(This was my reply in the www.politicalcrossfire.com..)

I firmly belive, that a major third party would have only a positive effect on the US politics..

Even if the new party would eventually corrupt, during its healthy perioid, it would set a strong pressure on the other parties to avoid corruption.. And even after the corruption, there would be now more than one choice to select with the remaining parties.. This would force the remaining parties actually to compete in this aspect of integrity..

Besides, I believe that it would take quite long time for a new party to corrupt.. Typically a new ideological party (such as Green) is filled with idealistic people, and it will require more than one change of generation before the morals and people get corrupted.. Already the fact, that they did not have power before, keeps the most power hungry, selfish and spineless people from the ranks of the raising party.. And like we know, the most power hungry, selfish and spineless people are the ones, who corrupt first..

I would say, that the real problems with the hypothetical third party is the US election law, which strongly favors big parties.. Related problem is the big partie's attitudes, since they are naturally unwilling to change election law to make the small/raising parties more viable.. They hold the power and before their attitudes will change, there will doubtly be any change in the election law..

- BtD

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]

If you can get Congress to enact legislature to make third parties more viable, you might also sell them on lowering their payscale and lifetime benefits.

Third, forth, fifth etc. parties will never have much influence in a country that has winner-take-all elections and lacks a parliamentary process. Our leaders have understood that our system is awkward and not very democratic for a long time. That is why we installed a parliamentary system in Japan after beating them in WW2 and are attempting to wedge one into Iraq now.

systems as long as it's in someone else's country. Doing that here would reduce their grip on power and we can't have that. No sir.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

And who do you mean by "their"grip? The majority of Americans that embrace either Republican or Democrat ideology?

"Their grip" will never loosen until the majority stop supporting them. There is no major 3rd party for one simply reason: The vast majority of Americans actually agree with either Republican or Democrat ideology.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

I don't know about that. A large number of people pick "the lesser of two evils" as a pragmatic decision to make sure they don't "throw away their votes". On the other hand, many do not vote at all out of the thought that it is pointless to vote for anyone. The media give little attention to third parties and generally when they do give attention, they highlight the wackos or the crazier antics involved with the party.
A lot of people associate Libertarians with the Michigan Militia and think the Greens are a one-issue party.
If the Pubs and Crats are so confident that the emotional ties people have to their parties will override any better coverage or choice, why don't they try out policies to level the field for third parties?

Emotional ties are not the reason people are tied to us.

Because the field is already level. What you want to do is give the 3rd parties special favor. I dont agree with that.

The major parties should not be penalized because they happen to be popular.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

eligible voters bother to turn out. For some races it's FAR less. Even for President they are shocked when half the voters show up to cast a ballot. Popular indeed.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

The Republicans and the Democrats do have too much control, but that can't actively be changed without interfering with the democratic process. I support banning soft money, however, which would weaken the corporate and union ties of the main parties.

Yes, popular because more people choose them than choose any other political parties. That seems like common sense to me.

Whether or not hte non-voting masses really support Republicans and Democrats is irrelevant anyway. Because there are no other parties they support more even though they have the option of voting for them. My statement is correct either way.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?