Opinion How possible would it be for a credible third party to be created in America?

[Hellowhosthat]

I think most Americans would agree that both the Republicans and the Democrats have gone off the deep end and are focusing a lot of policy on just doing the opposite of what the other side wants to do. How possible would it be for a third party to create a credible opposition that would stand a realistic chance of gaining representative seats if people could organise themselves enough to put themselves up for election as some form of sanity party?

I ask because here in the UK, Reform have gone from not being a party to making themselves a semi-credible election threat in a couple of election cycles, capable of winning parliamentary seats.

Is such a thing possible in the States?

 

[Seano]

Not possible at all. You could have something in name but they'd either support one party or the other. It'd just be the same dems or conservatives calling themselves something else.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

Not possible at all. You could have something in name but they'd either support one party or the other. It'd just be the same dems or conservatives calling themselves something else.

This seems a pessimistic way of looking at it? If they had policies enough people agreed with to gain votes, what's stopping them?

 

[AmonTobin]

It works in other countries, I don't see why it can't work in US. Maybe this is a naive take, but I think the outstanding figures who've built great career reputations and great relationships with the people could come together and form a strong alternative. US election campaigning seems overly expensive, bloated, and drawn out to me. Shortening the campaigning period and reduce the financing limits could bring things back down to earth.

One upside of a third viable party is that frustrated/disenfranchised voters can "break up" with the party they feel loyal too or most aligned, if their party has let them down, and vote for the third alternative party without committing the "unthinkable" and voting for "the party of their enemy". In this way, they've scorned their preferred party without supporting the party they vehemently oppose, with the possibility that their preferred party course-corrects and "comes back to them" after lessons learned.

Having a third option keeps a democracy healthy and robust, and makes each party even more accountable (vis-a-vis economy, and policies). If Party A engages in corruption, it doesn't just have Party B making accusations, it now has Party C also taking them to task. You have objective opposition, not just polar opposites. It can foster moderation and less extremism, open up more choices and more perspectives. Ideologies and values have a better chance of nuance and representation. Voters are less likely to have such tribalism mentality. Steadfast loyalty limited to 2 parties in combination with ideological polarization, makes American politics quite toxic. A third party also offers another dynamic: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", where Party A + C can form a coalition against a formidable Party B, for example.

 

[aitkenmike]

double

 

[aitkenmike]

I think most Americans would agree that both the Republicans and the Democrats have gone off the deep end and are focusing a lot of policy on just doing the opposite of what the other side wants to do. How possible would it be for a third party to create a credible opposition that would stand a realistic chance of gaining representative seats if people could organise themselves enough to put themselves up for election as some form of sanity party?

I ask because here in the UK, Reform have gone from not being a party to making themselves a semi-credible election threat in a couple of election cycles, capable of winning parliamentary seats.

Is such a thing possible in the States?

It's not possible without a change in electoral system (or a 3rd party representing a regional area with specific grievances). Short term a 3rd party might come up and pick up a not insignificant number of seats ala Reform, but medium to long term it will either eat the party it is closely aligned to (eg. the conservatives) or will itself fall away. In that period it will practically hand the elections to the other side.

 

[Seano]

This seems a pessimistic way of looking at it? If they had policies enough people agreed with to gain votes, what's stopping them?

We have "independents" now but they're just democrats trying to distance themselves from that title for their constituents.

The reason we don't have it is because both parties know it'd do nothing more than take votes away from them.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

We have "independents" now but they're just democrats trying to distance themselves from that title for their constituents.

The reason we don't have it is because both parties know it'd do nothing more than take votes away from them.

Well taking votes away from them is kind of the point.

 

[Seano]

Well taking votes away from them is kind of the point.

Which party would want to do that?

 

[Hellowhosthat]

Which party would want to do that?

Neither, that's why a new party would be running against them.

 

[Deorum]

I think most Americans would agree that both the Republicans and the Democrats have gone off the deep end and are focusing a lot of policy on just doing the opposite of what the other side wants to do. How possible would it be for a third party to create a credible opposition that would stand a realistic chance of gaining representative seats if people could organise themselves enough to put themselves up for election as some form of sanity party?

I ask because here in the UK, Reform have gone from not being a party to making themselves a semi-credible election threat in a couple of election cycles, capable of winning parliamentary seats.

Is such a thing possible in the States?

It's highly unlikely, at best.

There's really only one brief instance of it in American history. It was the first, last, and only time a third party candidate has managed to finish with a higher share of the national popular vote than a major party's presidential nominee. The platform's mission statement read: "To dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of statesmanship of the day."

It was Theodore Roosevelt's party.

 

[Siver!]

I think most Americans would agree that both the Republicans and the Democrats have gone off the deep end and are focusing a lot of policy on just doing the opposite of what the other side wants to do. How possible would it be for a third party to create a credible opposition that would stand a realistic chance of gaining representative seats if people could organise themselves enough to put themselves up for election as some form of sanity party?

I ask because here in the UK, Reform have gone from not being a party to making themselves a semi-credible election threat in a couple of election cycles, capable of winning parliamentary seats.

Is such a thing possible in the States?

Reform is new in name, but it's like the third or fourth iteration of the same old thing: BNP, UKIP, now Reform.

It's like a WWE wrestler who gets repackaged with a new name and costume every couple of years.

 

[Seano]

Neither, that's why a new party would be running against them.

They'd be running against 2 parties, one that they didn't cut in half by themselves. Political suicide.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

They'd be running against 2 parties, one that they didn't cut in half by themselves. Political suicide.

Well the idea wouldn't be that they could win the first cycle, but slowly gain until they can become a credible threat and start getting house seats, senate seats etc and then eventually become a threat.

It doesn't seem like the two party system works in your best interests that's all.

 

[ShadowRun]

It would be really hard, you would need a populist, famous charismatic person like a Trump to break past all the barriers. They would have to lead it, it would be a uphill fight. They would have to be really articulate on positions that people can get behind on. Like one example a huge priority would be drinking water from all tap facuets, that might not be a federal issue but if someone can figure out how to get the results and have a plan it might be doable.

But if someone is that talented why would they want them and their family to be drag through the mud in disgusting politics to make minimal earnings compared to their potential earnings

 

[Hellowhosthat]

It would be really hard, you would need a populist, famous charismatic person like a Trump to break past all the barriers. They would have to lead it, it would be a uphill fight. They would have to be really articulate on positions that people can get behind on. Like one example a huge priority would be drinking water from all tap facuets, that might not be a federal issue but if someone can figure out how to get the results and have a plan it might be doable.

But if someone is that talented why would they want them and their family to be drag through the mud in disgusting politics to make minimal earnings compared to their potential earnings

I guess you need someone who cares about the people enough to do it and actually wants to work for their benefit.

 

[Long Dark Blues]

Credible? Yeah, sure. Quite.

Viable? No chance.

 

[ShadowRun]

I guess you need someone who cares about the people enough to do it and actually wants to work for their benefit.

Yea that is probably the hardest thing, those who want it for the right reasons, would be good at it, cares for people and can't be corrupted.

 

[Stoic1]

We are watching it happen right now.

A bunch of disenfranchised Democrats are now in office. Trump, Tulsi, RFK, etc. And a whole bunch of conservatives are waking up to the RINO elements in the GOP.

I think the 2 greatest obstacles to getting a legitimate third party are term limits for congress and lobbying reform.

 

[Area809]

I think most Americans would agree that both the Republicans and the Democrats have gone off the deep end and are focusing a lot of policy on just doing the opposite of what the other side wants to do. How possible would it be for a third party to create a credible opposition that would stand a realistic chance of gaining representative seats if people could organise themselves enough to put themselves up for election as some form of sanity party?

I ask because here in the UK, Reform have gone from not being a party to making themselves a semi-credible election threat in a couple of election cycles, capable of winning parliamentary seats.

Is such a thing possible in the States?

This is always a good question. I think 3rd parties always run into two problems: 1) money 2) they never have the right candidate.

I do push back on the false equivalency that both parties simply want to do the opposite of what the other does. There’s something vindictive about this particular Trump term. I’ve never seen the left operate in that manner.