Ron Paul wins this year’s straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Confer

[Swampman]

Ron Paul didn't have any chance of defeating Obama.  He did hurt McCain's chances of being elected due to the number of Paulites that refused to vote for anyone but Ron Paul.

[nomosendero]

Nope, not true in even 1 State, or if you like you could name the State. You say some wierd stuff!

[skarke]

The two party system is the result of our winner take all approach to representative government.  You'll find that third, fourth, etc. parties only exist in systems using what is known as proportional representation.  PR for short, sets rules where representation in the legislative body is established by what proportion of the total votes cast were won by a given party.  If, for instance, the Pea Green Envy party receives 24% of the total votes cast in an election, then they will have 24% of the seats in the Legislature.

In virtually all governments where representatives are selected "first past the post" FPTP, the system evolves into two parties.  Great examples are, of course, the US, and the Westminster parliamentary system of Great Britain.

Two parties are an inevitability with FPTP.  The only way to legitimize a third party is to totally change how we elect our representatives, which would mean re-writing virtually all electoral law in the US.

We have what we have, and it is a good system that has produced the most powerful Nation the World has ever seen; but, we definitely need to know how to "work" the system to our advantage.

Regarding Ron Paul, I did vote for him in the Primary for President, but of course, Romney had dropped out, so we were left with Skelator, I mean McCain  

[skarke]

One other note, the reason we have an Upper House (Senate) is precisely to offset the effects of PR.  In a strict PR electoral system, minority views are at serious risk of suffering tyranny of the majority.

An example would be, for instance, populous States like California could use their huge electoral advantage to push legislation that would permit strip mining of the whole of Montana and its smaller State cousins.  If small States were left to a strictly numerical minority, and the resulting impotence of their representation compared to the larger States, they'd be helpless.

With a Senate, and FPTP winner take all, smaller States are endowed with a more level playing field.

Those Founding Fathers were pretty smart cookies, wouldn't you say?

[Oldshooter]

Careful skarke , you are getting close to people calling you fat and questioning your ability to think for yourself. You just cannot be confusing some people with facts this way, they get defensive!

The only way to legitimize a third party is to totally change how we elect our representatives, which would mean re-writing virtually all electoral law in the US.

The very Idea, You are probably gaining weight as we speak! And you call yourself a thinker, get with it man, You prolly watch too much fox TV, and for God's sake, please deal with the important issues not left and right rubbish! There will be no rewriting the  electoral law, "We" will vote how it makes us feel good and that is that! Who in heavens name would attempt such foolishness.

[teamnelson]

So let's make the important distinction, we are not a constitutionally mandated two party system. We evolved into it, but we can have all the parties we want and any of those can replace the worn out two at any time. You can game the game or you can play to win ... ask any kid with an xbox and he can explain the difference.

[nw_hunter]

So let's make the important distinction, we are not a constitutionally mandated two party system. We evolved into it, but we can have all the parties we want and any of those can replace the worn out two at any time. You can game the game or you can play to win ... ask any kid with an xbox and he can explain the difference.

Right you are!.......The founders didn't want this kind of system at all.

[skarke]

Guys, it isn't a matter of the wishes of the Founding Fathers regarding parties.  It is the by-product of the electoral process that they wrote.  This is, frankly, inarguable.  Two parties began to emerge immediately.  A case in point is the Federalist and Antifederalist factions during the ratification debates during and after the Constitutional Convention.  While not "parties" as we know them today, they were clearly organized individuals with competing schools of thought.

The issue of the day was, basically, binary, a 1 or a 0, at least in the eyes of the apologists.

For the record, I'd love to see a strong Libertarian party, tempered by the rule of Law, controlling Congress.  It ain't gonna happen.

We might eventually replace an existing party, but we'll still have just two.  It is what it is.

I pose this question: in the entire historical record of the United States, can anyone cite the development and survival of a third party?  I can't.

[Oldshooter]

What is being missed here is that in countries that have more than two parties, Elections are being won by folk who are only supported by .............oh lets say 33% of the people. and exponentially less as the # number of parties increase!

So do we want an administration run by Unions, Mexicans, Black-Americans/the NAACP, or old stubborn retirees that want free medical care, AARP!

Under the premise that is being suggested here, We could see many Parties and NO consensus to govern!

[nw_hunter]

Guys, it isn't a matter of the wishes of the Founding Fathers regarding parties.  It is the by-product of the electoral process that they wrote.  This is, frankly, inarguable.  Two parties began to emerge immediately.  A case in point is the Federalist and Antifederalist factions during the ratification debates during and after the Constitutional Convention.  While not "parties" as we know them today, they were clearly organized individuals with competing schools of thought.

The issue of the day was, basically, binary, a 1 or a 0, at least in the eyes of the apologists.

For the record, I'd love to see a strong Libertarian party, tempered by the rule of Law, controlling Congress.  It ain't gonna happen.

We might eventually replace an existing party, but we'll still have just two.  It is what it is.

I pose this question: in the entire historical record of the United States, can anyone cite the development and survival of a third party?  I can't.

The classic American third party is identified with an issue, or a cluster of issues. The searing antebellum slavery debate spawned various third parties. By 1860, the antislavery Republican Party had captured the presidency, although with less than 40 percent of the popular vote in a rare four-way race. Some historians consider the Republican Party America's only successful third party. Others argue that the party debuted as a new major party assembled from old ones, not as a minor party that succeeded.