[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

Who says we have a "two party system"? Any idiot knows there are many other parties to choose, but most of the alternate parties don't appeal to the masses. The writer probably thinks this is a "democracy" as well.

Well, we don't really have a republic anymore, either, if that is what you are implying.

Truth is, we have always had a two party system, even though this was not intended by the Founding Fathers, nor provided for in the Constitution. That's not the problem, though.

The problem is that the two current de facto parties - Dems and Repubs - have queered the system so that it is impossible for anyone to change or displace the two incumbent parties.

People who complain that "third" parties only "throw" the election to one or the other of the two parties, miss the point of what "third" parties are all about. The ultimate purpose of a third party is not to throw an election, but rather to displace one of the existing two parties, and to become part of the "two party" system in its stead. This is what the Republicans did in the 19th century, when they displaced the Whigs.

This is an important function of the two party system, because whenever one of the parties becomes unresponsive or out of touch, it can be replaced by a "third" party, which can come from out of nowhere, virtually overnight, if need be (which is what the GOP did when it replaced the Whigs).

If, in the 1850's and 1860's, we had had the kind of ballot access laws that we have now, the Republican Party would probably never have existed (except as an obscure splinter party), Lincoln would have remained an obscure congresscritter, and the Whig Party might still be around as part of the "two party system".

Third parties keep the two major parties honest. This cannot happen, however, when ballot access laws, media, fundraising issues, and incumbent power make it impossible for third parties to ever be anything but spoilers for the other side.

This stiffles change and entrenches incumbent, corrupt elites within the parties, who do not need to fear being displaced by large but politically disarmed factions within the two parties. Consider what happened to Buchanan as one example; when he tried to change the Republican Party from within, GOP insiders denied him access to the primary ballot in several states, and sabotaged him in others. But when he ran as an independent, he risked either "throwing" the election to the Dems, or simply wasting his time and resources on a hopeless third party effort.

This is what happens when we let the two parties collaborate with each other to protect incumbents and to shut out third party access to the ballot. Are we really suprised how out of touch both parties are with their own base of support?

At least, it seems to me that this is the case with the GOP. The Dems may be happier with their party, but I doubt it.

[Bob Mc]

Very nice summation! Well said!

[TommyDale]

While I agree with most of what you say, the fact remains that 3rd, 4th and 5th parties can certainly form and participate. The American Independent Party, the Libertarian Party, or whoever, must make their presence known to the mainstream. Once the mainstream finds suitable candidates and platforms, they could become as big, or even bigger than the Democrats or Republicans.

[Dog Gone]

Third parties keep the two major parties honest.

Absolutely correct. In fact, they can destroy one of the parties. We have had no shortage of third parties in our history, and this author completely ignores this.

If the Constitution Party succeeds, it will replace one of the other parties. It's inherent in the system.

Blaming the Republicans and Democrats for the fact that this third party hasn't achieved success is hilarious.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

This is an important function of the two party system, because whenever one of the parties becomes unresponsive or out of touch, it can be replaced by a "third" party, which can come from out of nowhere, virtually overnight, if need be (which is what the GOP did when it replaced the Whigs).

People who insinuate that the two parties are indistinguishable have never analyzed the Democratic Party.

- Dominant in the cities and toney suburbs
- Able to market itself as "the party of the people (IOW, has journalism on its side).
- Hostile to the middle class, to whites, and to men.

Until and unless something breaks down the monochrome nature of journalism (unlikely), we are stuck with an anticonservative journalism party and a conservative antijournalism party--neither of which can afford to utter its true name.

No other party can break down the Democratic attachment of journalists because the Democratic party lives and dies by PR alone and has no interst it will not sacrifice to staying inside journalism's consensus. So the Democratic Party is stable.

Since the Democratic Party has such powerful advantages, it would naturally dominate politics completely if its opponents were not able to unify. The Republican Party exists as the competitive alternative to the Democratic Party, and forms the coalition the Democrats leave to it. One of the main reasons the Democratic Party does not always win is that its constituency has such a strong tendency toward cynicism that it tends not to turn out on election day.