Growing up in a political family it didn’t take long to realize that the two party system was inefficient in the realm of a representative democracy and inherently couldn’t offer voters a true choice. And it’s been repeated many times on this board: we need a “real” third party option.

Time to play political architect.

Why have other parties failed to gain a foot hold in mainstream politics?

If you were starting a political party from the ground up, how would you differentiate it from the existing major parties?

Why have other parties failed to gain a foot hold in mainstream politics?
The two major parties have made it a legal part of our government to have two parties. They have also put up barriers in the areas of registering as a candidate. Furthermore, major media markets are prejudiced against covering candidates not belonging to the major parties.

If you were starting a political party from the ground up, how would you differentiate it from the existing major parties?
I would start a political party which believes in representative government. This would mean non-career politicians. It would be against the mention of political parties within the fabric of government. It should have a libertarian foundation of government being minimalistic and limited in its power over individual civil liberties.

Why have other parties failed to gain a foot hold in mainstream politics?

Mainly because people don't want to "throw their vote away". If they know that one of only two parties is going to win an election, they want to make sure their vote actually influences which one does. The fact that the media have not been all that friendly to third parties certainly hasn't helped matters any either.

If you were starting a political party from the ground up, how would you differentiate it from the existing major parties?

For one thing, it would have no tolerance for corporate welfare, which is something that the two current major parties are up to their eyeballs in, despite the complete lack of popular mandate for it.

It would also have to take a very strong, principled stand against pork-barrel spending. This may seem like an electoral hurdle, because as long as pork exists, people in each district will want to get a piece of the action. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't be receptive to the idea of eliminating pork altogether, if it meant their tax money wouldn't constantly have to go to other people's districts as well.

Why have other parties failed to gain a foot hold in mainstream politics?

Money. To compete...especially given the head start the 2 majors already have, a fledgling party would have to have obscene amounts of money to get its message out. As already stated above, the deck is stacked against a new party in terms of media coverage, viable candidates, etc. Money is the lifeblood of any campaign and therefore by definition any political party.

I only need point at 1992 when a maverick presidential candidate garnered 19% of the vote. Ross Perot did so because he was able to finance his own campaign and get out his message. And it did resonate. I postulate that had he not imploded, he stood a VERY good chance at winning the presidency in 1992...only 14 years ago.

If you were starting a political party from the ground up, how would you differentiate it from the existing major parties?

It would be so easy to point out the screw ups made by the other 2 parties that I would only need that to differentiate it. I mean how hard is it to say something like..."My party promises to NEVER spend $350 million on a bridge to nowhere".

Oh and I would attempt to push a consitutional ban on "withholding" as a means of americans paying taxes.

I’m not so sure, the right candidate at the right time could change this. Ross Perot received an enormous amount of attention by the media and I still believe that if he had been a touch less “peculiar” he would have been president.


I’d love to hear any specifics on this because if a party has solid legal council this isn’t an issue.


Must confess, years ago I wrote a “Third Party Manifesto” which still sits on a crashed hard drive (just how long ago, it was a 40mb hard drive). The writing focused on the key you mention here, however it’s also a dilemma. With or without some type of election reform that would allow candidates to purchase air time at a reduced rate a candidate must still raise money.

I would make it a party rule that a candidate can only take contributions from individuals and corporate donations must be made directly to the party. Then by rules of the party and an elected committee, they would decide how the money is allocated to their candidates. This could occur on a local, state and national level and would isolate the candidate from the corporate welfare you mention.

I think this would be attractive for voters and trust me, using this guideline if a third party ever started to gain momentum the corporations would get in line with check books in hand. The other half of this equation would be the establishment of lobbying committees: a group that sits between the special interests and the candidate. And it would be forbidden for a candidate or elected official to receive perks like dinners and free golfing trips to Scotland.


This could be a topic on it’s own because some money needs to be returned back to local districts. Here locally we’ve recently received funding for two new bridges (which is only about 20 years too late), a new VA hospital (much needed) and funding to start a circle of parks connected by biking paths (might be viewed as pork but considering the rounding of our citizens and the need for condensed living it’s probably a good idea). These projects would be next to impossible if the feds weren’t kicking in some cash.

The party would actively monitor and set criteria for the needs of constituents. But I hear you, just because a senator from Tennessee doesn’t need any bridges, hospitals, or highways doesn’t mean they should waste money so they can go back at election time and say “See, we now have an eighty six foot statue of Elvis”.

Because they don't attract enough votes. The other parties represent fringe interests and have not attracted the "center" of the population. What's interesting is the influence of the fringes on the major parties. The far left socialist/anti-globalist/isolationists have gravitated toward the democrats (and arguably taken them over) while a coalition of the libertarian and fundamentalist Christians have gone to the GOP.

If I were starting a "new" party, I would try to keep the legal profession as far away from it as practical. As it stands now, our government is of, for, and by the lawyers. It's an insider situation to a serious degree.

I would create some basic principles that were:

1. Based on the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I would respect ALL portions of the constitution, not just a select few and a warped view of the rest.

2. Ensuring that the judicial branch represents 1/3 of government power, not the 80-90% of today. This new party would only confirm judges who took a strict constructionist view of the constitution, understood and recognized "original intent" and was very conservative in their outlook when making ground breaking decisions.

3. Believed in a strong national defense including a proactive stance against threats when necessary.

4. Took our border situation seriously. Enforced immigration laws (they are largely ignored now) and put teeth in the border security situation.

5. Promoted free trade with nations only if they obeyed our intellectual property, patent, and copyright laws. If you want to sell your goods in this nation, you need to play by the rules of fairness. Otherwise, the free market model is destroyed (like it is now with China).

6. Promoted the privatization of non essential government functions (most everything other than defense and the base level of welfare). Privatize health care, education, public transportation, and long-term retirement benefits.

7. A tough stance against crime and criminals. The elimination of parole for violent criminals and sex offenders. Building more prisons if required and hiring more cops. Using honest citizens more. Empowering honest citizens to protect themselves, their families, and their property.

8. A pro-business, pro-investment stance with respect to taxes. Ending the situation which encourages the creation of off-shore businesses. Making the US the place where every business on earth wants to set up shop.

9. Putting lawyers back in their place. Their predatory nature combined with their insider status within our government has created an uncompetitive situation which drives up costs in every economic sector today. There are simply too much for the given market demand so they are forced to create markets. And that they do.

10. The elimination of all "race based" classifications in the USA. We would promise to lead the world in becoming a color-blind society and the first step would involve the elimination of all "official" classifications of human beings under an obsolete "racial" basis. Discrimination against people on the basis of "race" would be illegal and those laws enforced. Yet, government would not condone any officially sanctioned racism (like affirmative action).

11. Finally, moving the February Martin Luther King holiday to the Monday following the Superbowl. Many people miss that day anyway. Our nation's productivity could be increased if we make this common sense change to our calendars.

Why have other parties failed to gain a foot hold in mainstream politics?
Because the larger parties have more money to spend for one. The other being any third party with an actual name like the one I support is actually new if you will to peoples minds regardless of age, and well kind of unknown, and really the major parties for the most part carry all the issues on the minds of people in general regardless of any core philosophy that have. Most simply get the label independent, being that label is really not any form of a label in regards to place in territory, more or less its an empty label one might be able to associate with Ross Perot or Ralph Nader really if politics is something casual to you.



If you were starting a political party from the ground up, how would you differentiate it from the existing major parties?
Try to obtain more money and a strategy to stay in the scene on this money so overtime you become less of the independent and more of a party with a voice. I do agree with my party in that maybe starting out on a state or local level might be better then attempting to go federal right off the bat, more so when you probably do not have the bank accounts of say the republican party or the democratic party.

What if the feds weren't taking as much cash from your district to begin with? It all ultimately comes from the same place - the taxpayers. So it might as well be raised locally.

At most, I can see having state governments reallocate some funds, but apart from the VA hospital (which arguably falls within the federal domain), I don't see any need for Washington to get involved. They should just stop taking so much of our money.

Why have other parties failed to gain a foot hold in mainstream politics?

A true third party needs to take from the center. You are not going to get the right wing staunch Republicans and you are not going to get the staunch left wing Democrats. You have to appeal to the middle. Unfortunately there is no true middle. Everyone is either right or left of center. Some are just more right and more left. This means that you almost have to start big, other wise people won't want to vote for you because you will hurt their candidate.

By their candidate I mean that candidate of the two main parties they feel they would rather have in power. We have all heard the stories of how Perot helped Clinton win and how Nader helped Bush win. I think that Perot actually hurt future third party candidates.

Look at the right leaning centrists. We wouldn't want to vote for Nader if we felt it could help Kerry win. Similarly left leaning people are less likely to vote for Perot if they feel it would help Bush Sr. beat Clinton. To be a viable candidate it would have to be someone like Lieberman or McCain who broke away from their existing party and went independent

For example if McCain had taken his beating in the 2000 primary and said "This is not right I think I can still beat Bush and Gore both if the independent voters are taken into account" and had registered to run as an independent. That may be what it takes.

If you were starting a political party from the ground up, how would you differentiate it from the existing major parties?

I wouldn't try to differentiate them at first. Sort of.

For example, I currently live in Utah and previously in Idaho, both very conservative states. In both of these states the Democratic Party is actually relegated to a position of a third party in practice. You could argue that Democrats in these states actually function as liberal Republicans. They have actually taken the position that I would try to set up.

The Republican leadership of both Utah and Idaho are some of the most conservative Republicans you will find without hitting the fringe (and some may actually be there already).

Let's call my party the Centrist Party. I would try to attract those liberal Republicans that call themselves Democrats in these states. At the same time I would be going after those Conservative Democrats that call themselves Republicans in California, Oregon, etc. Members would be encouraged to vote for one of the "Big Two" in the Presidential election, and for Centrists in the local and state elections. The Centrist Party would not field a Presidential candidate until we had won a significant number of Senate/House seats.

This is because Third Parties work better on the local/state level than on the national level. Centrist Senators/Reps would be encouraged to vote with the "Big Two" partys as their states population leans on most issues. They would also be encouraged to "cross the line" when in their states best interest. There would be topics that they would be asked to toe the party line for. This means that the party would not spring full fledged from the womb but would lean more towards giving the people of each state a choice that isn't "that hated party" without having to vote for "idiots we only vote for because they aren't that hated party".

How many good local candidates only lost because the only thing the voters knew about them was the letter ( D ) or ( R ) by their name? How many idiots were elected because the state level party leadership liked them enough to make sure they got on the ballot as the ( R ) or ( D ) candidate regardless of how the voters actually felt.

Take Utah for example. When Governor Leavitt left office to take over the EPA he left the "token female" Lieutenant Governor Olene Walker as governor. She was pretty popular and did a very good job. However when the next election rolled around she was not even given the chance to defend her position but was put out to pasture by the Republican Party leadership.

Anyway, once the party started to gain popularity key "moderate" candidates such as McCain and Lieberman would be approached and asked to switch parties. They would not be jumping ship to the "other" party but to a more moderate party that their constituents already supported.

One thing you would have to do is stay away from the hot button topics. Topics like abortion would be ignored by the national party as much as possible. That is to say, when a vote came up regarding abortion, each candidate would be urged to vote as their state would have them, not as the party would have them. Less divisive topics such as defence may have a national party position but those divisive ones would be avoided as much as possible.

Why have other parties failed to gain a foot hold in mainstream politics?

Money and the feeling that 3rd parties will always lose anyway. People are mentally caged-in when it comes to 3rd parties. People assume they must vote one of the two parties.

Also, grass roots politics is very limited in the US. Most people are not even involved in the process. Even people who vote rarely do anything for their candidates or affiliate strongly with a party. If we had more grass roots participation there would be more parties.

Also, I think that it takes a severe situation for people to become politically active. If most people think the status quo is acceptable or good, then they're just going to vote or they may not vote at all. And throw in that many households have both parents working, people don't have the time to be politically active.

If you were starting a political party from the ground up, how would you differentiate it from the existing major parties?

I would move toward the center. I would purposely avoid issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. and stick to issues that most Americans agree on, not the fringes.

I would caution, however, that the "middle" among U.S. politicians does not necessarily always correspond to the "middle" of American public opinion. For example, I'm pretty sure that most Americans would much prefer that all reasonable attempts to secure the border against illegal immigration be made before any legislation is passed that would provide legal status to illegals here, lest the granting of such legal status serve as a magnet for more illegal immigration and make it harder to get the border under control, the way it happened with the 1986 legalization. Yet most politicians in Washington, including the President, won't hear of it. They're absolutely adamant that legalization proceed as soon as possible.

I think Blakstone indirectly hits the problem on the head. The two party system is based on position on the politcal spectrum rather than on issues. If you are basing it on left .vs. right then the current division into two halves makes sense, and if you start carving sections out of it then why stop at just one more?. Also, this would garantee that no one party could ever have a clear majority, which is debatable whether its a good or bad thing.

In most countries that have multi-party systems the parties are based on issues or represent particular population groups and may overlap as far as position on the political swing-o-meter. That works fine in parliamentary systems where they can form alliances to create ad-hoc majorities but I'm not sure that culturally it would work here, do we want the pro-life party or the "America for Americans" party or the Hispanic party?.

Why have other parties failed to gain a foot hold in mainstream politics?

We don't have preferential voting, and without it voting third is self defeating.

If you were starting a political party from the ground up, how would you differentiate it from the existing major parties?

My beliefs don't really differ substantially from those of the democratic party.

Why have other parties failed to gain a foot hold in mainstream politics?

Most people are already affiliated with one of the 2 major parties and are not looking to change parties, especially a new 3rd party unless they feel that their vote will not be wasted. It would also be 2 on 1 as both major parties would gang up on the 3rd party.

If you were starting a political party from the ground up, how would you differentiate it from the existing major parties?

If a significant number of moderate Democrats and Republican Senators, Congressmen, and others was to form a 3rd party, then America would take it seriously and the other 2 major parties could be left only with the extremist in their party. It could make for some interesting dynamics

What I think is interesting is that the republicans in the Pennsylvania Senate race 06 are funding third party candidates.
Republicans FUNDING the Green party?
They have realised that Santorum will not win so they are trying to steal votes away from Casey(D) by getting the green party out there more.

How scandalous.

However, it is a shame that the third party candidates aren't more recognized.

If it's a problem that third parties aren't being more recognized, how is it scandalous that someone's funding them? It's the voters who ultimately decide whether or not to vote for them. Perhaps the Democrats should do the same with the Libertarian and Constitution Parties.

Edited to add:

And it's bizarre that you're referring to the Green Party as "stealing" votes from the Democrats, as if the Democrats are somehow rightfully owed those votes.

They must believe that it is still in range and hope to shave off the needed votes to keep their boy in office.
Politics is no place for the faint of heart. Its a known that Greens can take key votes from Dems.
Depending on the race its always a good idea strategically to cut your opponents achilles heel. Lots of people still blame Nader for Bush.
Many on the right blame Perot for Clinton.

This is why 3rd parties face an almost vertical uphill battle.
Most often 3rd party attempts are nothing more than upset purists from within a party. They are not original enough to attract the necessary attention beyond that of a novelty or ever build the needed momentum--Perot gained the spotlight because so many on the Right were flat out disgusted by the GOP.
They rarely offer enough vision or excitement to make party voters walk away from their party because their party is still better than the other. If they fail to vote the party line you may end up with your ideal or fallback candidate just short of victory by the votes taken by the 3rd party candidate and so have given victory to the Bush/Clinton of your fears.
Until a party appears offering radically different political thought and ideas, or something truly causes a complete walk away of both parties moderates from their hysterical fringes
along with the financial support needed to win elections--you will have a 2 party system with philosophical remoras along for the ride.

right. I agree with your statements completely.

Why have other parties failed to gain a foot hold in mainstream politics?

Because the two party system is so embedded in our system, and because that has allowed the two main parties to get so big that it is difficult to compete with them. A third party loses a lot of critical votes to the 'they can't win' syndrome...people who might otherwise agree with their stance, but feel that a vote for them would be 'wasted'.

If you were starting a political party from the ground up, how would you differentiate it from the existing major parties?

First, I would focus it strongly on fiscal sanity. Neither current party can lay any claim whatsoever to that. This would include an eventual plan for repaying the national debt, which is a huge hindrance on governmental ability to address other issues, a large security risk, and a large fiscal risk should interest rates rise significantly anytime.

Second, I would focus it strongly on creating economic growth. The more money the economy is generated, the more revenue the government will gain from taxed.

Third, I would focus on actually having government do things, as opposed to merely trying to score political points.

Fourth, I would require that any and all programs demonstrate their efficiency and achievement of their goals, and such goals would need to be included in their funding requests in measurable fashion.

Fifth, I would stress taking personal responsibility for ones actions and results. "It's not what your country can do for you, it's what you can do for yourself."

Of the ever ending array of political parties in the united states and still nothing changes would attest to the fact that adding parties does nothing but add more of nothingness

it is the peoples will that must be made to be obeyed by their servants and not the addition of a third mainstream party

to this end solutions like signing afadavits @sic@ before being supported is one avenue of approach another would be to pass laws that will ban all lobbyists and other measures of this nature can and should be used
referendum is another


you make the congress hopefull sign the affidavit and then have regular referendums on the issues
these measures are needed in order to clean up politics and make them understand that it is not they the power but it is the people that are the power
they are merely our sevants to carry out our wishes

just installing these few changes to congress would allow for a complete overhaul of politics
as for the Senate they wouldnt dare go against the will of the people and if they did they had better explain themselves in a fashion we could all understand and agree with
because if not ,then they would be subject to dismisal on the grounds of being unpatriotic this would leave the senate largely redundant that is the cost when the govt is so corrupt that special measures as I have outlined are needed
as for the executive it would function as is with one aspect being removed he would no longer be able to
black mail congress into a gross neglect of their duties
the proof that these measures work is Canada among many other countries
and the proof that the current govt is corupt the FBI has to triple its work force to either take care of the crimes or make sure that the govt is spied on for further blackmail the jury is still out on that one
FBi having to triple their manpower in washington capitol corruption case overload
it's high time that the people have their say instead of looking at the govt our servants as the elite
and our masters which most people tend to do these days it is high time that we take back what is and always was ours but some how was lost or stolen from us
it isnt enough to be born into a republican or democrat family and to be locked into that ideology for the rest of our lives that paradigm is one that says look at me im as dumb as a door mat

Because the game is fixed and the results are rigged. Democrats and Republicans differ on certain issues but at the end of the day they are both equally beholden to their vested interest groups. Corporate America doesn't really care if there's a "D" or a "R" behind Candidate X or Candidate Y's last name. All they care about is will they maintain the status quo and not screw with their profit margins. As long as the two major parties spend more time talking about what screw-ups the other guy is they allow us the illusion that something systemic is going to change when in reality very little does. The rich stay rich. The poor stays poor. Everybody else aspires to be wealthy and treads water to avoid being poor and ends up stuck in a nether world where you can't win, break even or get out of the game.

If you were starting a political party from the ground up, how would you differentiate it from the existing major parties?

I understand the preference for middle-of-the-road, moderate views, but I believe you need big ideas and bold leadership. Tinkering around the edges doesn't get it done.

1. A serious analysis and reimagning of the national defense. Is the Pentagon ready to fight the next war or still working on models based on the Cold War? Are the billions being poured into defense spending making us more secure or perpetuating an illusion of safety. A missle defense system is a fanciful notion but it would have been useless on September 11, 2001 even if it had been in place and actually worked. We need to be smart and practical, not sexy and stylish.

2. National health care. Now. If guaranteed health care is good enough for Congress it's good enough for the rest of us. Nobody should have to hold bake sales and car washes to raise money for a needed surgery. The health of the American people is too important to leave it up to insurance companies, HMO's and Pfizer.

3. A real war on terror and one that punishes our enemies and rewards our friends. The United States should be respectful of other nations, but if a country like Pakistan allows terrorists safe haven in their borders, they should pay an economic penalty for doing so. It's all about a system of carrots and sticks. Right now, I don't know if terrorists and terror states really expect much more than macho talk and little action from the U.S.

4. Reform Congress and the whole electorial system. America needs more choices, not less and it's time to break the Democrat/Republican hammerlock on politics. Politicians should not be allowed to gerrymander themselves into safe districts where they never face serious challenges. Get rid of 527 groups, corporate AND labor group funding of candidates. Limit and restrict the influence of lobbyists. Set up public financing of campaigns and a ceiling on how much it takes to run for political office. Shorten the time between primaries and general elections. We're not getting the best politicians money can buy.

5. Preserve, protect and defend the environment. There is no other planet we can run to. We'd better take good care of the only one we've got.

There's a lot more items on the agenda, but that's what I'd call a good start for The America Renewal Party.

Wow, that's gonna be a hard one to follow...Well put Nighttimer.


As Nighttimer said, the Dems and Republicans can agree on one thing...keep the fight between them. 3rd Party candidates are never in Gubernatorial or Senatorial or any other kind of debates, you never see a prominent libertarian or Green Party activist on TV even if they're actually a member of one of the two parties [Ron Paul...most people don't know he exists]. The media does NOT allow third parties to break in to the political arena, and until the media allows third parties to address the American people, the American people will continue to be a stuck in a two-party system.


Very easily.

1. As Nighttimer said, universal healthcare, Massachusetts style. Goverment subsidies for insurance companies in exchange for lower prices for the uninsured poor.

2. Civil liberties...real civil liberties, no legislation of morality, because frankly, I don't care what YOU think is right or wrong.

3. Campaign Finance Reform...spare me the freedom of speech...speach, corruption=corruption.

4. War on Terror, not on freedom...Trials for suspects, not toture.

CP