Thanks for the research that illustrated my basic point: the 20th. century developed into an aberration, as far as political parties go..., with the political oligopoly of Dem & Rep (and acquiescence by a supine Supreme Court...) gaming the system to keep political opposition from outside the duopoly from ever being able to grow sufficiently to threaten their fiefdom.... (You left out Bull Moose and Wobbly though. :-)
Remember: the VERY LAST 'third party' candidate to win election to the Presidency of the US was Abraham Lincoln....
Since then, what was formerly a vibrant political system in which numerous new parties (& their new ideas...) arose and fell, has been progressively tightened down to enforce the duopoly's hold on power --- with the final rule changes in election law to kill-off new parties' chances mostly adopted post WW I... and nearly universally in the post WW II period.
Such rules as 'ballot access' requirements --- which serve to force new and or minor parties to expend significant amounts of cash in signature drives and such, each time an election season rolls around, to gain a ballot line... (while Dem and Rep are 'grandfathered' in, and *don't have* to meet that financial burden anymore.)
The big push by both Dem and Rep parties, Post WW II, to adopt 'winner-take-all' election rules in the states is another method for building the high ring fence around the duopoly's political preserve. (WTA, along with fusion voting bans, helps to CREATE the situation where an average intelligent voter might think 'my vote will be *wasted* if I pull the lever for a minor party's candidate instead of one of the duopoly's guys'....)
One of the most pernicious of the Guild-like, high barrier-to-entry rules is, of course, the 20th. century drives by the two parties to ban the previously widespread fusion voting rules (bans --- unconstitutional IMO, but upheld by a Supreme Court in thrall to the duopoly, which nevertheless are now on the books in 49 states).
Re: "I think "fusion voting" should be allowed, but allowing it doesn't give the Conservative party or any other minor party any great deal of political power in NY."
Fusion voting rules don't GUARANTEE any political party will be successful --- they merely provide a sporting chance for it to survive long enough to make it's case to the public, to have it's ideas heard.
It is NO COINCIDENCE that the *only state* out of 50 to have a still surviving formal 'Conservative Party', on the ballot year-in and year-out, is ALSO the *only state* in which the old fusion voting rules are still around. (Obviously, all the other duopoly-enhancing tricks are still in play there though... as they are most places.) |
