There is a thread in OT that is discussing an American third party. I'd like to give some background on the subject.

In 1850, the two main political parties were the Democrats (the successors of Jefferson's Democratic Republicans) and the Whigs (who had superseded the Federalists after the War of 1812). Sectional antagonisms fomented by the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) tore the Whigs apart. By 1854, mass meetings were held in Michigan, Wisconsin, and other Midwestern states, and the Republican party was born. A coalition made up principally of former Whigs (Lincoln had been a Whig) and anti-slavery Democrats, the movement spread to other Northern states. In 1856, the Republicans nominated John C. Frémont for the Presidency and, while he lost, did quite respectably. Because the party was purely sectional, Southerners viewed its growth with dismay.

By the 1860 election, the Whigs had pretty much vanished from view. There is the point that the Democrats split over slavery. The nomination of Stephen Douglas so incensed the Southern delegates that many of them walked out of the Democratic convention. Later they held a rump convention and nominated John C. Breckinridge for President. There was a third party candidate, John Bell of Tennessee, nominated by the Constitutional Union Party with a platform calling only for the preservation of the Union.

With the Democrats split, Lincoln's election was virtually assured. The electoral and popular votes broke down thusly:

Lincoln: 180 - 1,865,593
Breckinridge: 72 - 848,356
Bell: 39 - 592,906
Douglas: 12 - 1,382713

Lincoln got only about 40% of the popular vote and supposedly failed to win a single vote in Mississippi A Republican presidential victory, many warned, would so endanger Southern interests as to warrant secession from the Union. When Lincoln won in 1860, the threat became a reality.

Since the 1860s there hasn't been a political or social issue in the U.S. that was so divisive as slavery. Unless one arises and the two major political parties don't each stake out opposing sides, a viable third party is unlikely in the U.S.

:goodjob: Nice post I agree on that last part sadly :( :(
I should note that the Michigan Democratic party (diff. than regular democrats in a few ways they have there own listing in the almanac ) is in allmost complete control of the state (or so my 2005 almanac ...I don't wanna substanciate that)




http://www.michigandems.com/

It is very unfortunate that for some reason we can't get a viable 3rd Party. Maybe the impending alien invasion of earth will be enough to make that happen.

It is very unfortunate that for some reason we can't get a viable 3rd Party. Maybe the impending alien invasion of earth will be enough to make that happen.
Do I sense a Simpsons tie-in?

I dispute the characterization of the Republicans as a third party in 1860 or even 1856.

The Republican party was successful because the Whig Party collapsed in 1854, leaving a vaccum that the Republican Party quickly filled. Indeed, in most states where there was a strong Whig party, the Whig political bosses simply became Republicans.

you need to change the title of this thread b/c you've completely forgotten about the Bull Moose Party.

In 1912, when Teddy Roosevelt splintered his Bull Moose party off from the Republicans, he ensured the election of the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson. If the regular Republican candidate's, Taft, and Roosevelt's popular votes are added together, they outpolled Wilson, but Wilson had the most votes of any of the three candidates:

Roosevelt - 4,126,020
Taft - 3,483,922
Wilson - 6,286,124

So history tells us that a third party candidate much more closely aligned with one party than the other can get the unaligned candidate elected.

I dispute the characterization of the Republicans as a third party in 1860 or even 1856.

The Republican party was successful because the Whig Party collapsed in 1854, leaving a vacuum that the Republican Party quickly filled. Indeed, in most states where there was a strong Whig party, the Whig political bosses simply became Republicans.
I agree. In the early 1850s, the Whig Party disintegrated over the slavery issue, and the Republicans stepped in to fill the vacuum. However, besides Whigs, the Republicans also attracted Northern Democrats. That's why Douglas did so poorly with the popular vote in 1860. He was perceived as an anti-slavery Democrat, but many of the other anti-slavery Democrats had already become Republicans.

What about the American Independent Party in 1968? Wallace actually won some electoral votes.

lest we not forget Ross Perot. iirc, he gained something like 18 or 19 % of the popular vote in the '92 election. it'll probably be a long while before any future 3rd party canidate could garner that much.

lest we not forget Ross Perot.

That was the first time I was able to vote in a Presidential election, and I voted for Perot. I didn't realize he got that much of the vote.

I think we need to distinguish between third party viability and third party candidate viability. Bull Moose Party existed for the purpose of electing Teddy Roosevelt. And while the Reform Party still exists in some parts of the US, essentially it was Perot in 92 and 96 grabbing votes, not the party. So I wouldn't consider either party 'successful', just the candidate.

The same can be said for the Green Party and Nader. In 2000, in Connecticut, the Green Party ran eight candidates, including Nader and LaDuke. Two of the candidates won, getting seats on the New Haven city council. In 2004, there were three Green Party candidates, including the New Haven city councilmen. None of them won election or reelection.

:goodjob: Nice post I agree on that last part sadly :( :(
I should note that the Michigan Democratic party (diff. than regular democrats in a few ways they have there own listing in the almanac ) is in allmost complete control of the state...

The Governor is Democrat but the State Congress is Republican controlled. Democrats are in complete control of Detroit, not the state. In addition, Republicans dominate in the west and the north and the Detroit suburbs are largely split.

The Governor is Democrat but the State Congress is Republican controlled. Democrats are in complete control of Detroit, not the state. In addition, Republicans dominate in the west and the north and the Detroit suburbs are largely split.

Agreed. Michigan is far more purple than blue... I would know, having to live in one of the more red areas of the state. :rolleyes:

Actually, Elta, the Minnesota Democrats--the DFL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Democratic-Farmer-Labor_Party) are more in control of their state than in Michigan, from what I gather, and though they are aligned with the Dems in presidential elections, they are technically a "third party" (if that name really applies to the largest party in the state).

quote-I dispute the characterization of the Republicans as a third party in 1860 or even 1856.

Actually, you have a point. A third party will never, by definition, be a third party if it is successful in taking power in the government, so QED, it can't ever be successful. It's like saying that the third place competitor is the winner. You can start the race in the third position but that is not the position you will hold if you win.

The republican party was the third party when it was formed but not by Lincoln's time (and it really is the only "third party" to actually move from third to first in this country). It successfully worked its way into the top party spot and wasn't a third party when it won. No future party will ever truly be a third party if it can supplant one of the current two by any means, no matter how long it holds the third position beforehand. I hadn't thought of it that way. Good job.

That was the first time I was able to vote in a Presidential election, and I voted for Perot. I didn't realize he got that much of the vote.
hey - same here! although i didn't vote for him.

i'll always have the memory of all of those damn pie charts and that Texas twang!

What got to me about Perot was:

* Never having held political office, he wanted to start at the top.

* He listened to all sorts of paranoid loonies and believed them.

* It seemed that for him the truth was what he said it was. As Groucho Marx said, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

* His dropping out of the race and then dropping back in again. He claimed that he did so because the Republicans were going to do some unspecified nastiness at his daughter's wedding. First, I believe the head of the RNC who said essentially "Why would we do something stupid like that? When it got traced back to us, as it inevitably would, it would only make people turn against us and cause sympathy for our opponent." Second, if it were true, then all one had to do is make some vague gesture against his family, and he would fold up.

The fact that he was so obviously crazy -- but still got 19% with such a bad campaign -- shows how dissatisfied people must have been with the two party system.

* His dropping out of the race and then dropping back in again. He claimed that he did so because the Republicans were going to do some unspecified nastiness at his daughter's wedding. First, I believe the head of the RNC who said essentially "Why would we do something stupid like that? When it got traced back to us, as it inevitably would, it would only make people turn against us and cause sympathy for our opponent." Second, if it were true, then all one had to do is make some vague gesture against his family, and he would fold up.


I didn't bring this up because I didn't want to put in an attack against Perot, but the facts are obvious:
1) He dropped out of the race during the Democratic primary because he thoughts the Democrats had put it together (or so he claimed)
2) He then got back in the race during the Republican primary because of the above-mentioned issue

I'm still not sure what he had against the Republicans, but it was clear he didn't want Bush to win in 1992. Bill Clinton is never President of the United States if it wasn't for Perot (although Pat Buchanan is also partially responsible for the Bush defeat).

I'm still not sure what he had against the Republicans, but it was clear he didn't want Bush to win in 1992. Bill Clinton is never President of the United States if it wasn't for Perot (although Pat Buchanan is also partially responsible for the Bush defeat).

That's patently incorrect. Polls have shown that Perot voters split fairly evenly for Clinton and Bush.

That's patently incorrect. Polls have shown that Perot voters split fairly evenly for Clinton and Bush.
yes but Clinton may very well have lost that election had Perot remained on the sidelines. i think this is what he's referring to...

yes but Clinton may very well have lost that election had Perot remained on the sidelines. i think this is what he's referring to...

Exactly. Buchanan and Perot were both successful in undermining the popularity of the President. Buchanan did so by running against in him the primaries. He never won a single one, but he sowed enough doubt that by the end he was getting over 30% of the vote ... which the public misread as seeing that 1/3 of the Republicans in those states were against Bush. This was untrue, for obvious reasons.

Ok, fine, just in case it's not obvious:

If you supported Bush you were less likely to vote because he was such a shoo-in for the nomination. If you supported Buchanan, you made sure you voted because every vote was needed. Thus the support for Buchanan appeared a lot higher than it really was


With Perot it's similar: if a big business Republican is challenging the President, well, maybe he's on to something. Even if Perot stayed dropped out of the race, I think the damage was already done. I don't think it was the voting for Perot that cost Bush the election.

Now, I'm not saying the majority of the American public is foolish enough to be easily swayed, but I'd say it was large enough of an effect to decide the election.

EDIT: Also, the timing issue of Perot dropping out/in effected the results. Presidential candidates almost always show a popularity bounce coming of their primaries. Perot dropping out during the Democratic primary gave Clinton a huge boost, while his return during the Republican primary likely took the legs out of Bush's potential bounce. Again, even if not a single vote was cast for Perot, all of these machinations hurt Bush.

SECOND EDIT: Personally, I feel the 1992 Election was the goofiest in history (2000 was goofy as well, but it was annoyingly so; 1992 was pretty funny). First, you have all the 1st-tier Dem candidates refusing to run because Bush appeared impregnable (Clinton teamers have admitted they were looking to make a name for the 1996 election, not 1992). Second, you have Buchanan (who also appeared in the 2000 election ... hmm). Third, Perot. Fourth, you have a Democratic 1st-tier candidate accepting the VP spot on the ticket once Bush looked vulnerable (Gore was way more qualified to run than Clinton was). Fifth, you have that same VP candidate getting smacked down hard and repeatedly by Dan Quayle of all people in the VP debate (I'm not joking -- read the Newsweek post-Election recap for Clinton's reaction to the VP debate -- unfortunately Newsweek.com archives only go back to 1993, so you'll have to go to a library to do so). No one remembers that, though, because of Sixth, Admiral "What am I doing here?" Stockdale. Seventh, you have the "Draft Cuomo" campaign when the Dem leadership realized that they had a shot to win but didn't have any first-tier candidates running. Eighth, you have the Economy, the one issue that was killing Bush, rebounding the week before the election (the post-1991 recession recovery began in October 1992).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Clinton, but at the same time, you gotta feel a little bad for HW. He made mistakes, of course, and didn't necessarily demonstrate that he should win in 1992, but a lot of things went against him.