On Sunday, Tom Friedman wrote a column that continues to ripple through the blogosphere. He called for a third party to upend the current stagnation of Washington.
But in talks here and elsewhere I continue to be astounded by the level of disgust with Washington, D.C., and our two-party system — so much so that I am ready to hazard a prediction: Barring a transformation of the Democratic and Republican Parties, there is going to be a serious third party candidate in 2012, with a serious political movement behind him or her — one definitely big enough to impact the election’s outcome.
Critics of Friedman's column have doubted whether any politician can change the dynamics in DC or questioned whether there is actually a radical center in the United States. Let me just add a very boring, Political Science professor-type of critique.
Our electoral system makes it impossible for a third party to co-exist with the current two parties. Our winner-take-all system results in two parties. That's it. It's possible for a third party to get a little traction, but then those parties typically get swallowed up by one of the other parties. That's just how it works.
I understand Friedman's frustration with DC and the incremental changes that it produces, but any prediction of the rise of a radical new third party makes him look like a dumbass.
Apt. 11d 
The winner-take-all system only requires two parties competing it a given district. A third party could compete with the Democrats in some regions and the Republicans in others. This hasn’t happened in the U.S., but it is seen in Canada and India.
Of course, nobody actually sets out to support a third party. They want a majority party. Nearly everybody pushing a third party expects to kill one or both of the existing national parties.
LikeLike
The pundits predicting the rise of third parties always seem to want it to replace The Other party. No one who’s a Democrat seems to predict the demise of the Democratic Party, and likewise, no Republican scribe predicts the demise of the Republican Party.
There’s also the Loon Factor. All the Libertarian or other party candidates I’ve seen in our state have been out and out Loons. While our state parties seem to choose to nominate the stodgy, incompetent or corrupt for state office, they do seem to filter out the nuts–if only because they don’t want to be required to work with them.
LikeLike
But, you are right that you can ignore anybody who says they are starting a third party. Starting in a political party is not an endeavor for the modest. If you actually start one, you need to be on the alert. Anybody says “Third Party” in your hearing, you need to jump down their throat, say you are creating a majority party, and accuse them of being in league with Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner.
LikeLike
I think Laura could expound further — Canada, India, and UK are different because of their parliamentary systems. Third parties can gain power through shifting the balance of power (and it’s a lot of power, including the ability to bring down the government, including the executive). I think it’s conceivable that a 3rd party candidate could wield a bit of influence that way in our Congress/Senate, but not really, since they can do that without being a 3rd party candidate. They can just be a “blue dog Democrat” (do we still have those, or have they all been replaced with actual Republicans) or a “woman from Maine.”
But, someone with more knowledge about political structures in those countries should fill me in on details.
LikeLike
Well, the Reeps ate the Whigs in the 1850s, right? I agree that a 3rd party is not a stable situation, but an existing party could be brought down by a surging 3rd party.
As well, it now looks sort of like the Tea Party will take over the Reeps from within – think about the Sigourney Weaver/Ellen Ripley character in Alien?
LikeLike
There’s apparently actual math that proves that having more than two parties is worse than having just two. I don’t understand it, but that’s what they say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem
LikeLike
Well, Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem is not really a discussion of the value of political party systems, but rather focusing a problem for any system that uses votes to bring about preferred outcomes. As a result, it pretty much operates in any sort of electoral politics, be it a two party or multiple party system.
For what it’s worth, the UK has a similar system to ours (single member district) and has a 3rd party that, while not a majority party, had the deciding position to choose the UK ruling party/prime minister last election.
And most democracy scholars prefer multiple party system, despite the difficulties of achieving policy outcomes that reflect everyone’s best choices – in part because of the processes involved in the compromise/coalition building activity (and despite the problem of coalition instability).
LikeLike
First-past-the-post, which Everyone Knew(tm) produced two-party systems and clear majorities, left parliaments in London, Ottawa, Canada, Wellington and New Delhi well and truly hung after each of their last elections. The Lib-Con coalition in the UK seems relatively stable, despite its being the first peacetime UK coalition government in quite a long time (overlooking the Ulster Unioninst parties, as one does).
Over on the PR side of the aisle, Germany is providing an interesting series of experiments in whether stable coalitions are possible with five effective parties in parliament, especially if one is anathematized by its most likely partner.
As for the US, I’m more entertained by MH’s proposition that 2012 could be a good year for a kooky billionaire candidate. I still think that Obama is going to wipe the floor with whoever the Rs put up, but someone coming in from left field would keep both parties more on their toes. (Two of the basic ways that third parties fail in the US are disinterest in lower-level jobs (see Reform in the 1990s, esp with Jesse Ventura in MN) and a tendency toward fragmentation (see Reform in the 1990s).)
LikeLike
“I still think that Obama is going to wipe the floor with whoever the Rs put up…”
Only if the Republicans come on very strong in Congress and Obama is able to pull off some sort of Clinton-in-the-90s triangulation. That’s possible, but I don’t think Obama has the personality or the skill to manage it. Also, whatever US unemployment was in 1996, it’s almost certainly going to be much higher than that in 2012.
Our previous two presidents got two terms, as did Reagan, but there have been several recent one-termers (Bush I, Carter, Ford). I suppose it all depends on who the Republican nominee is.
LikeLike
If I had to bet, I’d go with Obama winning in 2012 also. I don’t think the Republicans go rally toward anything or anyone (as opposed to against something).
(Also, did I say that 2012 could be a good year for a kooky billionaire? I would probably vote for one, but I’d prefer someobdy willing to put down a foundation.)
LikeLike
It is hard for me to imagine Palin winning, or Huckabee. If nominated, I think Daniels or Pawlenty could win, depends on current events. Romney I think would not, though he has all the right blanks checked on his resume.
LikeLike
Well, the exact description was “semi-delusional with pie charts,” but that’s not too far off from “kooky.”
But what issues would draw such a person? I can see tax simplification and immigration as big issues that are presently going unaddressed, but the sensationalist side of those is not the side that generally benefits billionaires, kooky or otherwise. Another downside is that the kind of personality you need to become a billionaire is generally too imperious to put up with democratic campaigning. So probably no entertainment there.
On the other hand, it would be very amusing to see whether the half-term governor from Alaska could rack up fewer electoral votes than Fritz Mondale. Crazification Theory says no, but I’m not completely convinced.
LikeLike
Maybe this weekend I’ll watch Predator and see if there are more likely candidates there.
LikeLike
Apparently, today’s wacky billionaire goes for a different type of self-aggrandizement.
LikeLike
Don’t see Obama as a second termer. I think it was an interesting experiment, electing a president based on anti-Bush platform and emotions around the racial component, but it hasn’t really worked out. I’m sorta embarrassed for the country, and me, since I have to admit I voted for him. I personally like to see 3rd parties..it let’s us know our system is alive and well. But their really hasn’t been any viable candidates, as some of the above posters mentioned. Just distractions really. Palin won’t run, she can do more damage from th sideline where she can say what she wants. I would imagine Obama jettisons Biden and picks up Hillary…makes sense…since Hillary would win in a head-to-head…makes some sense to keep you potential opposition close. Set her up for a 2016 where she would surely win unless we keep going down this path. Hard to say, citizens are angry. I do wish 3rd party candidates had more credibility….its seems they always attract the strange people.
LikeLike
Texas, I am entertaining bets that Obama will be re-elected in case you are interested.
LikeLike
I was entertaining pets, but the government said I can’t run a kennel on a residential street.
But, despite not paying attention to the plight of the small, illegal businessman, I think Obama is going to win in 2012. The Republicans won’t be able to nominate and stand united behind somebody. The party is too divided now and is going to wind up nominating Romney, who will be the John Kerry of the Republican Party (i.e. picked because he can win but too horribly dull to elect).
LikeLike