Columnist Thomas Friedman, in today's New York Times, called for a third party to enter the 2012 presidential election campaign.
His reason? Our political system has evolved to the condition that makes it impossible for any president to accomplish anything except during the initial 100 days of the administration.
Friedman makes a lot of good points. He also admits that there is no chance that a third party candidate would actually win. He doesn't mention it, but the only time in our history that a third party affected the outcome of an election was in 1912, when Teddy Roosevelt ran as the "Bull Moose" party (Progressive Party) candidate and won more votes than incumbent President Taft. That put Woodrow Wilson in the White House.
Republicans hoped for a repeat in 1948 when two third parties (Henry Wallace's Progressive Party and Strom Thurmond's States Rights Party) split from the Democratic Party. Despite that, Harry Truman won the election.
The Pew Research Center for People and the Press finds eight or nine groupings of political thought. Each of these groupings could form the basis of a political party, except for one thing: our elections are held on a "winner-take-all" basis. This system, unlike countries with proportional representation, can sustain no more than two parties.
If Friedman really advocates third parties, they have a better chance of success at the state level and in congressional elections than they do for presidential elections.
I am not at all persuaded by Friedman's article, but it is worth reading. Even more interesting are readers' comments.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Do We Need a Third Party?
Topic Tags:
elections,
government,
politics
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment