Where on political spectrum could third party come from?

[MillennialModerate]

In other nations similar to us (G7) they have for the most part two parties that pass power back and forth just like we do, but for the most part they have third parties that play much much more relevant roles in places like Canada & the UK then they do here.

My question is - where on the political spectrum does anyone see the best likelihood emerging of a serious third party? It’s an interesting question. I think it’s safe to say what has stopped well intentioned people from perusing the formation of a third party in America is the idea that they will split the vote on one side of the spectrum guaranteeing a victory for the party on the other side.

[kyc0705]

I feel like socialist wing of the Democrats has both the insistence and the hubris required to split off, especially after another particularly dire primary squabble with the party establishment. Whether they would actually be a serious electoral proposition is another question entirely. Under FPTP, it would likely require some kind of negotiation with the Democrats in agreeing where to run and not run candidates. However, if this division was as acrimonious as it would have to be to cause an outright exodus, it might not be easy to get the two parties to talk.

[KingSweden]

It would come from a place that caters specifically to my priors and preferences, which of course all reasonable Americans share

[krazen1211]

A 3rd party cannot exist in a first past the post winner take all Presidential system.

[Former President tack50]

I feel like socialist wing of the Democrats has both the insistence and the hubris required to split off, especially after another particularly dire primary squabble with the party establishment. Whether they would actually be a serious electoral proposition is another question entirely. Under FPTP, it would likely require some kind of negotiation with the Democrats in agreeing where to run and not run candidates. However, if this division was as acrimonious as it would have to be to cause an outright exodus, it might not be easy to get the two parties to talk.

Well, to begin with there aren't many such arrangements. And when they do exist they are usually regional stuff, like CDU/CSU in Germany. I guess an American equivalent could be Puerto Rico but as long as they aren't a state that is out of the question.

And with the US political system it wouldn't work. If you are going to reach an agreement with the democrats you might as well run in their primary.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The left obviously.

[MillennialModerate]

A 3rd party cannot exist in a first past the post winner take all Presidential system.

Why is that

[kyc0705]

A 3rd party cannot exist in a first past the post winner take all Presidential system.

Why is that

FPTP naturally levitates towards a two party system. Generally, these two parties end up housing large chunks of the respective left and right in their country, and so voters will end up voting for one to keep the other out of power. Voting for third parties that closer align to your viewpoint ends up helping for the major party you don't like, because it takes a vote away from the major party you tolerate.

Let's say you're a left-wing voter, and you live in a country with a center-left and center-right party. Your country has 100 voters, and elects its president with a single-round FPTP system. But in this election, a far-left insurgent candidate also runs alongside the two major parties. Some of your fellow left-wing voters, dissatisfied with the wishy-washy stances of the center-left party, gravitate towards them. They've amassed a lot of momentum, and you really think they could shake up the race. But what if the outcome looks like this?

Center-right candidate: 45 votes (WINNER)
Center-left candidate: 40 votes
Far-left candidate: 10 votes

By not voting for the center-left candidate, your votes have inadvertently helped the center-right candidate—the candidate the furthest from your views—win. In the next election, you and your friends make sure to avert this, and hold your nose and vote for the center-left candidate. Despite the fact that they're not particularly popular with anyone, they're closer to your beliefs than the center-right candidate. At the next election, the results look like this:

Center-left candidate: 55 votes (WINNER)
Center-right candidate: 45 votes
Far-left candidate: 0 votes

The third party acts as a spoiler, and can't garner support without fear that votes for them will help the center-right party. Eventually, all elections gravitate toward those two parties, as voters vote against their fears, instead of for their genuine beliefs. FPTP can only really support two major, feasible parties.

(This video from CGP Grey explains it in much more depth.)

[TheSaint250]

It would be amazing if one came from the center-right (Macron-like), but chances are we'll see further struggle and split on the Democratic side first, so it'll probably be some center-left party like Germany's Social Democrats.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

FPTP naturally levitates towards a two party system.

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_presidential_election,_2016

[kyc0705]

FPTP naturally levitates towards a two party system.

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_presidential_election,_2016

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015

[MillennialModerate]

I’d personally like to see two parties: a Far-left and a Far-Right party so the two parties we have now can gravitate back toward the center where they belong.

[JG]

I’d personally like to see two parties: a Far-left and a Far-Right party so the two parties we have now can gravitate back toward the center where they belong.

The fact anyone considers the democrats to be a far-left party right now or on the path to become one is ridiculous. Advocating for universal health care isn't far-left.

[pbrower2a]

I’d personally like to see two parties: a Far-left and a Far-Right party so the two parties we have now can gravitate back toward the center where they belong.

That's how things gravitated in the latter years of the Weimar Republic, with the political energy tending either to the Far Right (Nationalists and Nazis) or the Far Left (Communists). The Parties of the Center Right (Center) and  Center Left (Social Democrats) could not deal with the coarsening of political rhetoric arising from economic distress, and the extremists turned into brawling tribes.

America does not have a strong Socialist party.

[ConservativeCommunist]

Hopefully from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, although I don't see a progressive/Social Democratic party doing well in our FPTP electoral system, and it would likely just cause Dems to lose in a landslide if it actually became a national party - ala 1912 in reverse.

[Famous Mortimer]

A 3rd party cannot exist in a first past the post winner take all Presidential system.

Why is that

God. The quality of posts really have gone down here.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The thing that prevents America adopting a multiparty system isn't FPTP (although that doesn't help) nor is it presidentialism. It's because the Democratic and Republican parties are more sprawling and decentralisatised coalitions than political parties in really any other country in the world. This is largely because both parties are so old, they don't really resemble the mass membership parties that would take off around the world.

The other thing is that Congress is explicitly desogned to have a majority and a minority faction. Third parties and Indies basically are obliged to join one side or another, or they have no power. Maybe it's a bit different in states with relatively well functioning third parties, I don't know.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Imo the most likely third party would be entirely state based: some canny Governor or such with a powerful brand forming his own movement and trying to form the balance of power by forcing his or her people in the senate.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The Left/far-left is most likely.  But this would have to wait until Trump is out of office as most people in the Democratic Party are united against him.

But a new left-wing third party (or any third party) would be in a tricky situation.  I think it would be necessary for a large number of big-name Democrats to split from the party, activists can only go so far.  The new party would essentially throw a few elections to the Republicans.  But if the new party could eventually get more votes than the Democrats, they would replace the Democrats.  And then we go back to the two-party system.

[brucejoel99]

FPTP naturally levitates towards a two party system.

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_presidential_election,_2016

*bump*

Sorry, I know this thread hasn't been posted in for a year now, but I came across it & just had to counter this.

In political science, the tendency being referred to above, in which plurality-rule elections (such as FPTP) structured within single-member districts tends to favor a two-party system, is called Duverger's law.

Duverger actually didn't regard the principle as absolute, suggesting instead that plurality would act to delay the emergence of new political forces & would accelerate the elimination of weakening ones, whereas proportional representation would have the opposite effect.

Since 1987, the Philippines is seen as basically the only country whose politics run counter to Duverger's law, as the Philippines' governance structure changed repeatedly before 1987 & the country has many distinct social groups.

So... yes. FPTP does naturally levitate toward a two party system.

[SteveRogers]

In addition to what others have already said about Duverger’s law (the tendency of FPTP to produce two party systems), I think our fairly unique American system of direct primary elections helps prevent the rise of splinter parties by keeping the two main parties more malleable. Basically, if those on the far left or far right actually had enough support to organize a political party, they would simply hijack the Republican or Democratic primaries and take over the existing party apparatus rather than forming their own party (the role of the Tea Party Republicans circa 2010 being a good example).

And a third party can’t come from the center, because one or both major parties would quickly move to co-opt that party’s issue positions. Look at Ross Perot in 1992. He made major inroads by running on a platform focusing on issues and positions that were being ignored by the major parties. But by 1994 the Republicans were copying-and-pasting Perot’s platform into their Contract With America, so Perot’s Reform Party was obsolete as a force in American politics before it even got off the ground.

[Indy Texas]

It would have to be a regional party that effectively displaces one of the two major parties in 1+ states and remains consigned to Libertarian/Green levels of votes in the rest of the country.

[Sir Mohamed]

A center-right party like British or Candian Tories while the GOP continues to embrace white nationalism, isolationism and right wing populism.

[Person Man]

I feel like socialist wing of the Democrats has both the insistence and the hubris required to split off, especially after another particularly dire primary squabble with the party establishment. Whether they would actually be a serious electoral proposition is another question entirely. Under FPTP, it would likely require some kind of negotiation with the Democrats in agreeing where to run and not run candidates. However, if this division was as acrimonious as it would have to be to cause an outright exodus, it might not be easy to get the two parties to talk.

I could see them sharing the same primaries and being able to have amicable turf wars and being able to negotiate coalitions when the GOP wins less than 50% of the power but a strong plurality. My guess is that this arrangement would allow centrist or insufficiently ideological candidates to run as stereotypical conservadems on a platform of nuance on health care, ending the payroll tax max, taxation on pensions, while also running against taking up more civil rights causes and going to the center on women’s rights, self defense rights , and gay rights. The entire space between Charlie Crist and Dan Lipinski.

Then the rest of Democrats could either join that party or feel more comfortable running on government guarantees of training, health care, retirement, and balanced trade and employment. Also on drug and gun reform, civil rights, reproductive rights and taking a much more populist stance on pollution.

[GP270watch]

 If we have a really bad recession in the next 10 to 15 years we will get something really ruinous politically and I'm not sure what form it will take. The Republican party seems like it can easily be taken over by the most fervent, see the TeaParty and the rise of Donald Trump's political chaos. But if we have a uprise from the left it will happen under the Democratic party because that's where it's already going. The shrinking white population of America will also cause a freak out that will probably give rise to several minor white nationalist parties that will get outsized attention.