Reply #91: I say no

[fujiyama]

not because I don't want third parties to succede, but because I am skeptical of their ability to in the near future, atleast at the national level.

At the local level, it's a great idea. At the national level though, third parties are not only at a severe disadvantage because of the winner takes all system we have, but they also hurt the chances of the major party with the political views closest to it. A third party/independant candidate COULD win the president (Ross Perot did have an impressive 19% in '92), but it takes a LOT of money and a relatively moderate agenda. Even then, Perot didn't manage to win any states. Though several other independant candidates in the last century did manage to win some states. If I remembe correctly, George Wallace was one of them.

In a way the democratic party of today is like a coalition of different parties, representing different interests -- the corporate DLC types, the socially moderate to conservative southern democrats, the progressive/liberal types often from the coasts and the midwest. The goal of course is to give those in the latter group a greater voice in the party and the national political scene in general. I don't see how it can be done without working in the party. To create a party infrastructure from scratch is virtually impossible, and as the reform party and others have shown, it is extremely difficult to keep various different factions on board and in line. I don't see any new parties doing this anytime soon. Maybe as a long term thing, but even that seems unlikely.