Rise of a Third Party

[slackjawed]

The GOP in 1860 was a third party as well, a sectional one, as were the three factions of the Democratic Party. The Republicans unifed on Unionism and preservation, and incorporated some of the more liberal Whig principles, not the least support to business and support for internal improvements. The Dems lost the election because they dissolved on the issue of how to resolve slavery.

A third party in order to survive and prosper requires (1) a basic unifying principle allied to a consistent ideological philosophy to broaden the appeal of the base, and (2) the opposition party in absolute disarray over core principles. Neither of those conditions exist right now for a third party.

The Republican Party was never a third party. Their first presidential candidate in 1856 won 114 electoral votes. The third place candidate was the Know Nothing nominee, Millard Fillmore, who won 8 or something like that.

1860 was a GOP route, and in 1864, Reublicans elected something like 200 members of Congress.

The republicans were a third party in 1856, they had only just formed in 1854.
The republican party was THE third party that gave us the term.
Many whigs jumped ship to join the third party as republicans, including Abe Lincoln.
History has facts.....

 

[LuckyDan]

The Republican Party was never a third party. Their first presidential candidate in 1856 won 114 electoral votes. The third place candidate was the Know Nothing nominee, Millard Fillmore, who won 8 or something like that.

1860 was a GOP route, and in 1864, Reublicans elected something like 200 members of Congress.

The republicans were a third party in 1856, they had only just formed in 1854.
The republican party was THE third party that gave us the term.
Many whigs jumped ship to join the third party as republicans, including Abe Lincoln.
History has facts.....

What was "third" about them?

 

[slackjawed]

they were the third party compared to the entrenched democrats and whigs

 

[slackjawed]

The Republican Party was never a third party. Their first presidential candidate in 1856 won 114 electoral votes. The third place candidate was the Know Nothing nominee, Millard Fillmore, who won 8 or something like that.

1860 was a GOP route, and in 1864, Reublicans elected something like 200 members of Congress.

The republicans were a third party in 1856, they had only just formed in 1854.
The republican party was THE third party that gave us the term.
Many whigs jumped ship to join the third party as republicans, including Abe Lincoln.
History has facts.....

What was "third" about them?

from wiki;
Creation
See also: Third Party System
The Little White Schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin, where the Republican Party was first organized locally in 1854

The Republican Party was first organized in 1854, growing out of the "anti-Nebraska" coalition of old Whigs, freesoil Democrats etc. who mobilized in opposition to Stephen Douglas's January 1854 introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Act into Congress, a bill which repealed the 1820 Missouri compromise prohibition on slavery north of latitude 36° 30' in the old Louisiana purchase territories, and so was viewed as an aggressive expansionist pro-slavery maneuver by many. Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a progressive vision of modernizing the United States—emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers. They vigorously argued that free-market labor was superior to slavery and the very foundation of civic virtue and true American values—this is the "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men" ideology explored by historian Eric Foner.[1] The Republicans absorbed the previous traditions of its members, most of whom had been Whigs, such as Alvan E. Bovay and Horace Greeley; others had been Democrats or members of third parties (especially the Free Soil Party and the American Party or Know Nothings). Many Democrats who joined up were rewarded with governorships: (Nathaniel P. Banks of Massachusetts, Kinsley Bingham of Michigan, William H. Bissell of Illinois, Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, Hannibal Hamlin of Maine, Samuel J. Kirkwood of Iowa, Ralph Metcalf of New Hampshire, Lot Morrill of Maine, and Alexander Randall of Wisconsin) or seats in the U.S. Senate (Bingham and Hamlin, as well as James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin, John P. Hale of New Hampshire, Preston King of New York, Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, and David Wilmot of Pennsylvania.) Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the Democratic Party, but the amount of flow back and forth of prominent politicians between the two parties was quite high from 1854 to 1896.

Two small cities of the Yankee diaspora, Ripon, Wisconsin and Jackson, Michigan, claim to be the birthplace of the Republican Party (in other words, meetings held there were some of the first 1854 anti-Nebraska assemblies to call themselves by the name "Republican"). Ripon held the first county convention on March 20, 1854. Jackson held the first statewide convention where delegates including Abraham Lincoln from Illinois July 6, 1854 declared their new party opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories and selected a state-wide slate of candidates. The Midwest took the lead in forming state party tickets, while the eastern states lagged a year or so. There were no efforts to organize the party in the South, apart from a few areas adjacent to free states. The party initially had its base in the Northeast and Midwest. The party launched its first national convention in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in February 1856, with its first national nominating convention held in the summer in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[2]
This caricature tries to link Frémont to other "weird" movements like temperance, feminists, socialism, free love, Catholicism and abolitionism.

John C. Frémont ran as the first Republican nominee for President in 1856, using the political slogan: "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Frémont." Although Frémont's bid was unsuccessful, the party showed a strong base. It dominated in New England, New York and the northern Midwest, and had a strong presence in the rest of the North. It had almost no support in the South, where it was roundly denounced in 1856-60 as a divisive force that threatened civil war.



entire article;
History of the United States Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LuckyDan]

they were the third party compared to the entrenched democrats and whigs

The Whigs were not entrenched in 1854. They were exhaling their death rattle after Winfield Scott was handed his ass in 1852. The Republicans ran second in 1856 and won in 1860. There was never anything third about them.

Look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls.

Third parties bring nothing more to the debate than a squeaky wheel and they siphon votes from the major party candidate nearest to them, only to elect the candidate with whom they have the least in common.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I've always hated the whole "steal votes" or "siphon votes" nonsense. It doesn't make sense. Ralph Nader didn't steal any votes from Gore, and neither does any third party candidate steal votes from any other candidate. If someone votes for a third party candidate then that vote never belonged to either the Republican or the Democrat in the first place. Using that logic we would have to accurately say that Barack Obama stole the election from John McCain because without Obama McCain likely would have gotten all those votes. It's simple nonsense. Votes don't belong exclusively to the two major parties, so they cannot therefore be stolen or siphoned away from them.

 

[slackjawed]

they were the third party compared to the entrenched democrats and whigs

The Whigs were not entrenched in 1854. They were exhaling their death rattle after Winfield Scott was handed his ass in 1852. The Republicans ran second in 1856 and won in 1860. There was never anything third about them.

Look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls.

Third parties bring nothing more to the debate than a squeaky wheel and they siphon votes from the major party candidate nearest to them, only to elect the candidate with whom they have the least in common.

Your telling me that the republican party magically apeared on the scene as a viable SECOND party? That's insane dude.
They replaced the whig party, that was on it's way out. thats what a THIRD party does.
It looks like the tea party is doing the same tyhing to the republicans, or at least trying-time will tell.
No party just magically appears as a viable SECOND party. That's just revision of history.
You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am mine. So when a third party does 'suddenly appear" as a viable second party and replaces one of the two entrencvhed evil parties, please don't be surprised, because history shows that it has happened before, in the US and other countries as well. (Baath party in Iran, green party in denmark, National socialist party in germany, ect)

 

[LuckyDan]

I've always hated the whole "steal votes" or "siphon votes" nonsense. It doesn't make sense. Ralph Nader didn't steal any votes from Gore, and neither does any third party candidate steal votes from any other candidate. If someone votes for a third party candidate then that vote never belonged to either the Republican or the Democrat in the first place. Using that logic we would have to accurately say that Barack Obama stole the election from John McCain because without Obama McCain likely would have gotten all those votes. It's simple nonsense. Votes don't belong exclusively to the two major parties, so they cannot therefore be stolen or siphoned away from them.

That's true only if the third party voter would not otherwie participate in the election. In either case, their candidates are not viable and their participation influences nothing in the way of policy.

 

[LuckyDan]

they were the third party compared to the entrenched democrats and whigs

The Whigs were not entrenched in 1854. They were exhaling their death rattle after Winfield Scott was handed his ass in 1852. The Republicans ran second in 1856 and won in 1860. There was never anything third about them.

Look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls.

Third parties bring nothing more to the debate than a squeaky wheel and they siphon votes from the major party candidate nearest to them, only to elect the candidate with whom they have the least in common.

Your telling me that the republican party magically apeared on the scene as a viable SECOND party? That's insane dude.
They replaced the whig party, that was on it's way out. thats what a THIRD party does.
It looks like the tea party is doing the same tyhing to the republicans, or at least trying-time will tell.
No party just magically appears as a viable SECOND party. That's just revision of history.
You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am mine. So when a third party does 'suddenly appear" as a viable second party and replaces one of the two entrencvhed evil parties, please don't be surprised, because history shows that it has happened before, in the US and other countries as well. (Baath party in Iran, green party in denmark, National socialist party in germany, ect)

The GOP was founded in 1854, ran second in 1856, won in 1860 and elected 200 congressman in 1864. That's viability and yes, it happened pretty damn quick.

And I disagree that replacing a party on its way out is what a third party does. It challenges it's nearest rival, not replaces. To replace would make it a major party, not a third party.

I just don't see the American political culture welcoming a third party. We look at things in terms of black and white, pro or con, yes or no, for or against, true or false.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lucky Dan would flunk that part of a freshman history course at his local community college.

In 1856 and 1860, the GOP ran on sectional and regional tickets, north and west of the Ohio River. In 1864, it ran on a fusion ticket. Not until 1868 could it win in all parts of the country. Yes, indeed, it was a 3rd party for at least the two first elections.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I've always hated the whole "steal votes" or "siphon votes" nonsense. It doesn't make sense. Ralph Nader didn't steal any votes from Gore, and neither does any third party candidate steal votes from any other candidate. If someone votes for a third party candidate then that vote never belonged to either the Republican or the Democrat in the first place. Using that logic we would have to accurately say that Barack Obama stole the election from John McCain because without Obama McCain likely would have gotten all those votes. It's simple nonsense. Votes don't belong exclusively to the two major parties, so they cannot therefore be stolen or siphoned away from them.

That's true only if the third party voter would not otherwie participate in the election. In either case, their candidates are not viable and their participation influences nothing in the way of policy.

It's not only true if the voter would not otherwise participate in the election. If the voter prefers a third party candidate to the two major party candidates then the two major party candidates obviously do not deserve that vote, regardless of whether that person would vote for one of them in the absence of the third party candidate. I would say the candidates not being "viable" is dependent upon what you mean by "viable."

 

[LuckyDan]

I've always hated the whole "steal votes" or "siphon votes" nonsense. It doesn't make sense. Ralph Nader didn't steal any votes from Gore, and neither does any third party candidate steal votes from any other candidate. If someone votes for a third party candidate then that vote never belonged to either the Republican or the Democrat in the first place. Using that logic we would have to accurately say that Barack Obama stole the election from John McCain because without Obama McCain likely would have gotten all those votes. It's simple nonsense. Votes don't belong exclusively to the two major parties, so they cannot therefore be stolen or siphoned away from them.

That's true only if the third party voter would not otherwie participate in the election. In either case, their candidates are not viable and their participation influences nothing in the way of policy.

It's not only true if the voter would not otherwise participate in the election. If the voter prefers a third party candidate to the two major party candidates then the two major party candidates obviously do not deserve that vote, regardless of whether that person would vote for one of them in the absence of the third party candidate. I would say the candidates not being "viable" is dependent upon what you mean by "viable."

By viable I mean a candidate that stands something more than a snowman's chance in hell of winning. Third party candidates don't.

Your earlier post said that third party candidates don't siphon votes since their vote never belonged to a major candidate to begin with. Your last reply spoke of whether the major party candidate deserved that vote.

Deserving or not, the question remains: Would a third party voter participate in an election limited to the two major candidates? If so, then the addition of the TPC means a "siphoned" (and I would argue wasted) vote.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's true only if the third party voter would not otherwie participate in the election. In either case, their candidates are not viable and their participation influences nothing in the way of policy.

It's not only true if the voter would not otherwise participate in the election. If the voter prefers a third party candidate to the two major party candidates then the two major party candidates obviously do not deserve that vote, regardless of whether that person would vote for one of them in the absence of the third party candidate. I would say the candidates not being "viable" is dependent upon what you mean by "viable."

By viable I mean a candidate that stands something more than a snowman's chance in hell of winning. Third party candidates don't.

Your earlier post said that third party candidates don't siphon votes since their vote never belonged to a major candidate to begin with. Your last reply spoke of whether the major party candidate deserved that vote.

Deserving or not, the question remains: Would a third party voter participate in an election limited to the two major candidates? If so, then the addition of the TPC means a "siphoned" (and I would argue wasted) vote.

And why don't they stand a chance? Because the Republicans and Democrats conspire together to make it harder for third party candidates to have a chance.

The language may have been different, but the point was the same. Again, it doesn't matter whether the voter would still participate in the absence of the third party candidate. If my first choice is a third party but I have to settle for one of the two major party candidates then it's more accurate to say that votes were "stolen" or "siphoned" from the third party candidate, then it is to say that they were "stolen" or "siphoned" from the two major parties with the inclusion of the third party candidate. Now if it were my intention to vote for the Republican or the Democrat, but I for some reason voted third party instead, then that might indeed be a "siphoned" vote. However, I don't see why that would happen.

So it really comes down to the preferred choice of the voter, and then how they actually vote to determine if a vote was "siphoned" away from anybody. The only way that's an accurate statement is if the voter cannot or does not vote for their preferred candidate in an election.

 

[LuckyDan]

Lucky Dan would flunk that part of a freshman history course at his local community college.

In 1856 and 1860, the GOP ran on sectional and regional tickets, north and west of the Ohio River. In 1864, it ran on a fusion ticket. Not until 1868 could it win in all parts of the country. Yes, indeed, it was a 3rd party for at least the two first elections.

If Jake Starkey were my instructor, I'd drop the course.

114 electoral votes in 1856, 180 in 1860 and the Presidency. How can the winning party be considered anything but major? They never ran third.

If sectional and regional (and fusion?) are the defining characteristics of a third party, then there was nothing but third parties after the Whigs died.

 

[Bezukhov]

I have another solution. Imagine if they held an election and nobody voted. It would send a message to TPTB that we are sick of all of them. To be honest I am starting to question the need for governments at all.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I have another solution. Imagine if they held an election and nobody voted. It would send a message to TPTB that we are sick of all of them. To be honest I am starting to question the need for governments at all.

Well if you're an anarcho-capitalist then I would think you're far beyond just starting to question the need for governments lol.

 

[Bezukhov]

I have another solution. Imagine if they held an election and nobody voted. It would send a message to TPTB that we are sick of all of them. To be honest I am starting to question the need for governments at all.

Well if you're an anarcho-capitalist then I would think you're far beyond just starting to question the need for governments lol.

A recent convert, to be honest. Hence the reference to 'just starting'.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lucky Dan would flunk that part of a freshman history course at his local community college.

In 1856 and 1860, the GOP ran on sectional and regional tickets, north and west of the Ohio River. In 1864, it ran on a fusion ticket. Not until 1868 could it win in all parts of the country. Yes, indeed, it was a 3rd party for at least the two first elections.

If Jake Starkey were my instructor, I'd drop the course.

114 electoral votes in 1856, 180 in 1860 and the Presidency. How can the winning party be considered anything but major? They never ran third.

If sectional and regional (and fusion?) are the defining characteristics of a third party, then there was nothing but third parties after the Whigs died.

You would not last if I were teaching, because of your poor critical thinking skills. You
state an inference I did not make for instance. Sectional and regional characters are not the only defining characteristics of a third party, but a party that does not take votes in a major portion of the country, and only wins because the dominant party shot itself in the head, leads to the conclusion that it won only in lieu of a viable major party.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Conspiracy capitalism already exists, and it will not do away with governments, because they are so easy to milk under the guise of privatization. Big Business is not about to shoot the golden goose. It will simply instead use "democratic" governments as a facade to justify the manipulation of the uninformed public through propaganda machines. The RM empire is only one example.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've always hated the whole "steal votes" or "siphon votes" nonsense. It doesn't make sense. Ralph Nader didn't steal any votes from Gore, and neither does any third party candidate steal votes from any other candidate. If someone votes for a third party candidate then that vote never belonged to either the Republican or the Democrat in the first place. Using that logic we would have to accurately say that Barack Obama stole the election from John McCain because without Obama McCain likely would have gotten all those votes. It's simple nonsense. Votes don't belong exclusively to the two major parties, so they cannot therefore be stolen or siphoned away from them.

Did Nader personally do it? No. But I have copies of emails somewhere from west coasters who wanted to know if I intended to vote Democratic that year? The game plan was for Nader voters to vote Gore in the states where Nader had no chance in return for Gore voters voting for Nader where Gore had no chance. The theory was to help each win the primary in a particular state, but to get Nader enough states and enough ranking in the polls that he couldn't be ignored or marginalized as a serious contender, would have to be included in the debates, etc.

This kind of stuff has been going on for ages, especially since the internet became so much a routine means of communication.