dagblog - Comments for "THIRD PARTIES ALWAYS DRINK TEA PART 1"

Thanks MrSmith.I had been

tmccarthy0 — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 04:49:21 +0000

Thanks MrSmith.

I had been giving that very issue some thought myself. I was thinking I could make some money selling off one sqaure inch of my acreage here on the Puget Sound to New Yorkers or other folk who weren't lucky enough to own property and they could vote as absentee voters in Washington State. Or think of this, would you like to turn a red state bluer than blue, come to Montana and buy some land so you can vote! Wow, wouldn't that be fun!

A great blog. I have to

MrSmith1 — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 04:38:46 +0000

In reply to THIRD PARTIES ALWAYS DRINK TEA PART 1

A great blog. I have to admit, I did get slightly distracted as I read about the proposal that only property owners should be allowed to vote. I started to imagine how that would go over here in NYC, where, for example, I own a co-op apartment. Since co-ops are technically just shares in a corporation, would that be considered property, or would only condominium owners be considered property owners? (Just think, the Republicans could wipe out a huge number of Liberal elite co-op owners/voters on the Upper West Side of Manhattan in one fell swoop. LOL)

Constitutional Amendments are

tmccarthy0 — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 04:38:40 +0000

In reply to I would love it if Congress

Constitutional Amendments are difficult to pass though. My point and the point of the paper is that third parties in America have a few issues, but rarely do they have the organizational ability to grow a party with staying power that is electable. And as I will get into in Part II (the Know-Nothing Movement) and Part III, (The Progressive Party of 1912), arguably the two parties in our past that actually had many people voting for them, show they don't have starying power, and there are a variety of reasons for that which those two papers will explore. They certainly don't lack ideals, but they do lack staying organizational power. What I mean by that is they lack structure to hold a party together which often takes big coalition building, which is very difficult and leads to platforms that seem weak and ineffective. However, third parties seem to serve their purpose by helping to pressure the major parties into sometimes adopting prudent and necessary reforms. In the 1830's those third parties were talking about 10 hour work days, enfranchising more voters were all ideas that came from movements that pressured politicians. This is our system, and I don't think anything will change it, and that is my other larger point, or will be my larger point when this three part series ends, is that this is our system, love it or not, but I think it is here to stay, and there is a little more than 200+ years of evidence to support my thesis.

Thanks Dick, it's been fun to

tmccarthy0 — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 04:15:59 +0000

In reply to This is another fine read.

Thanks Dick, it's been fun to read about. But then History is fun.

Thanks Linda, wait until you

tmccarthy0 — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 04:15:18 +0000

In reply to Wow! This is very interesting

Thanks Linda, wait until you read part 2, the Know-Nothing party is quite interesting.

"Joe is a repub, nothing more

Linda Tilsen — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 02:05:07 +0000

In reply to This is another fine read.

"Joe is a repub, nothing more and nothing less."

EXACTLY! Well stated.

I would love it if Congress

Atheist — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 01:37:34 +0000

In reply to THIRD PARTIES ALWAYS DRINK TEA PART 1

I would love it if Congress took up the problem of 3rd parties by creating a Constitutional amendment to change the way we vote. Automatic run-off or some other system allowing us to vote 3rd Party without throwing our vote away could result in dramatic political changes. Alternatively, states can implement this on their own.

Wow! This is very interesting

Linda Tilsen — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 01:32:46 +0000

In reply to THIRD PARTIES ALWAYS DRINK TEA PART 1

Wow! This is very interesting and a fine piece of scholarship. I especially loved the old political cartoons. But your article itself is most compelling, serving as an astute reminder of the evolutionary nature of party politics, rather than the revolutionary measures some advocate. As your post demonstrates, the essence of structural change occurs within an established framework: pity the poor fools who proffer (and prefer!) wholesale intra-party implosions! If I were addressing Democratic extremists, especially certain "tribalists," I would say they should read this, study the links, debate the finer points ad nauseum, and reconsider their obtuseness. This is a must-read for those in need of a cautionary tale. Nice, nice effort, Teri!

This is another fine read.

Richard Day — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 21:34:30 +0000

In reply to THIRD PARTIES ALWAYS DRINK TEA PART 1

This is another fine read. Great cites/sites/links.

We do have no name brand steaks up here. Frozen bricks you take home kept in containers five steps from real meat. ha

I understand that Joe gets good press from all this; his ratings go up and they get higher every day these pundits discuss a presidential run for the repub.

He is a repub of course. So if he decides to run as an independent it would be good for dems.

He might actually run as a repub but he would lose his show just like Huckabee will lose his. So if he does 'declare' it will be well into 2012 I assume.

Just so people understand. Joe is a repub, nothing more and nothing less.