They are still the republicans, though.  But even in Lincoln's time the GOP was identified with the northern business elites.  The difference is back then intellectuals were not scorned and many gravitated to the new party as an anti-slavery platform which was popular among the elite... if not the blue-collar/farmer types.  For that matter the Democrats held a solid south until 1965 because they weren't republicans and had not been the driving force behind the civil war.

But both modern parties as of now are the products of racism.  Somehow they passed each other!

It wouldn't surprise me if the biggest promoters of the principle that voting for a third party is a wasted vote was the two major parties .... There is big money in politics, a swing left or right (as defined by the main parties) doesn't really effect the cash flow so much, I would imagine .... but a major third party could well dig into their prosperity.

Certainly the one thing they agree on is that there should only be two parties.

Does not help us in the present circumstance.

(July 13, 2016 at 6:13 pm)madog Wrote: It wouldn't surprise me if the biggest promoters of the principle that voting for a third party is a wasted vote was the two major parties .... There is big money in politics, a swing left or right (as defined by the main parties) doesn't really effect the cash flow so much, I would imagine .... but a major third party could well dig into their prosperity.

And therein lies the problem. A third party would either have to hold out their hands too or they wouldn't be able to buy the necessary air time and ads to be a success. Unless funded as a pet project by some billionaire, which kind of disqualifies the whole purpose.

As long as money isn't out of politics, no third party will ever get enough attention to be a national success.

(July 13, 2016 at 6:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Certainly the one thing they agree on is that there should only be two parties.

Does not help us in the present circumstance.

But change has to start somewhere even though they would have you believe there is never a good time .... but if there was ever a good time to try, this present circumstance is about the best time to try to break down the two party system .... 

Basically, it appears there are two bad choices which makes a third choice appealing .... whether there is a decent third choice I don't know .... or whether that happens is another matter.

(July 13, 2016 at 3:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:an outsider could actually win?

And then what?

Hasn't the last 8 years demonstrated how impractical this government is when you have one party which simply refuses to work with the other?   What do you think would happen when your "outsider" stands up before congress and they all give a collective "fuck you."  Your "outsider" will have no base whatsoever in congress.  No one who will cover the "outsider's" back.  Or are we invoking magic here and thinking that an "outsider" will usher in an era of peace and love?

You may as well pray for fucking god to intervene for all the good that will do!

You seem to think that third-parties don't run undercard candidates.

No doubt it's uphill sledding, but more of the same is getting us, well, more of the same.

(July 13, 2016 at 5:37 pm)Minimalist Wrote: We're not talking about stupidity.  We're talking about futility.

Third parties here are impotent.

And how will voting for the two majors change that, exactly?

(July 13, 2016 at 6:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Certainly the one thing they agree on is that there should only be two parties.

Does not help us in the present circumstance.

And what does giving them your countenance via your vote help?

(July 13, 2016 at 3:36 pm)madog Wrote: I don't know US political history ... But what you seem to be describing is one government with two sides to the Party, just named differently?...

"Left wing, right wing ... same bird."

(July 13, 2016 at 6:26 pm)abaris Wrote: And therein lies the problem. A third party would either have to hold out their hands too or they wouldn't be able to buy the necessary air time and ads to be a success. Unless funded as a pet project by some billionaire, which kind of disqualifies the whole purpose.

As long as money isn't out of politics, no third party will ever get enough attention to be a national success.

I think Bernie's approach was pretty successful, considering what he was up against. He worked small donations enough to compete. The Internet is changing politics too, as it changes the other things it touches.

Quote:And what does giving them your countenance via your vote help?

With any luck it means I won't have a batshit crazy motherfucker with his finger on the nuclear button.

(July 13, 2016 at 8:40 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:And what does giving them your countenance via your vote help?

With any luck it means I won't have a batshit crazy motherfucker with his finger on the nuclear button.

Like Dubya was never elected? Like Ronnie never went senile?

I get your point, anyone but Trump, and I'm right there -- right there. And I will vote for Clintion if my state is so close that my vote might help tip the scale, in this particular election.

But sailing through life voting the party line and expecting others to do the work? Well, I'm a couple of centuries younger than you, and I don't mind going down swinging. I can understand your disillusionment, but I goddamned well don't and won't buy into it. I've yet to see a single battle won by despair.