Tea Party
The Third Party Heresy
As a conservative and a third party candidate living in the hills of a blue state, I can tell you that conversations regarding a third party are for the most part taboo. This is a very interesting dynamic when you consider that many in my voting district consider themselves to be Independents and not cookie-cutter party devotees.
Why are Independents afraid of a third party?
These Independents would be quick to discuss with you how disenchanted they are with their choices at voting time. They would certainly agree wholeheartedly that both major parties have failed us exponentially. And if pressed, would also agree wholeheartedly that a third party is something to be lusted over. Yet, any initiation to move this need into reality is feared – and the dreaded label “spoiler” is spoken as one would speak the Name Jesus over a demonic spirit.
So why do people fear a third party when they acknowledge this country’s need for one?
Where does the third party fear really come from?
In my experience as a conservative, the attacks have come from Republican operatives. Although I have spent the last two decades of my life serving in Christian ministries, I have been called a devil worshiper. And although one of my best friends is a black minister, whom I dearly love, and I have worked in the inner-city of Indianapolis for five years and worshiped with my black church family when there, I’ve been called a racist. To those who have any doubts, just Google my name and you will be able to find the attacks against me and a long list of my works that will tell you who I am in words other than mine.
The unjustified attacks are unfortunately logical. After all, who has the most to lose from a conservative third party? Whether it’s Karl Rove deriding Christine O’Donnell, or the marginalizing of Michele Bachmann or the rise of Herman Cain, real representatives of We the People seem not to be accepted by the party hacks.
Or can it be as simple as accepting the premises that a third party candidate is a spoiler?
Here in New Jersey that begs the question: spoil what? The status quo?
While many cling to the notion that it is possible to change the majority in Trenton this November, realists seriously doubt that is likely. Whether the Republicans gain or lose a few seats is irrelevant. The majority will still be controlled by the Democrats.
Lose one battle, win a war
So let me ask a few more questions: if losing a seat or two doesn’t make any difference in the larger picture, then isn’t it worth potentially sacrificing those seats to build a third party – a party that actually represents We the People?
If you don’t think a third party is something to be regarded and you are happy with your representation, then of course this entire conversation is irrelevant. However, if you are not content with your representation, perhaps you should rethink your fear of a third party and start to help building one. After all, such a noble objective can never be achieved unless someone dares to drag the dream into reality. What better time or place to start such a movement than at the state level in an off-year election?
And to those who believe that the best option for conservatives is to reform the Republican Party, then I ask if there can be any better reform mechanism than the rumblings of a third party?
Now I’m sure this article will generate a lot of comments. As the title acknowledges, any talk of a third party is almost considered heretical. But before posting your tongue lashings, I would encourage you to consider what I have written. I know it’s coming and I could probably write the post for you. However, I have never been a person intimidated into conformity and I don’t intend to change now – especially when this country has so much on the line. We need a third party – like it or not – and it’s high time somebody stood up and said so!
[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378″ /]
-
Civilization3 days ago
Only 60 days to destroy the world
-
Civilization4 days ago
The Trump Effect
-
Civilization4 days ago
Civil war from the left?
-
Executive5 days ago
Food Lobbyists Plot to Have It Their Way With RFK Jr.
-
Civilization3 days ago
Pam Bondi takes the spotlight
-
Constitution2 days ago
The Left digs in for a long siege
-
Guest Columns2 days ago
God Hated Esau But Loved Jacob – How So?
-
Civilization4 days ago
Pennsylvania is Now the Bellwether on Democrats’ Future
You’ll find that in nations without a two-party system, parties will form “coalitions.”
In France, the greatest party on the left, the Socialist Party (Parti socialiste over there) only managed to put Mitterand in power after signing a concord with the Communist party (or something like that. I wasn’t born back then, and he may have been elected without the help of the communists).
The right in France has always put on a more unified front, and the left knows that to abandon the coalition would be to lose the election. This is offset by the two round election process, though. At least the divided left is given a choice
to pick a candidate they like (better) should their candidate lose. So, while the Green party won’t make it, they can still choose between whichever two candidates made it to the second round (although, in 2002, low turnout for the left led to far right National Front candidate Le Pen making it to the second round with 16% of the vote- the left was not happy having to vote for Chirac!).
So in the US, without the two-round election system, third parties present a huge liability. Surely everyone remembers the bitter Democrats after Ralph Nader took those crucial few votes in 2000. Coalitions become the only means of survival, and once more not everybody can be fairly represented. Yeah, I’m not a fan of how US elections are done. But it’s in the Constitution, and that thing is hard to change.
You ought to pick up a book on game theory and open up the chapter on voting. If social conservatives have two candidates (one economically liberal, the other economically conservative) and social liberals only have one then the social liberals will win the election because they will all be forced to hold their noses and vote.
It’s impossible to have a vote that does everything we want it too link to en.wikipedia.org