Third Parties and US History

[nadinbrzezinski]

Damn it, though I posted this in a thread it is important to understand this


We are at one of those magical moments in US History, they happen every generation or so, but can truly threaten parties about every fifty to a hundred years, when third parties are viable... mostly due to how disgusted people are with the two dominant parties. We are, I will hazard, at a moment when we may even see one of not two of the major parties replaced

Why? Impressions... and people are increasingly seeing them as the two sides of the same coin, ralph or no ralph it is voting records and partly the media, but Ike said it best, if you act like a Republican, well the Republican will get the nod (can you say DLC for me? Good)

this happened back in the 1850s, and you might remember the Whig party was one of the two in the duality at the time... you do know they are still on the ballot right? Hell, they even ran a presidential candidate, really. :sarcasm:

Then in the 1870s... we had the Granger movement rise... you can thank them for that small thing called the New Deal, which took the Dems oh 50 years to appropriate.

Oh and did I mention that the best showing the Socialist ever had in the 1930s was in 1932... oh and that is for US History.

We are...at one of those magical moments... hang on to your hats. The ride will be intereseting... especially if both Blomberg and Nader throw their hats in the ring. If one, or both, throw their hat into the ring, due to current conditions, they will have an easier time stealing the elections... of course in my moments of despair, that assumes we will have elections. And that is the only major difference between those other magical times and this one. We crossed the Rubicon... and Republics die in a din of applause, and just like the Roman Empire we seem to have a Senate that is there just to look pretty

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Stealing the election? By gaining the most votes or by rigging the machines?

I think you may be on to something about there not even being elections. :^( Sounds like the junta to me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. If you have four candidates for President

taking votes from both sides, it will be easier to rig the machines.

As to not having elections... look at what the Junta is doing... I will not be too shocked, hell the Colbert show dared go there the other day.

Once things like that are spoken off, and there is no reaction, they know they have a somewhat easy to control population.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Yah. :^( No one but us cares what Cheney said about not being a part of

the executive branch.

As to rigging, they can do it with only one candidate. Heck when they are rigging, there really is only one candidate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. And now Bush has joined Chenney

as to rigging, yes there is one aproved candiadate, but if you have four people running, it will be far easier to rigg votes and make it look ok.

Of course, I will not be too shocked if Jebbie "runs" now.

[pnorman]

5. "the best showing the Socialist ever had in the 1930s was in 1932"

*
*
*
Electoral campaigns

From 1904 to 1912, the Socialist Party ran Eugene Debs for President at each election. The best showing ever for a Socialist ticket was in 1912, when Debs gained 901,551 total votes, or 6% of the popular vote. .........
*
*
*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_America

After that came WW1 with brutal suppression of dissidents, followed by the Communist fissure. The SP was just barely on the way towards rebuilding by 1932. A tiny entity now remains, but the most viable successor is probably the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

pnorman

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. thanks for the correction

but you also do remember that 1932 was a bumper crop of socialists to the US Congress, comparable, according to some historians, to the Granger showing at its height

[pnorman]

7. You were actually CORRECT, and I had read your posting in haste.

You were referring to 1932, and what happened in 1912, wasn't directly relevant to your discussion. But I'm unaware of any "bumper crop of socialists in Congress" in 1932.

That Granger Movement is briefly described here: http://www.answers.com/topic/grange-movement?cat=biz-fin

It wasn't all that earthshaking by itself, but it led to the Greenback and Populist Parties. And the latter WAS "influential", and was responsible for much progressive legislation. It had the "Eastern establishment" shitting in their silken drawers! By a tortuous interpretation of the 14th Amendment, most of that legislation was declared "unconstitutional", but most were later reenacted under different names.

pnorman