It's kind of a US thing to think of splinter parties as 'third'. We already have a bunch of 'who?' parties: Per Wikipedia, here are the parties who already hold one or more seats at the state or federal level:
- Republican Party
- Democratic Party
- Vermont Progressive Party
- Libertarian Party
- Green Party
- Working Families Party

The question of a 'third party' is looking at a scenario where one of the above minor parties (or some new one) suddenly gains enough political support to become viable.

What happens if a two-party country becomes a three-party country? First thing is, the newly viable party vote-gain came from voters who had been voting for the older two. To the extent this draining effect is not equally affecting the older two parties, the near term effect is to just shift elections to the older party less affected. Say the "Green" party caught fire. Their platform appeals less to the Republican base than the Democratic base, so it's increase would be more destructive to Democrat election hopes than to Republican hopes.

And, believe me, the bigwigs at the two major parties know, and fear this. If there is a hint of a bandwagon gathering around some issue raised by a minor party that might be attractive to their own base, they will try to either own it themselves, or kill it quickly.

Lots of other countries have multiple parties and form coalitions to make a government. Our setup would not be kind to that. We end up with all-or-nothing leaderships in the legislative branches based on party voting/memberships and we want a majority (not a plurality) of electoral votes to determine Presidential races. If we became a three-viable-party nation, there'd need to be a lot of tweaking done.

Our current situation in NV is an example. I am very fiscally conservative and not at all happy with our R Senator Dean Heller. RINO POS.
But if I vote for the Libertarian I insure that the D Jackie Rosen gets elected.
The consequences of that are just too painful.
Like the Perot run of 92. Independents like Perot or a Libertarian pull more votes from the R than the D but not enough to win. Kind of a Catch 22.

A bit of a long read but you get the idea about how serious this guy is:https://thelivingstonpost.com/newspaper-makes-a-mockery-of-electoral-process-by-printing-candidates-ridiculous/

I believe that our current Congressional and Presidential system, each with their own separate and competing interests, prevents it.

Three+plus political parties work better in a Parliamentary system, like which exist in European countries, as the political party with the most members (or a coalition) in the legislative body forms the ruling government. Whereas in the US system, separate elections for the executive and legislative have often resulted in opposing political parties in each branch.

Political parties form out of local (city/county and state) interests and levels, otherwise there isn’t a viable national-level party, as 50 separate State-level elections have to be fought.

Our use of First Past The Post voting essentially guarantees that only two popular parties will ever be viable at a given time. The GOP or DNC may rise or fall and be supplanted by another, as has happened several times in our history, but two at once is it, basically, and at all points in between all of the 3rd Parties du jour compete to be the new popular kid.

Google the Hotelling-Downs model of political economy.

Democrats and Republicans are two ice cream carts on a beach. Where do you position a third cart to attract a plurality of beach goers?

-Rob

Bottom line is that the large majority identify as left or right. The 10-15% that remains is insufficient to get a third party candidate elected, but will influence an overall election.

We don't have run-off elections.

The two party system is solidly in place and they like it that way. There's a lot of establishment one and power in place to keep a 3rd party from forming.

That said, I think with the increasing disenchantment people have with out current system it may be coming. The Tea Party movement was great when it originally started but was beaten down and morphed into something way different than what it started as.

The Walk Away movement with the dems right now may be the potential start of something. Moderate democrats are looking at the direction the party is taking and asking WTF? It may be the start of a 3rd, "Moderate" party.

What the Left wants is to make ours work more like the UK. Rather than First Past The Post voting (how it works now), they want Ranked voting or Proportional representation, and with that you end up with a bunch of smaller parties like in Germany or the UK... Labor and Green and the Commies and Democratic Socialists and Nationalists and the rest.

Between the fucksticks who are trying to backhandedly (but legally) render the Electoral College moot, and a growning number of Americans (mostly Leftists) who now understand these threat vectors and are active looking to exploit them, our system as it stands is at risk.

I don't mean that in an alarmist sense, even if (big IF) the plan to neuter the Electoral College works it'll take several years or more in the best case; but we certainly can't ignore it, and must remain vigilant (at the ballot box and in keeping up with things) or risk the sorts of changes that could permanently alter America as we know it by Euro-izing us.

And I like Europe, but I don't want to live there permanently nor have here turned into their government in these ways. We have our faults and inefficiencies, America, but it's still better than everywhere else because our Constitution/system is the best, warts and all.

Most of the "Libertarians" I've seen on our ballots here are folks who previously ran as Dems. Most of them seem to be moonbats or vote splitters.

Another thought on the subject, to quote Winston Churchill

“We shape our buildings, and afterwards, our buildings shape us.”

Look at the British House of Parliament and our own capitol. The main meeting rooms have to large seating areas with an aisle down the middle; conservatives on one side, liberals on the other. The Brits even make it more divisive, if one wants to vote with the other party they actually have to walk across to the other side of the room.

Look at the Italian and French Parliaments. Their main meeting rooms are radial or fan shaped with far right on one side, far left on the other and every other of their multiple parties in between.

When was the last time the Italians or French had a stable government?

I've heard the Liberatarian Party described as a debate team masquerading as a political party... and based on the wide range of beliefs held by some I found that to be an apt description.

I never formally joined the party but many years ago I tried on the moniker and called myself a liberatarian...but then I started to run into members who were open borders, single-payer health care, privatizing national lands types and I realized then only a few of their beliefs were the same as my own and I wouldn't support the ones I disagreed with.

We already have a multi-party system but I don't believe that a viable third party contender with the two current major parties is the panacea that some think it is.

Our system of government and politics is far from perfect, but there are far more imperfect ways to govern.

To simplify:

Nobody votes for 3rd parties because they never win. Third parties never win because nobody ever votes for them.

How serendipitous that it's the perfect time of year for this clip:




Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chFaesfO7fQ

quote:

Why don’t 3rd party candidates stand a chance?

For one thing, too many candidates like this:



OK, kind of an extreme example, but in general, they represent "fringes" that are way out of the mainstream. And that includes "capital L" Libertarians. Third (or more) parties would fare better if we were a parliamentary system, but we aren't.

The only thing keeping Trump from being that guy and having Killary elected was the Republicans recognizing that Cruz had no chance of winning and settling on him as the party front runner. Trump would have garnered a huge number of votes, but the Clinton whore would be in the White House as we speak.

quote:

Originally posted by Cassandra:
I personally would like to see a multi party system.

Oh, God, no. Just look at the chaos in places that have 30 different parties. People throwing shoes at each other in their parliament. "Coalition" governments being formed and dissolved, formed and dissolved. No, thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by lkdr1989:
In my limited experience with Libertarians, quite a few L candidates are pushed by Democrats to pull votes from Republicans.

And if you spend any time around any liberals you'll find they make the opposite complaint.

quote:

Originally posted by zipriderson:

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
The Libertarian values don’t appeal to enough of the population..

What values? Small government? Protecting 2A? Low taxes? Less regulation? Personal freedom?

The Libs like the (L) social platform (and are probably OK with isolationism/small military), but hate 2A and want a big nanny state. The conservatives like the small government and 2A but don't want isolationism and the social issue expansion.

I'm sure whether they siphon more from Dems or Repubs really comes down to the locality and candidates on a case by case basis, but I can see them generally hurting Repubs more because the Libs get all they want promised to them from the Dems. Nanny state (paid for by tax increases on "others") plus all the "freedoms" they care about minus a lot of the responsibility.