensure the election of the Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
Socialists. The Socialist Party also reached its high point in 1912, attaining 6 percent of the popular vote. Perennial candidate Eugene Debs won nearly 900,000 votes that year, advocating collective ownership of the transportation and communication industries, shorter working hours, and public works projects to spur employment. Convicted of sedition during World War I, Debs campaigned from his cell in 1920.
Robert LaFollette. Another Progressive was Senator Robert La Follette, who won more than 16 percent of the vote in the 1924 election. Long a champion of farmers and industrial workers, and an ardent foe of big business, La Follette was a prime mover in the recreation of the Progressive movement following World War I. Backed by the farm and labor vote, as well as by Socialists and remnants of Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party, La Follette ran on a platform of nationalizing railroads and the country's natural resources. He also strongly supported increased taxation on the wealthy and the right of collective bargaining. He carried only his home state of Wisconsin.
Henry Wallace. The Progressive Party reinvented itself in 1948 with the nomination of Henry Wallace, a former secretary of agriculture and vice president under Franklin Roosevelt. Wallace's 1948 platform opposed the Cold War, the Marshall Plan, and big business. He also campaigned to end discrimination against African Americans and women, backed a minimum wage, and called for the elimination of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. His failure to repudiate the U.S. Communist Party, which had endorsed him, undermined his popularity and he wound up with just over 2.4 percent of the popular vote.
Dixiecrats. Like the Progressives, the States Rights or Dixiecrat Party, led by South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond, emerged in 1948 as a spinoff from the Democratic Party. Its opposition stemmed from Truman's civil rights platform. Although defined in terms of "states' rights," the party's goal was continuing racial segregation and the "Jim Crow" laws that sustained it.
George Wallace. The racial and social upheavals of the 1960s helped bring George Wallace, another segregationist Southern governor, to national attention. Wallace built a following through his colorful attacks against civil rights, liberals, and the federal government. Founding the American Independent Party in 1968, he ran his campaign from the statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama, winning 13.5 percent of the overall presidential vote.
H. Ross Perot. Every third party seeks to capitalize on popular dissatisfaction with the major parties and the federal government. At few times in recent history, however, has this sentiment been as strong as it was during the 1992 election. A hugely wealthy Texas businessman, Perot possessed a knack for getting his message of economic common sense and fiscal responsibility across to a wide spectrum of the people. Lampooning the nation's leaders and reducing his economic message to easily understood formulas, Perot found little difficulty gaining media attention. His campaign organization, United We Stand, was staffed primarily by volunteers and backed by his personal fortune. Far from resenting his wealth, many admired Perot's business success and the freedom it brought him from soliciting campaign funds from special interests. Perot withdrew from the race in July. Re-entering it a month before the election, he won over 19 million votes as the Reform Party standard-bearer, nearly 19 percent of the total cast. This was by far the largest number ever tallied by a third-party candidate and second only to Theodore Roosevelt's 1912 showing as a percentage of the total.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Related Research Links ~~
Minor Parties in the United States
http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/politics/thirdp.html
Brief History of American Third Parties
http://www.geocities.com/dave_enrich/ctd/3p.history.html
Third party presidential candidates
http://www.presidentsusa.net/thirdparty.html
Third Party Watch: Strives to provide fair and accurate coverage of third party politics in America
http://thirdpartywatch.com/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Relevant Links=
Phil Angelides ~ Democrat for Governor
http://www.angelides.com/
http://angelides.vivademocracy.com/site/act/index_html
Peter Camejo ~ Green Party Candidate for Governor
http://www.votecamejo.com/
General Election Date = November 7th, 2006
http://www.saccounty.net/elections/index.html
<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>
http://groups.msn.com/HumaneLiberationParty/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Humane-Rights-Agenda/
http://www.0101aztlan.net/index.html
URL Bloglink=
http://help-matrix.blogspot.com/2006/10/basic-information-on-amerikas-third.html
<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<><>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please keep comments humane!