It also encourages strong regional parties, in jurisdictions where regionalism is a feature of the polity. Of course, that goes contrary to what we normally see on the SDMB about Duverger’s “law” being the explanation for the US duopoly.
We already have a third party. Actually we have a lot of them, most prominently Libertarian and Green. Neither is Centrist. Furthermore, The Commision on Presidential Debates sets a very high standard, effectively excluding them.
Libertarian is probably the closest thing to centrist in terms of combining ideas from both major parties instead of being further to the left or right of them. They’re on a different axis. True centrists of course are not nearly as extreme in their beliefs as the current Libertarian Party, but the only reason the LP is so extreme right now is that people tend to gravitate to one of the major parties if they’re at all similar. If there was a big schism of the Republicans and the more socially liberal of them went and joined the Libertarians and got them to moderate their views somewhat, I suspect there might be some people that lean Democrat right now would say goodbye to the party that caters to the far-left and welcome the Libertarians as the next major party. I know for sure that there is at least one; I currently only vote Democrat for important, close races, to do my part in helping prevent anti-science party from implementing more of their agenda. If a pro-science mass-market Libertarian party were to form that had a real chance, I’d ditch the Democrats in a heartbeat.
That’s nonsense. There’s no such thing as a party in the US that caters to the “far-left”. This country hasn’t seen a viable far-left serious candidate for ANTHING since Eugene V. Debs.
That the most vocals portions of the both parties is currently the focus and the optics, is a problem.
Both parties are drifting more and more towards each end, if that trend continues then I could see a central party being formed.
When someone says ‘third party’ in this context, they mean a viable third party that wins elections and has significant popular support. Libertarians and Greens are only good for a protest vote, they don’t have significant appeal or following, and whenever they do get press they tend to turn away voters - antics like “What’s Aleppo” in the 2016 election don’t exactly get them more votes.
The Commission on Presidential Debates sets a standard that includes ‘people who actually have a chance at winning the presidential election’. The fact that Libertarians continually whine and occasionally file lawsuits about the fact that they’re not taken seriously instead of doing something to actually be taken seriously says a lot about them.
While I would agree that there is a fair amount of drift towards the left in a fair amount of the populace, Democrats included, I would disagree entirely that it has pulled policy in that direction by very much at all, unlike the black hole like drag that has pulled the Republicans further and further to the right.
The Democrats are already pretty right of center. A third party would most likely spring up to respond to progressives that do not feel as though the Democrats represent them, leaving the current Democratic party to stay center right, and pick up moderates that flee the fascism and racism of the far right that the Republican party has chosen to represent.
To be taken seriously, they need to start down ballot. If they pick up seats in local and state positions, then they can be considered to be serious contenders for a presidential bid.
Instead they just go for pie in the sky, and complain that it’s out of reach.
It doesn’t really matter what you call them. The fact that the optics of both parties seem to be that they are starting to pander left and right respectively (regardless of actually accomplishing those goals) is bad optics. If that trend continues, why wouldn’t those who more identify centrist break off, or stay (depending how you view it) If the Democrats stay central, or some other party fills that role and the Democrats are seen to be moving left doesn’t really matter. What matters is where the populace goes. The Republicans are certainly trending right (at least that’s what the eyeball test, and reporting tells you)
If the populace trends left, then the Democrats will likely stay in the Democratic party and slide left. If the current iteration of the Republicans slide right, that opens up the middle.
Reading your post is almost like its an automatic defense mechanism to defend your party instead of addressing the actual possibility that it may be true?
Agreed. The tea party and the Green (New Deal) democrats have both started doing that though
[quote=“k9bfriender, post:128, topic:921355, full:true”]
I agree that’s the best route for them, but it’s not absolutely required - Perot in 1992 jumped straight for a run for President, and managed to be a serious contender. The Presidential Debate Commission did invite him, and both parties had to take him seriously, at least until he sort-of dropped out. Even after Perot completely wrecked his 1992 campaign, he managed to get twice the number of votes in his 1996 campaign that the Libertarians have gotten in any presidential run (around 8 million vs around 4 million), despite the advantage that the Libertarian’s record-setting year was two decades of population growth later.
This doesn’t mean it’s the best route, but it is possible.
No, it’s actually disappointment that, with as much of the populace that is to the left of the Democratic party, they have not shifted their policies in that direction much, if at all.
There isn’t anywhere for them to really go. They want to keep as much of a voting block that they can since there is only 2 viable parties, currently, so they can safely stay central while pandering to the further extremes.
Americans talking about left wing parties is adorable.
Here is a list of 233 current Libertarian officeholders. AFAIK the highest ever were three elected to the Alaska House of Representatives,
This. This is why I consider myself a radical centrist. I am &@%ing PISSED that the argument is defined by the far left vs. the far right, when the majority of people are in the middle. This is all a direct result of Newt Gingrich’s Contract On With America - compromise has become a dirty word. Yeah, it’s slimy when congress is full of “if you back my bill, I’ll back yours”, but it better represented the actual will of the people.
Agree 100%.
Both sides are arguing over these tiny positions and not even trying to find common ground. It has become about exercising power – not serving the people.
Oh, it’s a total trip.
Yes, but too often centrists just don’t show up to dominate primaries. At best you’d see them splitting their vote between multiple also-rans while the “ïnteresting” candidates grab the headlines and the top spots.
Like universal health care, additional free years of continuing education, moderate election reform and an increase in tax rates on the rich? Totes marxist, my Euro friends, and we can’t understand why your countries are outperforming us.
You are talking about the same party that advocates letting children run around waving loaded handguns.