Lawson_Raider
April 27th, 2009, 5:14 pm
Not since 1853, when the presidency of Millard Fillmore ended, have we had a President who has not been a Democrat or Republican. That is 156 years of two party dominance of the White House. Millard Fillmore was a Whig.
Duverger's law explains the tendency of a plurality-centered electoral system for a two party system of election.
Since President Fillmore, the Democrats and Republicans have established themselves as the major two parties in accordance with the principles of Duverger's law.
There are several third parties that exist today all of which try to establish themselves on the ballots in each state. Currently, their current ability is only to frustrate the major two parties by siphoning votes from them to the point that it could cause the opposite major party to win. With very few exceptions, third party candidates only suffice to bring attention of various issues to the major two parties.
If a third party candidate wants to win, there has to be a major fallout in either or both of the major two parties. Each party, major or minor, has a base voting block. These are groups of people that these parties cater to for their support so they will take on issues that are important to their base.
We will examine the 2004 and 2008 Presidential election results to find some trends in both major parties and minor parties.
2004
Republican: George W. Bush. Won.
Popular Vote: 62,040,610 votes. 30% Eligible Voter Turnout.
Democrat: John Kerry. Lost.
Popular Vote: 59,028,444 votes. 28.7% Eligible Voter Turnout.
Non Party: Ralph Nader. Lost.
Popular Vote. 465,650 votes.
Libertarian: Michael Badnarik. Lost.
Popular Vote. 397,265 votes.
2008
Republican: John McCain. Lost.
Popular Vote: 59,934,814 votes. 28.7% Eligible Voter Turnout.
Democrat: Barack Obama. Won.
Popular Vote: 69,456,897 votes. 31.6% Eligible Voter Turnout.
Independent: Ralph Nader. Lost.
Popular Vote: 738,475 votes.
Libertarian: Bob Barr. Lost.
Popular Vote: 523,686 votes.
In 2008, it is estimated that the Registered Voters was around 214,579,951 voters. In 2004, the estimate was 206,250,517 voters. This in an increase of 8,329,434 voters.
With a 52.9% Democrat versus a 45.7% Republican popular vote, we can take the 8,329,434 additional voters and average them out to 4,406,270 votes for the Democrat, 3,806,551 votes for the Republican, and 116,613 votes for the Third Party candidates.
We also see a small increase in votes for third party candidates from 2004 to 2008 but they have not amounted to anything significant to warrant any major claim of prominence.
The above data doesn't fare well for third party candidates. If this trend continues, none of us will be alive at the time their candidates can get enough votes to win the White House.
How would a third party candidate seriously contend for the White House? The best they can do is be a small thorn in the side of either the GOP or Democrat candidate. The worst is that they are just flat out ignored.
This doesn't mean a third party candidate cannot win the White House. Both parties have chinks in their armor.
The Democrats now have a majority in Congress and a man in the White House. Their uber-accelerated move to socialism and government control of business will backfire significantly given enough time. Only the farthest left in their party will accept what they are doing. The moderates, I believe, will reject them eventually.
The Republicans have disenfranchised enough of the conservative base that their voter turnout has decreased. In 2008, they ponied up John McCain, not a favorite amongst conservatives, and his lack of conservative principles along with his inability to connect with conservatives led to his defeat. The party as a whole is pressured to sway left to attract voters who normally vote for the Democrat party.
The Republicans have the weaker armor in my opinion than do the Democrats. The die-hard Democrat and Republican voter is a lost cause as far as converting them to vote for any other candidate. The Democrats master the art of connecting with their base voting block. Therefore, it is far more difficult to pull a Democrat voter away.
The Republicans fare far worse at connecting to their base voting block. For many years, the base voting block for Republicans have been conservatives. Recently, however, their pressure to move left has alienated their main voting block of conservatives. The only gains the GOP will make by moving left is picking up whatever moderates are tossed under the bus by the Democrats.
If the GOP continues to move left and ignores the conservative base, then one of two things will be possible. 1) Conservatives will stop voting. or 2) Conservatives will vote for a third party. If a third party candidate can connect to this voting block, then they can start pulling the odds farther to their favor and possibly even remove the GOP as a major party. It can happen. The Whig party faltered due to fissures within itself.
So, can a third party candidate make it in 2010 or 2012? Very possible. Conservatives really have no one to vote for in the Democrat or Republican party anymore. Their values have left the values that conservatives hold and value. If voter turnout says anything, gay marriage in every state that has had this issue on the ballot has failed with about 70% of the voters rejecting it. California being the only exception where it was defeated by a smaller margin.
This statistic is interesting because this tells us that on key social issues, a large voting block does vote conservatively. For the GOP to move left and marginalize this large of a voting block is political suicide. This opens up alot of voters for a third party candidate who has the capability to charm them. In addition, the Republican brand itself is tarnished. Even the moderate may wish to vote third party over the GOP.
In summary, with the right person as their candidate, a third party can feasibly have success in 2010 and 2012 if they can: 1) Win the conservative voting block, 2) absorb whatever moderates get tossed under the bus by the Democrats, and 3) the GOP marginalizes themselves out of being the majority party.
Duverger's law explains the tendency of a plurality-centered electoral system for a two party system of election.
Since President Fillmore, the Democrats and Republicans have established themselves as the major two parties in accordance with the principles of Duverger's law.
There are several third parties that exist today all of which try to establish themselves on the ballots in each state. Currently, their current ability is only to frustrate the major two parties by siphoning votes from them to the point that it could cause the opposite major party to win. With very few exceptions, third party candidates only suffice to bring attention of various issues to the major two parties.
If a third party candidate wants to win, there has to be a major fallout in either or both of the major two parties. Each party, major or minor, has a base voting block. These are groups of people that these parties cater to for their support so they will take on issues that are important to their base.
We will examine the 2004 and 2008 Presidential election results to find some trends in both major parties and minor parties.
2004
Republican: George W. Bush. Won.
Popular Vote: 62,040,610 votes. 30% Eligible Voter Turnout.
Democrat: John Kerry. Lost.
Popular Vote: 59,028,444 votes. 28.7% Eligible Voter Turnout.
Non Party: Ralph Nader. Lost.
Popular Vote. 465,650 votes.
Libertarian: Michael Badnarik. Lost.
Popular Vote. 397,265 votes.
2008
Republican: John McCain. Lost.
Popular Vote: 59,934,814 votes. 28.7% Eligible Voter Turnout.
Democrat: Barack Obama. Won.
Popular Vote: 69,456,897 votes. 31.6% Eligible Voter Turnout.
Independent: Ralph Nader. Lost.
Popular Vote: 738,475 votes.
Libertarian: Bob Barr. Lost.
Popular Vote: 523,686 votes.
In 2008, it is estimated that the Registered Voters was around 214,579,951 voters. In 2004, the estimate was 206,250,517 voters. This in an increase of 8,329,434 voters.
With a 52.9% Democrat versus a 45.7% Republican popular vote, we can take the 8,329,434 additional voters and average them out to 4,406,270 votes for the Democrat, 3,806,551 votes for the Republican, and 116,613 votes for the Third Party candidates.
We also see a small increase in votes for third party candidates from 2004 to 2008 but they have not amounted to anything significant to warrant any major claim of prominence.
The above data doesn't fare well for third party candidates. If this trend continues, none of us will be alive at the time their candidates can get enough votes to win the White House.
How would a third party candidate seriously contend for the White House? The best they can do is be a small thorn in the side of either the GOP or Democrat candidate. The worst is that they are just flat out ignored.
This doesn't mean a third party candidate cannot win the White House. Both parties have chinks in their armor.
The Democrats now have a majority in Congress and a man in the White House. Their uber-accelerated move to socialism and government control of business will backfire significantly given enough time. Only the farthest left in their party will accept what they are doing. The moderates, I believe, will reject them eventually.
The Republicans have disenfranchised enough of the conservative base that their voter turnout has decreased. In 2008, they ponied up John McCain, not a favorite amongst conservatives, and his lack of conservative principles along with his inability to connect with conservatives led to his defeat. The party as a whole is pressured to sway left to attract voters who normally vote for the Democrat party.
The Republicans have the weaker armor in my opinion than do the Democrats. The die-hard Democrat and Republican voter is a lost cause as far as converting them to vote for any other candidate. The Democrats master the art of connecting with their base voting block. Therefore, it is far more difficult to pull a Democrat voter away.
The Republicans fare far worse at connecting to their base voting block. For many years, the base voting block for Republicans have been conservatives. Recently, however, their pressure to move left has alienated their main voting block of conservatives. The only gains the GOP will make by moving left is picking up whatever moderates are tossed under the bus by the Democrats.
If the GOP continues to move left and ignores the conservative base, then one of two things will be possible. 1) Conservatives will stop voting. or 2) Conservatives will vote for a third party. If a third party candidate can connect to this voting block, then they can start pulling the odds farther to their favor and possibly even remove the GOP as a major party. It can happen. The Whig party faltered due to fissures within itself.
So, can a third party candidate make it in 2010 or 2012? Very possible. Conservatives really have no one to vote for in the Democrat or Republican party anymore. Their values have left the values that conservatives hold and value. If voter turnout says anything, gay marriage in every state that has had this issue on the ballot has failed with about 70% of the voters rejecting it. California being the only exception where it was defeated by a smaller margin.
This statistic is interesting because this tells us that on key social issues, a large voting block does vote conservatively. For the GOP to move left and marginalize this large of a voting block is political suicide. This opens up alot of voters for a third party candidate who has the capability to charm them. In addition, the Republican brand itself is tarnished. Even the moderate may wish to vote third party over the GOP.
In summary, with the right person as their candidate, a third party can feasibly have success in 2010 and 2012 if they can: 1) Win the conservative voting block, 2) absorb whatever moderates get tossed under the bus by the Democrats, and 3) the GOP marginalizes themselves out of being the majority party.