One of the more interesting blogs that I like to keep up on is the third party watch. Among the more notable stories about the election:

Third party Alaskan gubernatorial candidate polling at 7%.

Vermont Libertarians lose ballot spots.

Former Wisconsin LP chair facing charges.

American Reform Party no longer wants to be known as a party.


In previous years, third parties thrived from a "throw the bum's out" anti-incumbency mood. Perceived economic or social problems also did well for them in '68 and '92. The republican revolution has obviously peaked and who knows what the future trend will be?.

Questions for debate:

1.)Is this a good or bad election year for third parties and their candidates?

2.)What trends will '06 prove in coming years to be for third parties?(i.e.-irrelevancy or a resurgence?)

3.)What '06 issues will best serve third party interests in '08 and subsequent elections?

Well, define good. A good year for Libertarians is having national candidates finish with around 10% of the vote and maybe a few wins for dogcatcher in Cheyenne, Wyoming. So in that respect, it will be a good year. I think what will make it a better year for third parties [and by proxy, this country] is that we will most likely have a Libertarian in the House. Bob Smithers, as many of you know, is running in Tom Delay's district for Representative and is doing well. So it'll be a decent year, but not as good as it should be.


It won't prove anything, Democrats will start gaining more power, then, after a few years of incompetancy, America will get tired of them, vote the Republicans back in, then, after a few years of incompetancy, America will get tired of them, vote the Democrats back in, then after a few years, America will get tired of them and vote the Republicans back in, then eventually I'll die. [What can I say, I'm just you're typical college idealist ]

They aren't Republicans or Democrats. They haven't spent the last 100 years knee deep in corruption and they aren't Washington insiders. If nothing else they're something different, that in and of itself would be a decent reason to vote third party, in my opinion.

CP

Thanks for mentioning Smithers, for some reason, I had no idea that he was on the verge of being elected. Having one or two independents in the house helps, and I believe that Smithers would be a great example for other libertarians to aspire to, as well as to help recruit future candidates. A "See, you could do it too" model would be effective. It doesn't work so well when all you can bring do is bring in the newly elected Cheyenne, Wyo. dogcatcher.



Other than a few notable examples, I believe it's fair to say that your comment is very accurate. The third party function is to deliver grass-root wants to the other two parties, who then quickly co-opt them to stay on top. I think Ron Paul saw the writing on the wall and has made a wise choice in choosing to bring his message into the house via the GOP. He gave up running for president continuously, but his message now has an avenue of being applied to a degree.



That is a very intriguing reason. From time to time, I do occassionally find myself checking out their sites and after about five minutes of of being an ideological idealist, I wake up and realize that their views will never take place.(i.e.-government size returning to what it was in 1789. )

FYI- Andrew Halcro is a former Republican lawmaker with enormous name recognition in the state- Palin is the former Wassilla mayor, who, because she is on the republican ticket, will probably win, even though Knowles is head and shoulders a better qualified and competant and respected person. Our state is just that stupid when it comes to voting - I have nothing against Palin personally- but her only real job has been the mayor of a very, very small town. She really hasn't done anything of note in her entire life- EXCEPT- for one shining moment- she went against her own party's governer over ethics issues- which proves she is a fairly moral person.

So no libertarians of note winning anything in my state.

In my debates on the libertarian threads- this is the battle I have within m y own party- ideology vs pragmatic reality. the reason third parties are going to do WORSE this year, IMHO- is that the country wants RESULTS NOT blind ideology that we have seen from the conservative camp since Regean.

I think the libertarian party would do quite well if it modified a small portion of it's platform, and took incremental steps for some items etc. Take drug legaliztion-I am all for it. However- this is a hard sell on the American public. So soften the stance a tad. Start with de-criminalizing Mary Jane- in districts and areas that are amenable to this idea.

Also- take health care. A really, complex, tough issue, that sloganizing and using unproven ideology on a wholesale scale would be a disaster. So, Perhaps, reforming the FDA and making the AMA illegal wouild be the first step.

But most third party candidates are too stuck in ideology to actually GET elected

1.)Is this a good or bad election year for third parties and their candidates?

I doubt it will be a spectacular one. For one thing, third parties tend to get more notice in presidential elections, because, well, presidential elections themselves tend to get more notice. Secondly, the war in Iraq has really polarized the country hard. Third parties always face the disadvantage that voters don't want to risk swinging the election to the other side, but that's especially true when an issue as provocative as this dominates. Nobody is willing to give an inch to the other side.

2.)What trends will '06 prove in coming years to be for third parties?(i.e.-irrelevancy or a resurgence?)

I don't think it will have much of an impact one way or the other. Each election is different, and there are always going to be different ingredients thrown into the mix to give things a different result.

3.)What '06 issues will best serve third party interests in '08 and subsequent elections?

Immigration, without a doubt. The people have made it very clear that they want enforcement first, before any further "reform" of our immigration laws. The politicians of both parties have been united in their determined resolve to completely ignore the will of the people on this. Jim Gilchrist polled an impressive 25% of the vote as standard-bearer for the American Independent Party in last year's special election for Christopher Cox's vacated seat (nearly beating out the Democrat). His main platform was to return some sanity to our immigration policies.



No political party that could possibly claim to respect the Constitution, least of all the Libertarian Party, would ever advocate making a private organization illegal. Investigating and removing whatever improper influence it may have on government, on the other hand, is perfectly kosher. And there's no need to limit it to that one union, either.