This site backs up puddlegum’s and my recollection that Fillmore was nominated by the Whig Party.
[QUOTE]
1856. Nominated for president by the Whig Party and the American (Know-Nothing) Party.
[QUOTE]
I don’t think it’s really fair to discount the Whigs just because they had “fallen apart”. The Democrats fell apart four years later but that didn’t stop them from being a major party.
If the Republicans did not constitute a third party, I don’t know what does. Sure, they had ex-major party supporters from the Whig and Democratic Parties, just as all third parties do. I guess you could define the Republicans as a major party in 1856-60 because they came in among the top two in each election, but that is just a tautology. If you define “third party” as being the party that comes in third, then obviously it is doomed and the question isn’t worth asking. The question is, has a movement formed outside the two major parties ever become a major electoral force? Unless the Whig Party changed its name to the “Republican Party” at some point in history, the answer is Yes.
I was in a grumpy mood too and in typical fashion my response was more over the top than it needed to be. But I’ve written “I will not post after a bad day at work.” 200 hundred times on the blackboard and I’m doing much better now.
You are correct in that I should have an obligation to learn about anything given the chance. So I’ll start learning about Libertarianism. I’ll warn you that on my path to knowledge I will probably question some base beliefs of the the party. Beliefs that you may have held for so long that they may have become for you almost self-evident. I intend no insult. Keep in my mind that I may just misunderstand or perhaps I may disagree.
Do state governments really know best? Do the folks in Columbus, Ohio really know what I need as I sit here one hundred and fifty miles away? Well, better than the Feds you say. Perhaps. But State capitals tend to be isolated from their rural constituents as well and are every bit as guilty of catering to corporations more than the people. If we really want a local government that is in a position to understand the needs of its people, lets go to the county level. They know how many potholes I have on my street. They know if the sewer system needs rework. They pick up my trash. They salt the roads in the winter so I can get to work. For me, they are government in action. So lets get rid of the states entirely. Think of it. Fifty governments of bureaucracy, red tape, and regulations gone. How many forests would we save from the reduction in paperwork alone? The Feds can collect taxes and distribute it based on populations to the counties who can then use it as needed. And it’s easier to flee the tyranny of a county than that of a state.
In the Libertarian plan, as I understand it which at this is admitedly limited, I don’t really see states sharing revenue. They have no incentive to do so. In the event of a disaster I can see such sharing but otherwise Ohio isn’t going to help Kentucky with its school funding.
Charities are already working full force to try and help the poor. I don’t see how we can realistically shift even more of the burden to them.
The amount of competition between states for services would be limited at best. Sure if it gets really bad I can pick up and move to another state with a better health plan. But I have friends, family, and a job here. I’d rather not have to move. And I am fortunate enough to have job skills that would allow me to move to a competing state if I so chose. Not everyone is so fortunate. States that do serve the people well can realistically only take so many folks in from other states before the cost of living in the beneficial state rise to a level that offsets the benefit.
What are the gun laws in California? Just curious.
I understand your point. My orginal thought was that it’s easier to change one government than fifty. But not all fifty governments are going to need changing. At some level the federal government reflects the will of the majority. If you are in the minority of opinion nationally it sure is nice for you and your fellow Americans of the same mind to gather in a state where you are the majority.
Pardons for the goofy editing in my last post. The huge “extended quote” at the end of my post is not a quote at all; it’s original stuff I just wrote. Bad Boris! Bad Boris!
A true third party would have to be significantly different from the major parties, but that woulmean they would also have ot be sufficiently “radical” in their thinking. And that is the real reason a third party would not exist in this political climate. Things simply are not that bad and folks do not want anyone who is going to be too much of an activist.
You may have a different opinion on how “bad” things are, but for most it is not a matter of being stupid or manipulated or simply uninformed, but the reality that things are not “bad” enough to want a radical departure from the status quo.
The reason third parties do not succeed in America is the voting system. America follows a “first past the post” electoral system. To wit - the candidate with the highest plurality wins all. This system is strengthened in the presidential vote as, except in Maine and Kansas (?), the plurality candidate in each state wins all of that state’s electoral votes. Thus, even if Ralph Nader wins 25% of the vote, unless there is a very bizarre distribution of his support, he wins nothing. The same goes for third party candidates for lesser office.
What this means is that third parties can’t build up. If, in one election, the candidates of a third party take on average 5% of the vote, none of their candidates will be elected. Because none are elected, none get the benefits of incumbency, and can’t lend their support to future candidates from their party.
Finally, the all-or-nothing electoral system leads to the “wasted vote” syndrome. Voters may support a third party candidate, but will fear that, because he/she can’t win, their vote will be wasted, and worse, the candidate they really hate will be elected because the voter didn’t vote for the 2nd best (major party) candidate. Hence the “a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush” theme we hear much of today.
How can third parties become viable? We would have to change the voting system. The obvious alternative is proportional representation (which only works for legislatures, not executives). Possible alternatives for executive voting include “approval voting”, which is discussed along with other systems (in a stripped down, but accurate manner) in this month’s Discover magazine.
'Course, any change to elections for Congress would require a constitutional amendment, which, given that Congress would have to approve it, is extremely unlikely. It can be argued that changing the way we elect the President, so long as we keep the Electoral College in some capacity, would not require an amendment, but I don’t see it happening soon, either.
I have just seen several Libertarian commercials over the weekend, they feature Harry Browne talking up drug legalization. Nothing about any other issue. The LP is the party of drug legalization. I do not deny that many are in the party because of its Chinese Menu approach to the issues but the issue it is most passionate about is drug legalization.
In 1856, according to MSN’s Encarta, Millard Fillmore ran under the aegis of the “American Party,” a coalition of the Know-Nothings (who were formally the American Party) and the “Silver Grey Whigs” (which I’ve always understood to remain the Whig loyalists who didn’t go Republican in and after 1854). This would support my interpretation posted above – he ran as a Know-Nothing, with perhaps some Whig support. Interestingly, he did win Maryland’s electoral votes in the election, and about 875,000 popular votes.
According to “Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to U.S. Elections” (Seconf ed.; 1985, p. 44)
“On the verge of extinction, the Whig Party held its last national convention in September 1856. Delegates assembled in Baltimore from 21 states and endorsed the Know-Nothing ticket of Fillmore and Donaldson. However, the Whigs adopted their own platform.” (my emphasis added)
Thus, the Whig Party was still officially in existence during the 1856 campaign, and institutionally distinct from the American (Know-Nothing Party).
Just some background information on the Libertarian bid for our presidential candidate. I am the county coordinator for his campaign locally.
Anyhow, the Libertarians refused to accept any federal monies for the campaign. All monies used in Browne/Olivier are brought to the party and the campaign via private contributions.
With that in mind producing and funding major network commercials is an expensive proposition. Since they refuse goverment money they are also limited in what they can and can not show about our party.
Browne and Olivier took a stance on this issue even though they are just as much allowed federal dollars as the next campaign. It goes against the Libertarian Party’s platform to accept such funding.
Using the drug legalization as a center point takes the unfairness of throwing a non-violent person into federal prison because he/she was in a drug transaction. Non-violent offenders should not be in prison as drug use and selling is not against the rights of another. People want drugs, they will use it. The feds have made millions of dollars in this “drug war” and has perpetuated a drug epidemic. It’s an outrageous example of federal laws gone amok.
Oh and on a side note: Browne is scheduled be on Nightline tonight if anyone wants to hear him speak.
This is a perfect example of why the LP will never amount to anything. They waste all of their precious money on an ad campaign about drug legalization. This is an issue that no one cares about. Take a survey about what issues are important to Americans and how many people would answer drug legalization? What are these people smoking that they think drug legalization is the issue to take them to victory? The question answers itself.
You are right. The LP has so much more going for it that the drug issue should be shelved (not abandoned) so that the LP can go with the rest of the country’s thought stream on current issues and present the LP’s side.
It will take LOADS of public education about the economics of the supply side of the War on Drugs before the issue of decriminalization can be brought to better light. Far more costly than the LP’s budget, anyway.
If you base a party on one commercial you are no better off than millions of voters that don’t get involved, who blindly vote based on a 30 second spot. Is that how you base your decision with regards to your party?
Commercials are how a party presents itself and are an example of what the party wants you to know about it. This is what they spent their precious time and money on, I think it reflects what their priorities as a party on. It is not like they have money to burn on minor issues.