The Constitution Party–just 16 years old–is already the 3rd largest political party in the United States. It is also the fastest growing of the country’s so-called “third” parties. Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party’s 2008 presidential nominee, set a party record this year in the number of votes he received.

If you’re interested in supporting individuals who genuinely believe in small, non-nanny, non-interventionist government, and who are 100% pro-life, you’ll want to check out the Constitution Party.

“Constitution Conscious”
http://www.constitution-conscious.blogspot.com

“Constitution Party”
http://www.constitutionparty.com

Using data from Wikipedia and the ACE Project, I have a list of 69 nations with directly-elected chief executives (presidential systems). 28 have majoritarian (winner-take-all) legislatures, 26 have proportional legislatures, 10 have mixed systems, and there are 5 I don’t have data for. In my list of 73 nations with parliamentary governments, 30 have majoritarian legislatures, 33 have proportional legislatures, 8 have mixed systems, and there are 2 I don’t have data for.

Conclusion: type of executive (presidential versus parliamentary) is unrelated to type of legislature (winner-take-all versus proportional).

Although third parties can have the positive effect (as Doug and Mike point out) of getting major party attention for specific issues, they have no success at securing political power for their candidates or constituents. They can have a real impact on an election, have political “success”, but that “success” is realized in a negative way. A “successful” 3rd party is always a spoiler, serving only to elect the greater of two evils by drawing away support from the major party that is closest to the third party platform (Perot elects Clinton, Nader elects Bush43). Even Teddy Roosevelt, a wildly popular ex-president, who had the most successful 3rd party run in our history, only got 12 electoral votes, spoiled the Republicans chances and succeeded only in securing the election for Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

However, history does offer a glimmer of hope for anyone who despairs at what our two dominant parties offer today. While there is no historical precedent in modern American history for a 3rd party succeeding in anything but being a spoiler, there is a precedent for one of the two major parties self-destructing and being replaced by something new (The Republicans replaced the Whigs). The Republicans replaced the Whigs because the Whig Party ripped itself apart over fundamental issues. Perhaps we are seeing history repeat itself. Perhaps a new major party can emerge from the ashes of the GOP.

I don’t know that the bailout is a good example for your argument. The polling in Sept. and Oct. was pretty ambiguous on where the public stood on the issue. Some polls showed massive opposition, others showed moderate support.

Also, representative democracy doesn’t necessarily mean that the will of the people always must prevail. If it did, then we should just go ahead a fire Congress and have national plebecites on every issue.

And for the record, I opposed the bailout.

While I didn’t vote for a third party this time around, I do not subscribe to the notion that its throwing your vote away for this reason.

I’ve written more about this here if you’re interested.

Washington believed that somehow the American political system could exist without political parties.

As Madison had predicted in Federalist 10, though, that simply wasn’t going to happen.

After the Revolution, it was only natural that disagreements would arise among free people over the proper course that the country should take. It was, perhaps, inevitable that those differences would come to be personified in two people — Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson — who would go on to create the impetus of America’s first political parties, which had started to come into existence even before Washington’s first term was over.

Other than Washington, John Adams seemed to be the only Founding Father who held on to this idea that “party” was a bad thing and that divisions into political parties should be avoided, but even he eventually cast his lost with Hamilton’s Federalists, much to his regret when Hamilton turned on him before the Election of 1800.

When you look at the way it evolved, it seems inevitable that political parties of some kind would come into existence. Washington’s belief that they could somehow be avoided was, quite honestly, just a little naive.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

‘Nuff said.

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com