Repost from a while back; It's time for both parties to split. Or actually just go public,

[CK_John]

The GOP is the most obvious that it has the tea-bagger baggage and the old fashion what ever is good for me section.

The Democratic party has the Progressive wing trying to be both FDR and Teddy rough riders at the same time and the group that wants to dress nice and avoid having to shower after work.

IMO, they should do everyone a favor and go public and form 4 parties with platforms and candidates

Fish or cut bait.

[marym625]

1. Only if the liberal Democrats get to stay the Democrats

And every one else has to go.

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. The difficulty of creating a new party makes that scenario unlikely.

Each of the fifty states have their own rules for new parties to be created. If they started today, there are states, Texas for instance, where the new parties would not be able to run candidates in the next election.

There are a lot of other parties in the US, but none of them elect more than a few candidates, and most of those few are in local elections.

Really, if people wanted to do that it would make more sense to engineer a takeover of existing parties that already have gone through the process of creating a party structure in most of the states.

Even if far right Republicans took over the Libertarian or Constitution Party and the Progressive left, took over the green Party or one of the Socialist Parties, I think who ever kept the name Democratic party and Republican Party would have an overwhelming advantage.

[merrily]

3. If Republicans and Democrats agreed to change laws, they would change PDQ.

However, it is not in the interests of either of the largest parties to make it easier for anyone to compete with them.

Nader won a lot of cases re: ballot access and he may still be fighting some of them.


Another of many examples of self-interest trumping democracy. Then again, we're a republic.

[bemildred]

4. Yep, they can agree with great speed about things that keep them both on top.

Seen it more than once. Both parties hate open primaries for example, the top two sort of thing.

The whole point of the primary in the first place was to give party bosses a chance to pick the candidate when the public insisted on an end to the back room deals. And there are still caucus systems in some places, but they don't pretend to be open.

And they both hate the idea of getting money out of politics.

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. It is not for the leadership of the Republcian or Democratic parties to decide that they no longer

serve the interest of its members. That is the job of the members of the party.

If it is the interest of the people to create a new party then it is in their interest to go through the process of getting ballot access in all 50 states. When parties broke up or collapsed in the past it was because members of those parties could no longer agree. (See the history of the Federalist and Whig Parties). Third parties have occasionally been able to elect quite a few offices. (See the history of the Grange movement, the greenback party, and others)

I merely pointed out that each state has different laws about what it takes to get a party on the ballot. It is not an easy task.

Now, if you consider taking over another party, check out the history of the Perot's Reform Party of the United States. Perot did very well with his populist rhetoric and his centrist reformist platform. In 2000, Pat Buchanan and a lot of disaffected Republicans took over the Reform party of the United States, changing it to a right wing reform movement.

In California, in the late 90's, republicans joined the states Green Party and tried to take it over to add an anti-immigration platform. There was a lot of fireworks, but the Republicans lost that attempt.

I will add that the Teaparty, funded by the Koch brothers, effectively took over the Republican party, moving to the extreme right on almost every issue.

In no case did party leadership decide to do a damn thing. This past election, the Republican party leadership finally fought back against the teaparty in a number of states, and put party loyalist back in some offices rather than John Bircher's.

In no case is it the Party leadership that did this, (except for the republican pushback against the Teaparty.)

The Party leadership understands the way the government works. They understand that the party in power of Congress sets the agenda on legislation. Oh, the President can ask, and if he is of the same party in power, he can even direct them to some extent, but the President does not set the legislative agenda. He has a pen, and he knows how to use it.

The executive suggest a budget, but the House of Representatives must begin all budgetary bills. So in issues of setting spending policy, whether to fund a war or education, the House must start all those.

Because it matters who is in charge, the two parties are not going to move to a multiparty system. Even if they did, the rules of he House are set around who has the majority. Which ever of those four suggested parties had the most members, they would run the show.

I will also add that members of the Congress who are not aligned with the two parties are given committee assignments and positions of influence only if they agree to caucus with a party. Bernie Sanders and King caucus with the Democrats. If they chose to caucus with no one, then they could vote but they would not be on committees and would not have any powers granted by a position in the minority or majority party.

[merrily]

6. It is for them to decide how easy or difficult ballot access is.

The legislators among them, anyway.

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. The issues here is that the US does not have a national election.

In the US, we have fifty states elections held on a single day in November. But the power to regulate those elections is a power given to the states, themselves.

Texas, from my reading, I the state where it is most difficult to set up a party. As I recall, they required a party to register new voters.

For instance, the Green party qualified in 2000, by gain 64,000 based on the gubernatorial election of 1998. In order to remain on the ballot, they have to have at least one statewide candidate gain at least 5% of the vote.

The Constitution gives Texas the power to mange elections in Texas. To change that, you would need to elect a sufficient number of legislators in Texas to change the law.

In my state, California, this is process necessary for a party to qualify for the ballot.

Ballot access requirements for political candidates in California
The process to qualify as an officially recognized political party in California is outlined below.
1.The group wishing to qualify must hold a convention or caucus to elect officers and determine the party name.[3][18]
2.After the convention, the group must file with the California Secretary of State and qualify in one of two ways:[3][18] Voter registration method To qualify by voter registration, 0.33 percent of persons who participated in the last gubernatorial election must acknowledge a preference for the group by writing the chosen name of the group on an affidavit of registration. These affidavits must be submitted to county elections offices where the voters live 154 days before the primary election. The secretary of state's office will then determine if the group has qualified as a party no later than 135 days before the primary election.[3][18][19]

Petition method To qualify by petition, signatures of registered voters equaling 10 percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election must be collected and filed at the home county election offices of the voters 135 days prior to the primary election.[3][18]


3.Once a political party qualifies, it must retain 1/15 of one (0.06) percent of the state's total registration of voters in order to maintain its status as an officially recognized political party. It must also have a statewide candidate earn at least 2 percent of the entire vote in an election or keep 0.33 percent of statewide registration in a gubernatorial race.

Here is a link to [link:http://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_political_candidates_in_Texas|Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Texas
]. Texas requires more than California. Qualifying for ballot access in all fifty states requires a lot of organization, and more than a little money. When the Texas Green Party qualified for access in Texas, they had to hire paid signature gatherers.