imreallyperplexed
Council Member
Given how well Ron Paul has been doing this year and how important Ralph Nader was in the 2000 elections, I am wondering whether it might be useful to have a well-established "Paul" Party (Libertarian) and a "Nader" (Green/Socialist) Party as well as the traditional Republican Party and a traditional Democratic Party.
The "Paul" Party would be a "niche" conservative party. The "Nader" Party would be a "niche" progressive party. The Republican Party would remain the "general/big tent" conservative party and the Democratic Party would remain the "general/big tent" progressive party.
I have a feeling that the Democratic and Republican Parties would remain the largest parties (at least for the foreseeable future) and be the major parties in any governing coalition. However, the "Paul" Party and the "Nader" Party would play important roles. In particular, I expect that both a "Paul" Party and a "Nader" Party would be more likely to "think outside the box" and come up with more "radical" ideas and voice them in public forums. I suspect that they would also be more open to "populist" voices from the bottom and more challenging to "elitist" voices from the top.
In the old days (meaning pre-Internet), I think that this would have been hard to do. But I think that the Internet has changed the possibilities for organizing that "niche" parties on a national level are actually conceivable. (I think that the Tea Party and OWS may both be early mainifestations of this sort of thing.)
The other advantage of having more than two parties is that I think that it is likely that more people would have an incentive to participate in the political process than they do now because they would have more choices and would be more likely to find a party that they actually felt that they fit in.
This won't happen in 2012. But perhaps by 2016? Interesting to think about.
The "Paul" Party would be a "niche" conservative party. The "Nader" Party would be a "niche" progressive party. The Republican Party would remain the "general/big tent" conservative party and the Democratic Party would remain the "general/big tent" progressive party.
I have a feeling that the Democratic and Republican Parties would remain the largest parties (at least for the foreseeable future) and be the major parties in any governing coalition. However, the "Paul" Party and the "Nader" Party would play important roles. In particular, I expect that both a "Paul" Party and a "Nader" Party would be more likely to "think outside the box" and come up with more "radical" ideas and voice them in public forums. I suspect that they would also be more open to "populist" voices from the bottom and more challenging to "elitist" voices from the top.
In the old days (meaning pre-Internet), I think that this would have been hard to do. But I think that the Internet has changed the possibilities for organizing that "niche" parties on a national level are actually conceivable. (I think that the Tea Party and OWS may both be early mainifestations of this sort of thing.)
The other advantage of having more than two parties is that I think that it is likely that more people would have an incentive to participate in the political process than they do now because they would have more choices and would be more likely to find a party that they actually felt that they fit in.
This won't happen in 2012. But perhaps by 2016? Interesting to think about.