Possible roadmap to victory for US 3rd parties?

[downtown]

So we're used to seeing 3rd parties just pick off a few percentage points in important US elections, right? The libertarians get 5% here, the Greens get 4% here, and nobody ever really threatens to WIN a race. Sure, there have been a few independents who have won major races, but that has usually been on the back of their own political celebrity rather than building a coherent 3rd party, with a few exceptions (Maybe Minnesota and Maine).

In my new neighborhood, that wasn't the case. The Green Party Candidate for Illinois Statehouse, district 39, got a little over 35% of the vote, and scored most of the major endorsements, such as the Chicago Teachers Union, and both major newspapers.

With widespread anger against incumbents, and some high profile endorsements, why did Kaplan still do poorly? The 39th district is very liberal (there was no Republican running...no point), and Kaplan's policy positions would have proved to be very popular with most residents.

One problem, and this is a big problem with all 3rd parties, is that he apparently struggled to build a broad electoral coalition. Like the Green Party statewide, Kaplan did best with educated, highly progressive whites. The 39th is heavily Latino though, and the incumbent Dem won those votes easily. Green party candidates were crushed in the heavily black neighborhoods of Chicago.

The Chicago Reader has a GREAT article on the party as a whole here http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicag...tney-2010-election-losses/Content?oid=2736917

We all know the institutional problems 3rd parties are up against. Is winning any kind of election going to be impossible? Should they look to try and pick off seats like the 39th, or school boards/city council seats. some have suggested 3rd parties not even bother running candidates for Gov or Senate until they win a few more local races, arguing that those resources would be better spent helping downticket races. Others are afraid that if a party doesn't run people in visible races, the party will never have credibility.

Are there lessons for libertarians, constitution party guys, etc here too?

WHAT SAY YE

 

[Camikaze]

Can there be a middle ground of running candidates in high profile races, but not spending any money on them? So, you get your party name out there, but you don't waste any resources on what is guaranteed to be a lost cause. That would seem a better strategy to me than simply ignoring those races completely.

 

[madviking]

Third parties can't survive in a winner-take-all system. The cards are just stacked against them.

 

[Ajidica]

Didn't somebody make a thread about something similar to this?
Either way, the best way for a third party to end up victorious is to start small. Run for local city positions just to get government experiance. Then you can either run for a local office yourself or use your reputation to endorse someone who is running for a local office. Build a solid foundation with a reputation for good skills and build from there.

 

[downtown]

Can there be a middle ground of running candidates in high profile races, but not spending any money on them? So, you get your party name out there, but you don't waste any resources on what is guaranteed to be a lost cause. That would seem a better strategy to me than simply ignoring those races completely.

I'm not totally sure. Not every 3rd party has a guaranteed spot on the ballot in every state, so just getting a guy's name on the ballot will require money and lawyering. According to the article, the Illinois Green Party candidate for Gov barely did any advertising at all...I think maybe one cable ad and a radio teaser?

Third parties can't survive in a winner-take-all system. The cards are just stacked against them.

I believe the institutional challenges are too great for anybody to seriously contend for a federal office right now, but I don't see why they can't win smaller races.

 

[mangxema]

Can there be a middle ground of running candidates in high profile races, but not spending any money on them? So, you get your party name out there, but you don't waste any resources on what is guaranteed to be a lost cause. That would seem a better strategy to me than simply ignoring those races completely.

Well, the problem is nobody knows about the minor candidates, so without any money, the would remain to be unknown. An established party candidate can coast to some extent solely on party affiliation. That doesn't help third parties.

--

In some sense, I think 2012 would be a pretty good year for third parties, at least in theory. Things deteriorated at the tail end of Republican leadership, and the voters do not like what they perceived the Democrats' solutions to be, so it seems like this would be a good time for a new face to get some exposure for his ideas. The problem, I think, is that the two major minor parties (Libertarians and Greens) have positions that are not going to be well received given current economic conditions. Given the financial chicanery that got us into this mess, calls for less financial regulation are toast, as are higher environmental standards. Although, I suppose a pro-industry Green could make some headway if he positions himself as bringing new factory jobs for cleaner technology. The Libertarians are toast though because barring some egregious violation of civil liberties, their social policies will barely register in the election cycle. (I could be wrong... I continue to be amazed by one-issue voters) Then there's the centerish Bloombergian candidate, but I'm not sure how that would work in practice.

 

[illram]

I was registered Green until the '08 dem primaries, which I wanted to vote in.

I think their platform is suited more to localized issues. They'll never raise enough money for anything big anyways. For the Greens its Local races in liberal places IMHO.

Also what Mad Viking said--our system is rigged against any 3rd party. Once in a while a pseudo 3rd party movement pops up (e.g. Tea Party or People's Party in the 1890s) but they always align themselves with (or are eaten by) one of the established parties anyways, after which they fade away quickly.

 

[GamezRule]

Why do we even have political parties? They are so constricting. People vote for the party instead of the candidate.

 

[madviking]

Why do we even have political parties? They are so constricting. People vote for the party instead of the candidate.

You were beat by only 250 years by Madison, mate.

 

[BasketCase]

One problem, and this is a big problem with all 3rd parties, is that he apparently struggled to build a broad electoral coalition.

That's the reason third parties have problems. Only moderates are capable of building coalitions; the more radical a person is, the more important their ideals and the less willing they are to compromise on those ideals. And there are already four major parties/groups/clans/mobs which completely cover the political "territory" within which all moderates reside: the Republicans, the Democrats (those two are actually both very close to "center"), the Libertarians, and Independents.

 

[Ajidica]

The Libertarian Party is for moderates?

 

[illram]

Libertarian moderates... lol.

 

[GamezRule]

That is exactly what I was pointing to.

 

[NYHunter]

The problem with building up from local elections is that it still doesn't work any better. For example, the LP claims to have 152 members in elected office, 115 of them non-partisan but the point being they are openly Libertarian. In the past they even had members in state legislatures. Despite this, they were never able to move their candidates up to higher positions to Congress or Governorships. And despite having a few small city mayors they have never seized a major city. So while running in local elections is good, it is not an effective strategy to rely on and there is no reason to believe that running statewide and presidential candidates are a waste when they are the ones that probably bring the most attention and fundraising to the party.

 

[Atlas14]

I voted for a Green party candidate for a Senate position, and a libertarian candidate for House I believe.

 

[downtown]

That's the reason third parties have problems. Only moderates are capable of building coalitions; the more radical a person is, the more important their ideals and the less willing they are to compromise on those ideals. And there are already four major parties/groups/clans/mobs which completely cover the political "territory" within which all moderates reside: the Republicans, the Democrats (those two are actually both very close to "center"), the Libertarians, and Independents.

I'm sorry, that isn't true at all. You can build a coalition without compromising your values...most of it is about marketing. Tea Party groups have build coalitions of disparate angry religious voters, "libertarians", militia types, etc.

In our example here, the winning candidate didn't do anything particularly moderate. To moderate her message likely would have led to a loss, given the overwhelmingly progressive nature of his campaign. She just did a much better job at marketing to minority demographics, something the Greens have failed to do.

the Greens (and the Libertarians honestly) have done a poor job of reaching out to other voters besides younger, affluent, white people.

 

[sophie]

3rd party candidates in the US simply are not going to be feasible until the US (more specifically the Reps and Dems) change the voting systems to allow 3rd parties in. I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[Cynovolans]

I can't really imagine a third party winning in my state, not that no one would support them but I think NC has the hardest requirements for a non-democrat/republican to get on the ballot. (84,000 signatures on a petition needed)

 

[Karalysia]

please delete

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

I'm sorry, that isn't true at all. You can build a coalition without compromising your values...most of it is about marketing. Tea Party groups have build coalitions of disparate angry religious voters, "libertarians", militia types, etc.

Very good point.

The best strategy would be for all the third party movements to work together. They might disagree with each other on all the issues, but they all agree that the Republicans and Democrats have failed miserably.

By coordinating their efforts, they can attack the two major parties and then each part of the coalition can run candidates in the most friendly territory--Greens on the Pacific Coast, Libertarians in New Hampshire, etc.