By Fareed Zakaria, CNN
Hundreds of you have submitted very thoughtful questions for me through Facebook, Twitter and my blog. Over the next few days, I am going to post my text and video responses to some of the most common questions - and a few others that caught my eye - here on CNN.com/GPS.
One of you asked me: Why there aren't more serious third party candidates in the United States?
One very simple reason is the two parties have effectively created a duopoly. It is very, very difficult to get on the ballot in any state. There's a group called Americans Elect 2012 that has been trying to create a third party platform just to get on the ballot. And it takes hundreds of thousands of signatures - over a million in California - to do it. It's a scandal, really, because democracy should be about giving people alternatives and allowing peoples' voices to be heard. But the two parties collude to make sure that you don't get a third party.
The second piece of it is America just does not have a very broad ideological spectrum. If you look at America's two parties, they're actually very close together in terms of their ideological differences. Both American parties - the Democrats and the Republicans – would fit comfortably as center-right parties in Europe. You have no real social democratic party. You have no real hyper-nationalist parties. If you look at the width of the European political spectrum, the United States occupies a kind of narrow position on it. So it makes sense that we don't have ten competitive parties.
That may change, however, because one of the things that kept America ideologically narrow, if you will, was the fact that we had a big middle class society with big middle class politics that everyone agreed on.
I think that as we become a more unequal society with greater disparities and greater diversities, you could very well imagine different political movements, at the very least, starting up. The Ron Paul movement would represent a very different phenomenon than the Rick Santorum movement and that would be very different from the people who would want to vote for Barack Obama.
I don't know if this divergence translates into parties. It probably won't. But you'll have very, very distinct and incompatible political movements beginning to develop in the United States.
You can pose questions for me on Facebook, Twitter or on CNN.com/GPS. Come back throughout the week for more of my responses to questions on third party candidates in America, China's rise, oil prices and more.
 |
Post by: |
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
fareed my question is about getting a new conflict in the mideast.why is the U.S gov soo optimistic about getting to war with iran it is not big risk for the world because all nations are going reccession, is there other methods that the west can do to avoid new conflict in worldl? thanks fareed zakaria i have been following your reports from news week.
Most people do not realize how dangerous a 2 party system or duopoly is. When there are just two parties, they control both dialogue and who can get into power and if they ever get together and decide to pit people against each other while really only fulfilling their own agendas (which is to control power and get them and their friends rich) then they can effectively create a dynasty in much the same way royalty did in Europe–after all, they can also control WHO in the party runs in their primary.
IF they ever decide to collude, you'd get issues like abortion vs life, or rich vs poor or taxes vs no new taxes, or black vs white , or religious vs secular or gay vs straight, illegal immigration vs deportation, unions vs companies etc–but CURIOUSLY NO MATTER WHO RUNS THE GOVERNMENT , NOTHING MUCH CHANGES.
then keep the avg voter busy thinking they are against each other when really the parties are all in the same boat and are against all of us.
Sort of like.... what we have RIGHT NOW.....
Whiich is exactly why Ralph Nader has long used the term "duopoly" to describe the political insanity US citizens have had to tolerate for so long. And it's why Nader, a man with genuine ideas as to how to free us from the corporate-elitist death grip on government, hasn't been abl;e to mount any serious challenge.
All what Nader accomplished was to get us Bush 43. Similarly, Perot mostly likely mad Clinton's victory possible. Whatever the reasons for absence of third party candidates is, they just distort the political process – shifting it to right (Nader) or left (Perot) by symphoning enough votes from thei nominally 'close' candidate.
Completely waste of time to write about it. We have done just fine with the 'duopoly'.
Fareed, the bi-partisan landscape in the U.S. has to do with the Anglo-American tradition in history. The Brits have also the two dominant parties: the Tories and the Labour, which was founded 100 years ago and replaced the Whigs, which had been oppostion the Tories since the Glorious Revolution in 1688. The LibDems – now under Nick Clegg – have always been outshone by the two dominant parties.
Europe's political landscape was fairly similar until the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the 1840's. Communist and socialist ideologies were cultured in many parts of Europe, which ultimately sparked the Russian Revolution in 1917. After World War One parties based on these ideologies were formed across Europe.
Totally agree. The current polarization of the country screams for a third alternative, a true Center/moderate option for people that don't go to extremes, and yet share some of the ideals of both Status parties. The world is changing dramatically, and so our social composition, and archaic posturing will lead nowhere. America needs a structural change of the political spectrum, and needs a party sensible to social changes without loosing the fundamental base of its chore values. A middle of the road between Capitalism and European socialism, if you will.
"Completely waste of time to write about it. We have done just fine with the 'duopoly'."
You must be a Baby Boomer then, because those of us who aren't from that generation of earlier are mostly NOT doing just fine with this duopoly.
Americans have an inherent phobia with any ideology that can be equated by the right-wing with socialism. The American public by enlarge sufers from 'civics illiteracy', this therefore has made the American public to confine itself to rightwing politics.
The US Government -isn't- 'optomistic' about going to war- just a few nut-job Republican never-has-beens. Stop watching Fox News.
it's extremists like you that make true Americans sick to our stomachs. Please exit stage-left.
One doesnt have to watch Fox to see there is a war brewing moron!
Yaouba...the word "optimistic" does not fit the description of how the US feels about war with Iran. Most Americans with common sense don't want a war. But you ask what "the west" can do to avoid conflict? Really?...what the west can do? The west has been trying to get nuclear inspectors into Iran for years....that's the diplomatic thing to do...what is the Iranian response? Nothing. Lies and misdirection. What would a reasonable person think is the reason for not allow inspectors to see what's going on? I think most reasonable people would come to the conclusion that Nuclear weapons development is under way. This is unacceptable in the West.
Interesting political analysis. Appreciated. We need to diversify politically and break the stranglehold each of our two Parties has on the voting duopoly they have created, just to correctly repair the economy. We can't expect the very cause of the problem to correct the problem.
Until we implement ranked choice voting, third parties - and the new, important, innovative ideas they have to contribute - will continue to be marginalized. As Rednip pointed out, even the best, brightest, most qualified third-party candidates suffer from the "spoiler" syndrome: Voters who prefer them conclude, understandably, that they must settle for the lesser of the two major-party evils or, by casting a third-party ballot, risk electing a candidate they loathe. Our plurality voting system totally reinforces the two-party monopoly.
Yeah Fareed would Russia get involved? (and I don't mean on NATO's side either).
We sorely need a moderate third party here. The two current parties that we do have are both on the right and that's why no matter who wins this fall's election, the MIC wins either way!
An argument can be made that both parties are on the Left. When the GOP took Congress in 1994, they ousted Democrats who had been there for 40 years. They did fine at first – then got drunk with power and spent like Democrats-lite. The Millenials grew up during this time, and never knowing how badly the Democrats spent, thought the GOP was HORRIBLE (and they were, but only the lesser evil). So they put the Democrats back in power, and the REAL spending binge began. Out went the Democrats again, but the GOP still spends money we don't have on things we don't want. IT NEVER STOPS.
But the real issue is political gerrymandering. Racial gerrymandering is illegal; but political gerrymandering is allowed. This creates "safe" districts where each party's most extreme ideologues can find safe harbor to spout their nonsense. And no one can ever get them out in an election. They just pander to their base. So many Americans are beholden to one party or the other that fully HALF of the electorate WON'T EVEN CONSIDER a third party or independent candidate. The other half is far too fragmented between Left and Right to unite and mount a serious challenge.
And the system just keeps on keeping on – the taxpaying public never gets a break. The game is rigged so badly that unless you support the status quo, you may as well stay home on election day.
Is that Democratic spending spree the method that had Clinton leave office with a surplus? I'm no fan of Clinton but your observation on this point seems to be seriously flawed.
NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Steagal show how far to the right both parties are. If we could get the corporate money out of our elections that may reduce the gerrymandering and other silliness.
Here's a question. Why doesn't CNN spend more time covering third party candidates? Why is the mainstream media so strongly invested in the Democratic Strategist and the Republican Strategist squawking at each other for 3 minutes while saying nothing at all before the break?
There are no serious third party candidates, Fareed, because we are TOLD there are no serious third party candidates. As far as the majority of the people that vote know, they don't exist.
The media uses variations of a phrase that says that they won't cover a candidate if they have no realistic chance of winning. Of course if they don't cover someone then of course they'll never have a chance. The media and the two main political parties are in a sense part of the same fraternity.
Good point. That's the equivalent of telling a kid who's looking for work that she or he can't get a job without experience...knowing that, without a job, it's impossible to GET the experience.
Don't agree.
Ross Perot got TONS of media coverage. Actually came in second in a lot of polls before he self-destructed.
Ross Perot also spent around a billion dollars of his own money. He largely self-financed both of his runs as an independent. The average third party candidate is not going to have that kind of wealth available to get the type of exposure that's going to lend credibility to their campaign. This type of scenario is bad for the GOP anyway, as most people capable of doing this are going to identify as further right Republicans. I'm pretty sure the right begged him to get out of both races. They knew all he'd end up doing was splitting their vote and get Clinton elected. They ended up being dead on.
The ONLY thing Ross Perot proved is that unless you come from or possess LARGE sums of money you can't even run. Can't even be considered. He financed virtually his entire campaign...to the tune of ~1Billion dollars....that's utterly ridiculous. And the fact that Americans still don't recognize that very fact is pretty pathetic.
I ask this question:
Why would a man or woman pay ~1billion dollars and fight so ruthlessly for a seat that pays ~200-300k a year? Furthermore what did they promise to get the money to run in the first place and what do they have to do to pay that back once they get elected?
Noodle on that and tell me this system is working fine.
There has been a serious effort put forth in the U.S. over the past 25+ yrs by the Green Party to gain ballot access and to run candidates from small local offices to statewide and to presidential. There are over 200 Greens in office today, mostly in nonpartisan offices, but for higher level offices to get your message out requires gaining the media access that the duopoly has, which is very difficult, and to gain access to ballots requires getting past the rules cooked up by Reps and Dems alike which are different in each state but universally often onerous.
Who exactly decided who is a "serious" candidate? The media?
Well, the media, the Republican party, and the Democrat party.
There are several political '3rd parties', Libertarian, Green, Communist and Socialist just to name a few. One issue for the 3rd parties is that the media doesn't pay much attention to them (not counting Ross Perot.) The 3rd parties are really only successful in the local non-partisan offices. Not until the media pays attention to them (which IS there job to), we won't see any real viable 3rd party candidate. It's time to ask the media (CNN, I'm talking to you) to allow discourse from the 3rd parties.
Because the Federation party hasnt come into the public eye as of yet. Here is what the Fed Party stands for
1) Freedom to chose who you want to marry, when to have a family, and control over your own body.
2) Government run Oil no longer would the private sector control somthing that is so vital to the security of this nation,
also the investment into new fules to power us into the future like hydrogen.
3) Religion has no part in the governing of a nation as diverse as America, belive what you want, worship where you
want, pray to whom ever you think is out there but it will stay outside the door of government.
4) Everyone pays fair taxes no exceptions.
5) All children in this country WILL get a top noch education, There is no reason for our children to be so far behind other Countries of the World, yes education will be the call of the day under federation government.
6) Health care in this country will remain the same and improved upon President Obams plan based in part on Willard Mitt Romney plan will be the model forever, with some tweaks to keep it sharp and updated for the times its working in.
7) No more money in politics on penalty of time in prision that will mean the end to lobbyist period.
Everytime I go to vote for president there are always more than 2 candidates on the ballot, usually several more, yet we never here about them. With the economy in shambles, I have really lost confidence in Democrats and Republicans. Obama is trying to put me out of work, or replace it with a much lower paying job, and Mitt Romney doesn't want equality. He actually is opposed to Obama's tax plan stating, "It is the biggest move toward equality in history, everyone would be equal and poor." I would rather everyone be equal and poor than the have's, like him, and the have nots, like me. I have made up my mind to not vote for either Republican or Democrat and vote for another candidate. Probably the Libertarian candidate even though we will never hear about him/her in the media. Thank God for the internet! Every candidate on the ballot should be included in ALL the debates!!!
Another roadblock to the success of third parties is the lack of proportional representation in this country. It is hard to build momentum of gradually increasing success of a third party when the support of 33% of people would still result in 0% representation in a legislature.
Bingo. It's called Duverger's Law (see http://factcheck.org/2008/01/why-only-two-political-parties/).
Of course your answer is absolutely correct. But that answer doesn't allow for people to be outraged at the government, or the the media, or the guys on the other side of the aisle, so it will not gain any traction. Duverger's Law explains so much about how our political system has evolved. But the myth of American exceptionalism seems to appeal to people on a gut level, so more coherent explanations typically take a back seat. I must say, though, that I'm surprised to see Fareed batting around the same tired old explanations for the American political duopoly. I find this much less convincing than most of his analysis of international relations.
Which is also why the USA is not practicing the same type of democracy as in European countries. It is actually quite interesting to see that in a nation that prides itself to be free a so old voting system is in place which does not represent the people at all. It is a little bizarr to be honest.
Joseph Kony 2012 lets elect him to die!
Ridiculous question!Gov Buddy Roemer has been excluded since last year, before Perry and Huntsman. He discusses issues,not personalities or engage in muck raking; and he refuses to accept anything over $100! Why does South Carolina require a $40,000 tax/registraTION FEE. tHAT'S EQUIVALENT TO A POLL TAX, A MEANS TEST, SAME AS REQUIRING SOMEONE TO VERIFY THEIR INCOME. tHIS PREVENTS A tHIRD pARTY FROM EXISTING DUE TO A MEANS TEST.
The system is stacked in favor of two parties – and that system includes the way the government runs elections, as well as the way the media covers them. More to the point, though, the third-party candidacies of Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, and John Anderson ( to name a few in the past 30 years) have never achieved office, and third parties seldom win anything more than a local city council seat. We don't have fractured coalition governments and votes of "no confidence," hallmarks of the parliamentary system that relies on third (and fourth) parties to a large degree. In the end, Americans are seemingly content with the choices they have and the structure imposed.
Yeah, trying telling the average American that we would be better off with a European style government and see how far that gets you. True as it is, Americans will never buy it because they have so little awareness of how the rest of the developed democracies function.
Haha, hey Fareed, why don't you get on the phone to your favorite Democrats and get them to get Ralph Nader or Alan Grayson or some other "genius" into the race. We Republicans will help you any way we can.
How do you know he is a Democrat?
About 90% of members of the media self-identify as Democrats. Given that, and Fareed's opinions expressed, he's probably a Democrat. It's just a safe guess.
He knows both reading and writing. He's a Democrat
90% of Catholics are child rapists
90% of NASCAR fans beat their kids
90% of statistics are pulled right out of the ass
etinzon – "Indeed , thank whoever you want you don't live in Europe. We manage quite well without you"
Really? Isn't the EU a little on the "fritz" right now?
you should have seen the size of the skid marks in her pantys.
I am astonished at Fareed's answer about third party candidates. I assumed he was sharper. The two party system is built into the structure of our government by our use of single-member district, plurality voting. A third party presidential candidate requires the existence of a third party, not just frustration with the two that we have. And until we adopt a system of proportional representation in Congressional elections, a third (or fourth) party can't even get started. thas nothing to do with the media, the supposed narrowness of the ideological spectrum, or the machinations of the two parties that currently exist. You have to blame James Madison.
Our binary voting system is also an impediment. It doesn't work when there are more than 2 candidates for an office.
Here's a link where you can read about range voting:
http://www.rangevoting.org/
Here's a video tutorial that lasts about 15 minutes:
http://www.rangevote.net/
I voted Nader in 2008. The media did nothing but make fun of him and took him to task if he said anything about then Senator Obama. How in the world can a third party get anywhere when the media will not let them participate in any debates.
I voted for Nader also in 2008. I had the luxury of being able to do so without fear of splitting the vote because I lived in Massachusetts which was sure to go for Gore. Nader or other decent third party candidates will never be elected unless we change our voting system to RANGE VOTING.
Here's a link where you can read about range voting:
http://www.rangevoting.org/
Here's a video tutorial that lasts about 15 minutes:
http://www.rangevote.net/
I meant I voted for Nader in 2000.
Well JoJo - I see the implication in the way you posted... but unfortunately as you know, because so many liberals and progressives voted for Nader, we got someone doubly far to the right of Al Gore at the time who basically destroyed most of the things that Nader, you and I stood for. A vote for Gore would have done everyone much better and Bush wouldn't have gone on to destroy the country. I know you know this, but I just wanted to point this out for those that do not.
1.) If you voted for Nader and Bush didn't win your state then you didn't do anything, ANYTHING to put Bush in power.
2.) If you think Gore was an acceptable alternative to Bush, and wouldn't have gotten us involved in afganistan (It would have been congress getting us there anyways) then you are in fact a tool.
FranklinSD is correct. More specifically, plurality voting causes voters to rationally conclude that a vote for any but the top-2 candidates is a wasted vote. Range Voting (http://www.rangevoting.org) fixes this, and leads to better results as measured by overall voter happiness. I'd recommend the book "Gaming the Vote" by William Poundstone, which explores all the unexpected effects of plurality voting in detail.
It is virtually impossible to elect a third party presidential candidate in the U.S., not so much because of politics, but because of a MATHEMATICAL flaw in our binary voting system which doesn't work when there are more than 2 candidates for an office. The best correction is optional "RANGE VOTING", which is basically a system where you rate each of the candidates for an office as opposed to giving your vote entirely and exclusively to one candidate. I invite you to educate yourself about this on the web and the following links:
Here's a link where you can read about range voting:
http://www.rangevoting.org/
Here's a video tutorial that lasts about 15 minutes:
http://www.rangevote.net/
Here's the Amazon.com link about the related 2008 book by William Poundstone "Gaming the Vote: Why Elections Aren't Fair":
Gaming the Vote: Why Elections Aren't Fair (and What We Can Do About It)
"The second piece of it is America just does not have a very broad ideological spectrum. If you look at America's two parties, they're actually very close together in terms of their ideological differences. "
Same old lie. There is ONE candidate, and ONLY one, who will continue to support stem cell research, and that is Obama. No Republican will do it. Neither will Ron Paul. Researchers are only a few years away from a cure for the most common cause of blindness in the developed world. The first results from the UCLA study came out a month ago– 2 blind people have begun to see again. We would already have that cure if Bush hadn't vetoed the bill providing FDA approval TWICE– a bill that was passed twice by a bipartisan congress. Obama pushed that bill through and is the only one who will continue to support it. The issue is NOT funding– ACT Technology, Inc, has provided every penny of funding for the first stem cell study. The issue is government approval. If Republicans (and Ron Paul) were really about removing government interference from the private sector, then they would be supporting this study. Instead, they did everything they could to stop it from happening!!
So I am so sick of hearing that endless refrain about how there are supposedly "no differences" between the 2 parties. Easy to say if you think you don't desperately need the medical treatments and cures that WILL result from stem cell research– not COULD, but WILL.
I have always said, if there really is no difference, none at all, then don't bother voting, of course. If there is even one shred of difference, or one issue that matters to a voter and there are two choices, then vote. It's cynical to say, "They're all the same." They're not, whether it's a big difference, a small difference, or one issue.
Umm... the two parties are virtually identical in core issues. Stem cell research is just one of many wedge issues to "prove" their differences. And you eagerly take the bait. Congrats on independent thinking.
oh wow! Because of one issue they are sooo different. Ethics aside I tell ya what I am not suprised at all that eventualy they have stem cell resarch in the USA since it revenues money this what its all about, even if a republican wins they might not change the existing law due to the revenue that may be created aka lobbyist influence
Money is the reason there is no 3rd party or viable candidate. If you truly think the current amount of money being thrown at Super PAC's is a new phenomena in American politics you should think again. Super PAC's new sure , the money not at all. Concentrations of wealth create concentrations of political power that is a fact. Try running for office with no money. None of this is new. America has always been run this way, but it is the reason why to answer your question.
I think Ron Paul would have had hundreds of thousands of more votes if he had ran on a third party ticket like Ross Perot did 20 years ago in 1992-–a far better chance at getting elected.
He already has, and he has had less atention doing so then by going into the Republican party.
That's unlikely to happen and might be counterproductive if it did because of VOTE SPLITTING, the best solution to which is RANGE VOTING.
Here's a link where you can read about range voting:
http://www.rangevoting.org/
Here's a video tutorial that lasts about 15 minutes:
http://www.rangevote.net/
ron Paul is actually quite popular, yet many Americans do not agree with hsi vision the sad thing is that he won't get any representation at all even though he represents at least 1)% of Americans opinion. We have a majority opresses the minority opinion system anD I would say no taxation without representation
Start by including the Libertarian Party and the Green Party candidates in major debates. The problem is that your employer (CNN) has a vested interest in the big government left and right and the corporatist status quo rather than in giving voices to small government left (Green) and right (Libertarian) alternatives.
Good point
Two words:
Gary Johnson
Zakaria wants a muslim candidate.
Do you post thoughts because you feel that you are contributing to thoughtful and rational conversation, or are you here to just stir the pot with your wit and charm? I suspect it's the latter, and your time is far better suited to the discussions on Faux News.
Taskmaster: What makes you say that he wants a Muslim candidate? Where the hell did that come from?
Zakaria actually seems to be very open minded and I am surprised of some things he writes. compared to other american journalists I think he is more openminded
Well it's a good thing he's in America. You know, where we have rights to choose something like that.
Seems to me you'd like life better in one of the theocracies we are currently fighting. You get to tell everyone how and what to think...
...getting the point or should I keep pushing your face in it?
Muri, You should keep pushing his face in it. He doesn't yet understand how and what you're telling him to think.
Oh, yeah a third party. Exactly WHO do we have in mind, Nader? LaRouche? Paul, or some OTHER Libertarded Free Market clown?
I swear, if politics in this country gets any more ridiculous, they ought to start requiring candidates to wear red rubber noses, big shoes, and ruffled collars...
ohhh ZIIIING!
This is your problem, Zakaria, you keep wanting to turn us into another European country. Notice recently how the r in an even bigger mess than we are? Why do so many people risk their lives to enter the U.S. illegally, or wait patiently for years to enter legally if most other places are better? The reason is because of the system we have here; both politically and economically (that liberals and socialists are quickly dismantling). Zakaria – no one is forcing you to live here, are they? Why do u have the cushy CNN job? Why don't you go to Europe and get your own show? U r such a hypocrite.
OK then. How about Canada? It has a wider range of political discourse than the US. Is far stronger economically than the US right now. Fairs better on a number of quality of life indicators. Maybe the US could look to their northern neighbors for a bit of advice?
You must be a Canadian. Or a silly pants. Canada was directly and proportionately affected by the economic downturn of the US. We are eachother's largest trade partners. And no, Canada is not "better economically" than the US. They are a tiny fraction of the GDP that the US is.
Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with Canada. But let's not just spout lies and act as though Canada is some amazing country with no issues, when it is more closely related to the US than it is with its commonwealth brethren.
Plus money is not God OK more money does not translate into a better quality of life. and why is the American GDP so high america has more billionairs than many of the worlds nations combined which drive up the GDP. Anyone knows math now one person has 20 000 somebody has 4 billion it seems as if those two people have 2billion and 10 thousand yet one is way more poor
What's with the attack on Zakaria for wondering why there are no third party candidates? I think its a pretty good question. Don't tell me you think the two party system in the USA is actually functional?
Europe is way better to live than America. These sooo bad economic problems are capatalistic propaganda< Europe is doing fine the standard of living is very similair to America and what Zakaria writes has nothing to do with making America more like Europe it has to do with beeing truly democratic, meaning that more than two opinions, worldviews etc get representation Thank You for buying into your anti european propaganda which besides gave America most of its culture (Democracy was invented in Greece)
Most third party candidates are extremists or whack jobs. That's why they are not taken seriously.
Lyndon LaRouche, Ralph Nader, even Ross Perot turned out to be pretty strange in the end.
I think if we had a normal human being run as a third party candidate, they might have a chance. This is not taking into consideration getting on the ballot, etc, as the system is pretty much exclusive to Republicans and Democrats.
We've had "normal" human beings run several times – David Cobb, Cynthia McKinney, now Dr. Jill Stein. Which is not to say that others you mentioned were not "normal." Did you ever meet Nader or Paul personally to know they were not normal?
This nation is at a fork in the road. It either will choose the massive government control, political correctness (censorship), spending and failure of Marxism, or it will choose freedom. There is no middle ground to be had by a third party candidate.
So what you are saying is that we will either pick an evil Democrat or a pure-as-the-driven-snow, freedom loving Republican.
You team fanboys make me laugh.
Foolish response. This has nothing to do with political parties. It has to do with government vs freedom. If you look around the world, it is big government that destroys economies, not freedom. Big government begets more government. By the way, I am not talking anarchy, I am talking about a government by the people, of the people and for the people, and strictly limited so it cannot drift into tyranny.
Freedom doesn't have to equal greed, inequality, and a massive war budget. NONE of those things actually frees anybody.
Freedom = Slavery!
We don't have freedom.
We have democracy.
By definition democracy is based on the majority.
Therefore if you are not in the majority chances are you won't feel so free when the votes are tallied.
Please at least use the basic taxonomy of the country's founding principles correctly. It's the least you could do.
Hahaha the brainwashed and pridefully ignorant slave speaks. IslamSkptik - the Republican party is lucky to have you as a stooge; you are clueless and easily manipulated. Pathetic and worthless.
Why, because I disagree with the writer, or maybe because you disagree with me? How sad is that? Big government could care less about you or your beliefs.
look, islamskeptik, thiere is nothing earth shaking about this election. as much as the right talks about "forks" and all of that baloney, it's just another election. as the article states, the two parties are not that far apart. so stop the drama queen stuff and listen less to wild eyed rw radio.
Ugghhhh...I'm sick of people saying that our government has Marxist policies, it does not! These people have no idea what Marxism is. I would suggest people who believe we are "Marxist" go to the wikipedia article about Marxism. They can get a very dumbed down and oversimplified overview of the philosophy and they should be able to see that there is not one element of it anywhere in our current policy.
Don't be foolish. I'd suggest you read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. Go to the source. It spells out what is happening.
We need a 3rd party that actually does what's best for all Americans (US Citizens) rather than just worrying about their party and winning the next election. Even though I usually vote Republican, I think they put the interests of Wall Street above the interests of the majority of Americans (Middle Class US Citizens). Gingrich is one of the same Washington good old boys that have allowed American jobs to be rapidly outsourced over the past 15-20 years and Romney's a clown who's been downsizing companies here in the US by sending those jobs to other countries. They’re just giving us more the of same old political rhetoric.
We need whoever wins the next election to Start Protecting American Jobs and do whatever it takes to bring back the jobs they let go. They've got to give us somebody who will stand up for the American people.
We need to bring manufacturing back to the United States of America and both parties are ignoring tariffs as a way to level the playing field, raise money and bring jobs back home. Let's guess why. Oh that's right, tariff is a dirty word. Hum, maybe it’s that our so called leaders (political leaders) are beholden to the same people who are exporting our jobs.
(Under Clinton jobs to China, Under Bush I & II influx of illegals or cheap easily abused labor into the US and jobs to Mexico/NAFTA) – ps: I voted for Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Perot, Dole, Bush, Bush and McCain
Why no serious third-party candidates?
Because our undemocratic "Electoral College" system makes it impossible for a third-party candidate to even come close to getting elected.
It's time to finally move to direct presidential elections, in which everyone's vote count equally.
There's no longer any need for a system that gives voters in small states more power in presidential elections than voters whose only crime is living in large states.
And it's also time to move to proportional representation for legislative races and Instant Runoff Voting for governorships.
There's no reason to be scared of actual democracy, people.
I agree
So so true.
The Electoral College, if it ever made sense, certainly doesn't now.
Oh yes, definitetly more and more democracy! Hey you know which country had real direct democracy and lots of political parties and tons of mob taking power to the people? Germany in the 1920s. It was called the Weimar Republic and it led to Adolf Hitler! Go Democracy Now!!
So bad argument, what about all the good examples. Besides didnt some United States Presidents and Parties cause a lot of wars destruction and death us americans are actually in no position to judge Hitler and the Nazi party...hiroshima anyone
To: USAGC-
If you believe that this country is a morally reprehensible as the Nazis then you're no American.
Radical third parties have never caught on in the us, probably because, unlike in europe, working (men) didn't have to fight for the vote. as the article states, however, that may change as the middle class disappears. it should be easier to get a third party on the ballot AND A VOTE FOR A THIRD PARTY SHOULD HAVE A SECOND OPTION CLAUSE. in other words, if your third party gets a certain (small) percentage of a vote, the vote to shift to a party of your choice. as it is, a vote for a third party in the us, nader was a good example, throws your vote to the exact opposite of whom you want elected.
What do you mean why no third party systems? It's because America uses a first past the post system and not a proportional representation system. It's just the way the American electoral system is setup – it's not that there isn't a *good* third option.
Most people do not realize how dangerous a 2 party system or duopoly is. When there are just two parties, they control both dialogue and who can get into power and if they ever get together and decide to pit people against each other while really only fulfilling their own agendas (which is to control power and get them and their friends rich) then they can effectively create a dynasty in much the same way royalty did in Europe–after all, they can also control WHO in the party runs in their primary.
IF they ever decide to collude, you'd get issues like abortion vs life, or rich vs poor or taxes vs no new taxes, or black vs white , or religious vs secular or gay vs straight, illegal immigration vs deportation, unions vs companies etc–but CURIOUSLY NO MATTER WHO RUNS THE GOVERNMENT , NOTHING MUCH CHANGES.
then keep the avg voter busy thinking they are against each other when really the parties are all in the same boat and are against all of us.
Sort of like.... what we have RIGHT NOW.....
And most Americans wanted radical change after the glorious bush regime thats why they voted foR Obama yet nothing is so difficult you can still get arested in some cities for yeah "louteiring" (actually just standing)
I do find it sad that both Republicans and Democrats have lost touch with the American people. It seems that so many don't actually vote because none of the candidates propose good solutions.
Mr. Zakaria makes a very good point about inequality. In the Gilded Age (a time in America's history when we were most unequal) there were a couple of big movements (Progressives and Populists) who demanded reform. Neither of them actually managed to win the White House, but they did capture the attention of the Republicans and Democrats. Eventually, these two parties embraced reform and got it.
I need another choice. Review my choices now. One side offers a canidate that is a heathen and hates Jesus, another that is a puppet of the pope, another arrogant ass that sold out to the Jews for lots of pieces of silver and finally a crazy man. The other side offers a muslem that is an alien. And soon I may have to move to England to get religious freedom! I need another choice.
1) "I think that as we become a more unequal society with greater disparities and greater diversities, you could very well imagine different political movements, at the very least, starting up." Who needs a third when two can screw things up to the point of "more unequal with greater disparities?" 2) The Ron Paul movement would represent a very different phenomenon... Scary...very Scary. Why? The people in this country who believe we "deserved" to be attacked by our enemies routinely say they have a vote for RP. They believe an effective governing of our nation would be to meet the counter-weight coalitions being created by our enemies should be answered by an American Feather-weight coalition: "we need to stop meddling in the affairs of other nations and get our people all back home." – RP 3) I just cannot identify with people in this nation who claim we deserved any attacks on us. I cannot identify with a wanna-be leader who has a don't compete against our enemies policy. I'm glad we don't have a third party...two big problems is enough.
Americans Elect would have to put someone along the lines of Hitler, Palin, or Bachmann for me not to vote for whomever the choice is. They made it to the ballot in my state. Enough of all these corrupt, bought and paid for politicians from both parties.
We have two who fight each other better than pass effective laws useful to the benefit of the nation. Two who cannot possibly have any good ideas because both can never claim to be the sole creators of the ideas. Who needs a third when we the Americans do not have any great ideas and when our leaders don't have any good ideas? This society is running on fumes. We are out of good ideas.
Is there ANYTHING this blowhard liberal doesn't have an opinion on? C'mon, CNN do some real NEWS reporting....
Oh you mean like Faux News?
Ron Paul – Good enough to be a VP for O'bummer.
Yep. In many other countries, 1 or 2 party control 99% of GDP. I don't know why President's team thinks he has anything to gain anything from limbaugh comment. Yes, women have more legal rights in America than any other country in the world but not more respect. American's advertisers sold trillions of dollars worth of products by showing woman parts. Advertiser's strategy really really works. So, advertiser's sudden desire to show woman respect is laughable. Advertiser's can do whatever they want but I hardly see huge gains for politicians in this issue.
I'm glad you've finally said it: nobody in the media is willing to accept the fact that Paul supporters are ideologically separate from neoconservative republicans that currently run the party. They constantly discuss WHERE our support will go, not IF it will transfer at all. This, in the same fashion as they often present straw-man arguments and questions for the public to digest instead of just being honest.
I don't understand how there's this ideological divide between left and right that people really believe exists. Look at the NDAA for example; resounding bipartisan support. Democrats are destroying civil liberties even faster than republicans are these days. Where can civil libetarians go? Certainly not to President Obama. He made the calculated decision that this demographic was small enough and consolidated enough that being harder on so-called 'national security' measures would shore up his credentials and silence republican opposition. What he failed to count on what the Ron Paul factor. Once a supporter, always a supporter.
You find me an ex-RP supporter and I'll find you a talking unicorn. People dismiss the idea that if he didn't win the nomination, we would still vote for him. I will. There is no other candidate that comes anywhere close. I would argue that most of us don't really care who wins the election if it's not Dr. Paul. It doesn't make any difference since they all believe the same things. That's why we're really hoping for a third party run if not the nomination. The republican party needs to be taught a lesson, and there's been a lot of speculation concerning their attempt to engineer an Obama win in 2012 in order to marginalize third party support such as libertarians. They fail to realize that we're not interested in progressivism, and a vote for Romney, Santorum, Obama, or Gingrich is all the same, no matter who you check the box next to.
Zakaria is absolutely correct. The two established parties effectively exclude any option of a third, or more, parties. Moreover the American public seems addicted to the very narrow political debate, attacking any other point of view as extreme, 'European socialism', or other derogatory comment while failing to recognize the levels of voter satisfaction in those states, notably the Scandinavian countries. Zakaria could have added a failure of the American education system to present a more diverse and realistic discussion of politics. Fact is the much-touted American notion of democracy is probably the last system developing nations should emulate. Most people would rise up if all they were offered each election were chocolate and vanilla.
Gary Johnson! Libertarian for President. "All we are saying is, Give Liberty a Chance!" Give him a serious look.
A large country such as the United States (or Canada, Russia, China) which needs to have a consensus to elect a President almost demands two or three parties, not more. Consider the problems that occurred in the U.S. prior to 1864 (including the election of 1860) Lincoln was a minority winner. Jackson was robbed of the Presidency in 1924. Even India has one major party and only a few small ones of any note. It may work at the Congressional level but not at the Presidential level. The Populist Party had its platform absorbed by the two major parties, an attempt by TR, the Socialist Party, etc. led to disaster. If a third party or multi-party movement is go get traction, it has to show it's strength at the local level (Congress) and State.
The democratic party would be a center-right party in Europe. Even though Republicans and Democrats are both very pro-corporate, it is misleading to assert Republicans would fit in the same slot on a political spectrum. A survey by the Economist comparing Brits and Americans of various political stripes on issues ranging from social values to economics to environment showed how far apart Tories are from Republicans. In Europe Republicans would certainly be on the lunatic fringe. If Republicans are consistent about something, it is anti-intellectualism. A John Cassidy essay on Keynes for example showed that they've historically been neither anti-Keynes nor pro-Keynes. They've just been about sloganeering. Reagonomics is actually butchered and cherry picked Keynes shoehorned into a political narrative. A recent Ryan Lizza piece sheds even more light on how the party has morphed into politics of resentment and religion. In Europe, they simply have no peer.
Americans are too dumb to weigh more than two options at a time.
Right wing voters don't have the guts to match their mouths and anytime a real left party comes into being both the Democrats and the Republicans join together to destroy it
Anyway this is a winner takes all system, its 51% or nothing
There are plenty of third parties out there. the roadblocks to getting on the ballot to even having a certain % in the polls to even be included in the presidential debate(Ross Parot and Ralph Nader) make next to impossible. As long as there is an electoral system, we do not vote for the president(delegates do) That is why we got stuck with Bush instead of Gore.
Actually there already is a serious third party candidate for President: Jill Stein who is running for the nomination of the Green Party which is expected to make the ballot in 45 states. Fareed Zakaria and the media lament the absence of third party alternatives while ignoring the ones that exist. Check out Jill Stein's website: http://www.jillstein.org/
there only needs to be a push for a 3rd party if it looks like Obama is in trouble and its the only way he can win...my guess is there'll be a media push for a "true Conservative" to run once ole mit gets the nomination sewn up
The Left in the U.S. isn't. It's a bogeyman made up by the Far Right Republican propaganda machine to demonize the Center Right Democrats. The closest thing to a Leftist the Democrats ever spawned is Dennis Kucinich. Compare Obama to him, and you too can laugh as I do when I hear The Right raving about what a Left Wing extremist our President is.
This business about America not having a very broad ideological spectrum is complete nonsense. Both parties could easily be split into two or three ideological categories each. It maddens me that social progressives are stuck with just the Democratic Party and fiscal conservatives are stuck with just the Republican party. What if I'm both? Who represents me?
single dark male
seeks single female
me? hung like a stud camel(11 inches)
rich(oil money)
you?tight bearded clam
because a neofascist government only needs 2 partys.
THE DUOPOLY is "THE PROBLEM"!
Hey Far-eeed!
I have an excellent idea: why don't you and your liberal buddies run Ralph Nader again as a Third Party? Come on, this country needs a real progressive alternative out there in 2012. Whaddya say Far-eeed?
What is wrong with Ron Paul? If he runs as a third party candidate, he can certainly attract voters from both parties – voters that don't really belong there but are forced to stay there because there is no other option.
He can get many dissatisfied democrats who voted for Obama to stop the wars – didn't happen. Republicans genuinely interested in ending corruption and true conservative values are already in his corner. He has got enough name recognition by running in the primaries this time that he can sustain a campaign without much money. With a bit of success comes a lot of money – remember Howard Dean's bat? I hope Ron runs.
Nader 2012! Nader 2012!
Hey rumor has it that since Dennis Kucinich lost his primary he's seriously considering a third-party run for president! Hey he's got my vote!
Fareed is the only true moderate writer on CNN by far. CNN you need to stop having John King moderate debates and let Fareed moderate a debate. Fareed would be the only one I could trust to moderate a debate without political bias.
If you think Fareed or anyone at CNN could be classified as "moderate" you must be delusional. CNN is just as looney left as MSLSD. They only hide it a little better.
Zakaria, shut up. All your blogs are senseless. Get a new profession.
Because Ron Paul is a wuss Repukelican
The author acts like he does not understand politics in America. How did he get this job? Oh, I see his picture now. I understand.
Quote: "Both American parties – the Democrats and the Republicans – would fit comfortably as center-right parties in Europe. "
This is inaccurate. Centre right parties in Europe, in particular in western Europe, are all far to the left of Republicans or democrats. With the execption of far-right wing nationalists like the now dead Haider or Le Pen, there is no party in Western eutrope as far right as even the democrats on most issues. In fact even those parties deemed as 'far right' in Europe, like the borderline neo-nazi Jorg haider, would be considered 'socialists' by the American tea party.
Another example, a right wing splinter party in Canada, known as the Reform party (now defunct) was courted by the Republicans about 12 years ago. The republicans were laughed out of Canada: by US standards, even the right wing reform party was quite far to the left on issues like gun control, socialised medicine, abortion and contraception, welfare and unemployment insurance, and many others.
Wow, thank god we don't live in Europe then. That sounds like an awful place judging by your description.
Indeed , thank whoever you want you don't live in Europe. We manage quite well without you
Vermin Supreme 2012
To have third (and more) parties we need "instant runoff" elections where we vote for a first and second (and more) choice. That way we don't split votes like Nader did to Gore in Florida in 2000. This allows 3rd parties to grow because people can vote for them without later regretting it.
The Democratic Socialist party like Germany's or the UK wouldn't fly in racist Zombieland. This country is filled with narcissistic selfish people. They don't believe in the philosophy of sacrafice and that we're all in this together mentality which is what Democratic Socialism is all about. Instead of share the wealth its keeping it all for my self, give me a gun and get off my property. Keeping it all before I die.
Jobitalism, an economic system focused on keeping jobs in the United States while also creating new jobs, has to be developed to replace Capitalism in a global economy. When business practices such as the wholesale outsourcing of jobs has a radical adverse effect on the common good, then regulation is necessary. Outsourcing must be regulated because globalization really doesn't work otherwise. There is no President or Legislature of the globe, and there are no jobs to replace the one outsourced. The proof, where are they? They don't exist. Education is not the answer. If everyone had a PHD, there wouldn't be jobs for them. The people are being conned by business right now, and that has to change.
Fairly simple Zakaria, Europeans take a greater political interest in their candidates for the top position, they expect more from the people elect, US citizens are far more interested on who will win American Idol, who won the football game , and it is why when you watch the Jay Leno segments of people on the street, you see college people who dont know who their VP is and hell some arent sure who the president is. Politics in the US is what they heard on CNN briefly in combination with Jessica Simpson, Lidsay Lohan enterainment content.
Where have you gone Ralph Nader, our nation turns it's lonely eyes to you.......
Why no third party candidate?
It's simple and you already know the answer.
The Democrats and the Republicans do everything they can to discourage a third party candidate because they know it will weaken one of their candidates chances. They have enough money and power to stop any serious candidate, unless they are filthy rich, from receiving enough money.
If the Dems and Reps didn't fix the race we'd soon discover we really have no choice. We only get to pick who the establishment stooges deem controllable.
There really isn't even a two party system in the U.S. The voter is just presented with two different heads of the same monster. Both Republicans and Democrats serve the same master – the "international" bankers. We all know who they are. They say jump and our weasely Congresscritters say how high? They say war with Iran and our treasonous Congresscritters say when? Nothing will change until the people withdraw their consent from this arrangement. Remember, we are being oppressed by a tyranny that is every bit as real as those of Hitler and Stalin. Ours is just a bit more subtle right now. It won't be that way for long. Start speaking up today, if you wait for tomorrow, you will find yourself in a gulag.
If anything, the Progressive Aristocrats need to give the real democrats with common sense and a desire to make this country better our freakin party back. We see what Social Healthcare did you Britain (OGYNs have to perform abortions), what over Unionization did Greece (all their businesses went to Ankara & Istanbul); and what out of control power hungry governments have done to the World.
Citizen's United, brought to you by a GOP-appointed majority in SCOTUS, has effectively eliminated any possibility for a third party option. It's all about money, and in particular the Adelsons (single-handedly funding Gingrich's campaign), the Koch's (who are funding Romney's campaign), and the handful of other billionaires behind the SUPERPACs. No third party can compete with this in the absence of campaign reform, and no GOP who is sucking the teat of the plutocracy (i.e., all of them) will EVER vote for campaign reform.
The actual reason is because we have a first past the post voting system. It's winner take all after 50%. The very structure of our voting rules discourages third parties, it's always best to team with your closest rival to make sure you win the election rather than siphon each others votes and let the third party win. That is why Ron Paul, (Libertarian) is running as a Republican. If we had government representation tied to the number of votes won by a party – you would see many more parties. But we don't, winner takes all in a given district.
The problem is the winner take sit all system minority votes don't get any representation!
The only thing Democrats and Republicans will ever totally agree on is, they do not want anyone else to share a piece of their pie. Having 4 or 5 viable parties / candidates means they would lose billions in graft and kickbacks and lobbying $$$ they are getting now. This is an issue that Americans need to speak loudly about. End the 2 party system!!!!
I don't believe Fareed is asking a serious question. Obviously, mainstream media controls this. It ensures that our dozens of other political parties receive virtually no coverage, are excluded from the debate, etc., thus keeping people in the dark. Listen closely, all the time, they say "both parties," "the other party," etc., implying denial of the existence of the great multiplicity that exists. In one context, the media determines the outcome of every election - they ensure that a Democrat or a Republican will always win.
For example, In 1992 Clinton recieved 43 percent of the popular vote against Bush's 37 percent and Perot's 19%. Ideologically, Bush and Perot were not that far apart, and it's safe to say most of Perot's votes would have gone to Bush had Perot not run for office. Enough at least, to likely beat Clinton's 43%.
You will never see more than two parties in the States until a run off election system is established. Without that people will be too afraid to vote for say, The Green Party, and thus siphon off votes from their second choice and putting their dreaded last choice in power.
This has to start at the local level and eventually spread to state level before we can hope to get national elections to employ the run off system.
ZAK, old buddy. Just because you in the old school media doesn't consider them serious doesn't mean there aren't serious third party candidates going into this race. For example, the single most qualified candidate to seek the office in this election cycle is actually seeking the Libertarian Party's 2012 Nomination: Former two term Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson. He left the Republican nomination race because CNN and The Boston Globe and others were so busy trying to shove Jon Huntsman down our throats that he couldn't get any traction. He will however be on the ballot in 48, if not all 50 states (Those archaic ballot laws you discuss, particularly in Oklahoma) more than enough to win and as we get closer to November and voters realize that the statist solutions of the Democratic and Republican parties aren't the solution, they're the problem, he will start to be the Jesse Ventura and the Jim Longley of this race.
Everybody says they want a capable, proven, electable alternative to the two party system that can govern if elected.
Everybody, meet Gary Johnson
The Libertarian Party is very serious and our presidential nomination frontrunner Governor Gary Johnson is very serious too. Learn more at LP.org
And who would be hurt by a third party ? Nice try, Fareed.
Who cares about anything except an invasion of Iran? Both parties want it.
Why no third party? Because the Repugs and Dems collude to prevent it. They may bitterly complain and criticize each other, but on this point they're in full agreement.
If you want a third party option you need to support 'instant runoff voting. Otherwise the third party is only a spoiler.
The problem is money from special interests. Until we demand limits on campaign spending, big money will win every time. The politicians are playing a shell game with these super PAC's and we all know it. It is all crap. No third party candidate stands a chance.
We need proportional representation and campaign finance reform. This way people can vote for who they want to represent then, not the person that will keep the other guy out. This would break up the 2 party monopoly.
Hello Fellow americans – Be careful to what you wish for. Look at the countries – which has multi party system. Those countries are so instable and corrupt as votes gets distributed and no one is in majority and one party has to listen to others and nothing works. Other side of the pasture is always greener,
Not having a viable third party has been a major contributor to where our government is now. Simple analogy: If you have a board room with 2 people in it, and there is a vote.....um, well? You need at least three viable parties to get decisions made and start becoming a nation that again blazes trails rather than a nation that reacts out of fear.
For those of you clamoring for a moderate third-party, take a look at the Modern Whig Party. This is a party of reasonable minded pragmatists who recognize the strengths and weaknesses of both current political parties. It's tag line is "A Party For the Rest of Us". It believes in a fiscal conservative government, a government that doesn't try to legislate morality, a government that encourages educational and scientific advancement, and a government that works with itself to resolve problems, rather than spew ideological hard line positions. Check it out. http://www.modernwhig.org
You guys should have picked a better name than "Modern Whig" or 'whig'. It's dumb and un-sellable. We are a Pavlovian marketing heaven and the word "whig" is out.
'No real social democrat party"...this is code for no real Communist party in the United States. This guy needs to go back to wherever he came from, 'cause he's not American. All of you people who think that this country will remain in the slavery that it's been in since you were kids, you old people, are going to be very confused when Ron Paul runs third party and wins.
Very American of you to say "go back where you came from."
Maybe it needs to start bottom up: it would be more realistic to get a 3rd party candidate nominated in the House and Senate. Once the numbers of 3rd party members get bigger in the House and Senate, it would be easier to get support and coverage for a 3rd party presidential candidate. Obviously this is not a quick fix, but I doubt there is one.
The 3rd party can be called the Hillbilly Party. Or maybe the Knuckledragger Party. The teabaggers will gravitate to it like flies on sh!t. They'll build a shrine to Sarah Palin and that will become their world headquarters.
I think Fareed forgot to discuss the primary process. Candidates for the party nomination come from diverse political ideologies. While some Republicans have an ideology that is probably closer to the main Democrat ideology, some Democrats may be closer to the main Republican ideology. There are extreme wings in both parties that produce primary candidates as well. Our parties are larger tents than those in Europe. We have hyper-nationalists, libertarians, social democrats, christian conservatives (or liberals), socialists, conservatives (in the European model), etc. They are, however, subsumed, or even federated, within the main American parties. Ultimately, although the primary field is rather diverse, it is whittled down to one per party prior to the general election. You do not have that in Europe, thus the broad-spectrum of parties in a European-style general election.
I agree, however, that it is a shame that a third party candidate has such a difficult time acceding to the race. Unfortunately, the choice of primary candidates is all too orchestrated by the respective parties, thus providing a rather un-democratic way of choosing from the many factions.
Common sense, logic, and practicality, those are the main items that are non-existant in American politics and government. You can give it any label you want, politics is always pure crap heaped upon the heads of the powerless citizens.
I would suggest that there is already a 3rd party, in that, it took the right number of blacks, hispanics & whites to vote in favor of President Obama in order for him to have won the election. The Reality is, the current 2 parties, have in fact, acted in an Anti Democratic way, by creating these outrageous rules to get a party on a ballot for a state.
Which to me, is proof of, the flaw of our two party system.
The American Party, is the 3rd party, just not on paper yet. We are, in fact, the melting pot, which is the reason why the republican party can't find a viable candidate, due to the specific interest of the republican party, which is against the grain of the American Philosophy of equal treatment of all.
askfmb.com
The Breach on the lefted.
1. The President Lied – Not sure of how many only can assume the Prostated Cancer and them who held him hostage in the mind of the hole on the left.
2. Five this includes the Step in after all have and the release of the birther of the Clavicle swirl from the stepin of the right of the psycho covering the white monkey of origin set in CA Sherriff set-up base foundation of conflict. Brendan was on left breach of magic of sight show and then released can't find in lights and the story of 0.48 baby from last birth of main racist of recepit of doing business online. the request from the white monkey of cover-up of the word "freaky" is call out in the realms of invisible.
We need Score Voting (aka Range Voting) or Approval Voting. Instant Runoff Voting won't cut it.
How can people like Zakaria talk about duopoly without talking about the elephant in the room? It's the voting system!
http://www.electology.org/
There are many legitimate, serious third-party (and fourth- and fifth-) candidates running for offices at every level of government. Unfortunately with the plurality system we use now, they are at great disadvantage–voters are afraid to vote their hearts, for "wasting" their vote on a third-party candidate. We need Ranked Choice Voting to even the playing field!
Three words: Ranked Choice Voting. Check out FairVote.org and FairVoteMN.org
As a practical point of view, voters will be afraid of a potential for a candidate with just the plurality of votes (34% in 3 similar strength party contests) could win the elections unless we have runoff elections that would not be desirable for already frustrated voters due to long election season and additional cost. The outcome will neither provide a mandate nor reflect the general will of the people in a democracy. So the current electoral system is not conducive for a credible third party challenge.
Ranked choice is not a good system for voters voting with principles either.
"not a broad ideological spectrum" – hmmm.. personally, none of the parties represent the way I think.. because to them, everything is mutually exclusive. Case in point: global warming. There's no doubt it's man made (if you're science minded, you know the reasons why..it's not rocket science), however, why does reigning in greenhouse gases have to hurt business ? Honestly, as americans are we saying there's technology we can't do ?,,
Also, the biggest obstacle to a third party is the media and the general public. Case in point, let's look at the budget. 30+ years of deficit spending. The media reports that Clinton ran a surplus ? Really ? Anyone can go to the treasury web site (look up "debt to the penny") put in any date (calendar year or fiscal year) and subtract one years debt to the prior years. Each and every year of Clintons presidency saw an increase in intra-government and inter-government debt (your debt doesn't rise if you running surpluses, since you don't need to borrow). Also using social security surpluses is not balancing the budget when eventually you will have to pay that money back. Also, take a look at Bush's budgets and how the wars were "off budget". "Off Budget ???" So Obama puts them back on, making the deficits look worse (officially), but in fact, were the same as Bush's. The bottom line is that the general public is too stupid to be voting and have consistently have had a choice of dumb and dumber in general elections.
Why no third Parties? Because most of us don't want them and they generally cause more problems than they solve.
Two Parties can split the cash proceeds more easily and help their friends make some serious bank.
The primary reason that it is nearly impossible to have a serious third party in the U.S. is the nature of how we elect presidents. The U.S. system of electing presidents is extremely skewed towards a duopolistic party system. It is a first-past-the-post system. Therefore, the average voter feels like he is "wasting" his vote if he doesn't vote for someone with a real chance to win the election (i.e., a Democrat or a Republican). And the U.S. political system is geared primarily towards one goal: getting a member of your party elected president. If a third party can't compete in that contest, then it has little chance of attracting electable candidates for contests farther down the political pyramid.
ROFL at a member of the mass media who asks why no 3rd party candidates!!!!!!! Maybe it's because YOU PEOPLE never let anyone get any press except the GOP and Democrat candidates! You know perfectly well why there's no third party candidates Zakaria, your readers are not idiots.
Because most voters are idiots. They like the abuse.
Zakaria you know perfectly well you are a tool of the system that makes sure there are no serious third party candidates.
Politics are not good for people.