ADVERTISEMENT

Zogby: America Needs a Third Party...

Nov 28, 2010
87,535
42,351
113
Maryland
According to brother James on his show, pollster John Zogby says "America needs a 3rd party, a Republican party."

What do you think? Has the current GOP strayed or frayed so much that we need a real Republican party to emerge, even if it's a 3rd party at first?

Where would the rest of what now calls itself the Republican party go?

According to his guest, Rubio appeals to a lot of the professionals (pundits and politicians) becasue he has "crossover appeal." Not crossover appeal to Republicans and Democrats, as you might have thought, but to the establishment and Tea Party elements of the GOP.
 
There should probably be at least five, splitting the Right into three and the Left into two. The Right could have libertarians (Paul), social/Christian conservatives (Cruz/Carson, and corpo-republicans (Rubio/Jeb). The Left could have the European-style social democrats (Sanders) and corpo-dems (Clinton).

Of course, it's not as clear-cut as that, but it would allow people to feel like their views are more represented. It would likely make government function more efficiently, as alliances would have to be built across party lines.

Instant run-off voting would help immensely as well. Libertarians could vote for Gary Johnson without feeling like they're kind off giving a Democratic candidate an advantage, and a Green could vote for Jill Stein without feeling like they're aiding the Republican. Such a system would give alternative parties more clout. About the only thing Democratic and Republican Parties adamantly agree upon is that they don't want that to happen.
 
I welcome the idea of two parties to split the conservative vote. But both wouldn't survive. We can't have more than two parties without government reform.
Well it certainly seems like we can't for long - based on our history. But is that really true? Couldn't a few billionaires put together a viable 3rd party if they wanted to under current money=speech rules? They could easily match the Ds and Rs getting on the ballot and buying political ads.
 
Well it certainly seems like we can't for long - based on our history. But is that really true? Couldn't a few billionaires put together a viable 3rd party if they wanted to under current money=speech rules? They could easily match the Ds and Rs getting on the ballot and buying political ads.
When I say we can only ever have two, I obviously mean more than 2 that could compete for majority control. We have many more that two parties now as you know. But they won't ever be able to be more than disruptive without taking out one of the two big dogs. It's structural with our winner take all system. The existing parties will morph to eat up 51% of the electorate so that they can control congress. At least that's how I see it.

I don't see any scenario where a third option could be viable. If the religious cons broke away for example. All those red R states would elect Ds with 40% of the vote. The cons would freak out and either internally reform the old coalition or the voters would align with one or Ds would continue to dominate. But you could never maintain a business con and a religious con party as separate entities that could ever rule.
 
Last edited:
When I say we can only ever have two, I obviously mean more than 2 that could compete for majority control. We have many more that two parties now as you know. But they won't ever be able to be more than disruptive without taking out one of the two big dogs. It's structural with our winner take all system. The existing parties will morph to eat up 51% of the electorate so that they can control congress. At least that's how I see it.

I don't see any scenario where a third option could be viable. If the religious cons broke away for example. All those red R states would elect Ds with 40% of the vote. The cons would freak out and either internally reform the old coalition or the voters would align with one or Ds would continue to dominate. But you could never maintain a business con and a religious con party as separate entities that could ever rule.
The winner-take all part is definitely pressure to narrow the field. States could do it. Reshape single-rep districts into multi-rep districts. Easy. But unlikely to happen.

The "states as laboratories" concept seems to make sense when we discuss it but seldom seems to get tried on more than a trivial scale. Still waiting for someone to set up a libertarian government in some state (but not mine).
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
The winner-take all part is definitely pressure to narrow the field. States could do it. Reshape single-rep districts into multi-rep districts. Easy. But unlikely to happen.

The "states as laboratories" concept seems to make sense when we discuss it but seldom seems to get tried on more than a trivial scale. Still waiting for someone to set up a libertarian government in some state (but not mine).
Maybe Soup could run for Governor of FL.

I agree we could make some rather minor changes to our system to allow more parties to flourish. That's what I meant when I said we would need government reform. We probably need changes in voting, ballot access and congressional rules. I'm not sure if we would need to change the constitution to get it done or just to secure the change from future threats.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT