New "Forward" Party: a third party in America that might actually work?

Or, since it's a third party in America, is it doomed at the starting gate?

(CNN) A group of former Republican and Democratic officials are forming a new political party called Forward, in an attempt to appeal to what they call the "moderate, common-sense majority."
"Political extremism is ripping our nation apart, and the two major parties have failed to remedy the crisis," David Jolly, Christine Todd Whitman and Andrew Yang wrote in a Washington Post op-ed published Wednesday. "Today's outdated parties have failed by catering to the fringes. As a result, most Americans feel they aren't represented."

Click to expand...

As one might expect, especially in its early days, their "platform" as such is decidedly vague--long on empty platitudes and short on concrete specific details or sharply-defined policy stances. Which is probably smart, if they don't want to give curious onlookers an immediate easy out and excuse to dismiss it out of hand. If they don't really say anything, they can't say anything too wrong.

About the most specific things they seem to be advocating are ranked-choice voting, open primaries, "the end of gerrymandering," and nationwide protection of voting rights.

Granted, I'm sure any diehard Conservatives are going to see "protection of voting rights," immediately determine that such would include black and brown people, throw up in their mouths a little bit, and chalk off this new party as a liberal joke, never to be contemplated again. Diehard Liberals are sure to find some immediate deal-breaker phrasing in some other plank of their emerging platform. But, then again, diehards at either end of the spectrum are surely not the targeted audience.

Supposedly, according to this new party, 62% of Americans now want a third party.

And as deeply divided as America has become, and split into just-short-of-warring camps over hot-button issues like abortion, gun control, LGBTQ issues and others, I could believe that there's a significant middle ground to be had, IF a new third party could carefully cultivate it. A big IF, for sure. But I have to believe there DOES exist an overlooked, non-hysterical, un-radicalized "middle" that offers a retreat from the extremist fringes of both parties; room for people who recoil from both the MTG's AND the AOC's of the political world.

What could be different this time around is the timing. I've never before thought of third parties (or, more accurately, "third-party candidates," like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader) to be a legitimate force, capable of playing anything but a spoiler role, siphoning off some votes from what ostensibly should have been their declared party. (Like Perot siphoning off votes from George Bush, or Ralph Nader taking votes from Al Gore.)

I think if this new one could coalesce around a concept rather than a personality, it would have a better chance of being taken seriously and actually gaining some traction. (On a side note, I wouldn't have named it the "Forward" Party, if for no other reason than "forward" seems roughly synonymous with "progressive," and even that might be enough of a turn-off for even moderate Republicans. Something innocuous like the "Liberty Party" or "Heritage Party" or something like that might come across more neutral.)

Could the time be right for such a thing to take off, and make a meaningful difference?

LoAmmo said:

Supposedly, according to this new party, 62% of Americans now want a third party.

Click to expand...

And 100% of one party wants the other party voters to vote a third party.

LoAmmo said:

And as deeply divided as America has become, and split into just-short-of-warring camps over hot-button issues like abortion, gun control, LGBTQ issues and others, I could believe that there's a significant middle ground to be had, IF a new third party could carefully cultivate it. A big IF, for sure. But I have to believe there DOES exist an overlooked, non-hysterical, un-radicalized "middle" that offers a retreat from the extremist fringes of both parties; room for people who recoil from both the MTG's AND the AOC's of the political world.

Click to expand...

The Democrats ARE the middle ground. The "radical fringe" of the Democrat party want green energy and have a dozen or so seats in the House. The "radical fringe" of the GOP is over 1/2 the GOP in the House.

LoAmmo said:

What could be different this time around is the timing. I've never before thought of third parties (or, more accurately, "third-party candidates," like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader) to be a legitimate force, capable of playing anything but a spoiler role, siphoning off some votes from what ostensibly should have been their declared party. (Like Perot siphoning off votes from George Bush, or Ralph Nader taking votes from Al Gore.)

I think if this new one could coalesce around a concept rather than a personality, it would have a better chance of being taken seriously and actually gaining some traction. (On a side note, I wouldn't have named it the "Forward" Party, if for no other reason than "forward" seems roughly synonymous with "progressive," and even that might be enough of a turn-off for even moderate Republicans. Something innocuous like the "Liberty Party" or "Heritage Party" or something like that might come across more neutral.)

Could the time be right for such a thing to take off, and make a meaningful difference?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Our nation has evolved into a two party state, and third parties have come and gone (about as fast as they come). The only third parties to survive were ones that were transformations of an earlier party.

Yes, a new party of has beens and losers...a sure fire hit.

I don't see how a third party even has a snowball's chance in hell unless they campaign from the ground up. Which means winning local and state seats first before even considering going federal.

There are LOTS of parties in the US, always referred to as 'third parties' basically because who could keep track of all the parties and which are active, which are viable, which are relevant, etc. Here's the wiki:

Jimmy Higgins said:

And 100% of one party wants the other party voters to vote a third party.

Click to expand...

Just so. You're 100% right. The theoretical difference here is that third parties have predominantly been minor alterations to either the Democrat or Republican parties, perhaps niggling over relatively insignificant difference at the margins. Neither Ross Perot or Ralph Nader were ever accused of being "Centrists."

Again, "in theory," a true Centrist party might be expected to draw at least somewhat equally, or at least proportionately, from both sides. Not the fringes, ever, but from the more moderate wings of BOTH sides, bolstered by a middle that, again, supposedly, is ascendent.

Jimmy Higgins said:

The Democrats ARE the middle ground. The "radical fringe" of the Democrat party want green energy and have a dozen or so seats in the House. The "radical fringe" of the GOP is over 1/2 the GOP in the House.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right about this, too. In fact, I almost wrote my OP as such. But if any third party hopes to present itself aa a middle ground, it simply HAS TO articulate a premise that there are extremists at BOTH ends. Obviously, liberal "extremists" want women to have control over their own bodies and Republican "extremists" yearn for a Fourth Reich, but, the Forward Party can't exactly poison the well right off the bat by positioning itself as a place where "you handful of Republicans who aren't White-Supremacist Q-Anon-Christofascists are welcome."

I think (hope?) that as Trump wanes in influence, assuming he does, that the non-zero number of Conservatives who are tired of his schtick will be looking for a palatable place to land, post-Trump, because I think the "old" GOP is tied so strongly to Trump that when he dies, either literally or politically, the GOP as we knew it goes with him.

Jimmy Higgins said:

Absolutely not. Our nation has evolved into a two party state, and third parties have come and gone (about as fast as they come). The only third parties to survive were ones that were transformations of an earlier party.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there's no getting around the fact that we're pretty entrenched as a two-party state at this point. And that third parties have had almost cartoonishly short lifespans.
But.
I do think it's at least plausible that if a third party came along that WASN'T, as you correctly point out, a mere transformation of an earlier party, it might overcome at least that one hurdle. There are many more in the way, obviously.

But I do think that there is a slowly growing awareness among Americans that our system is deeply, deeply flawed--perhaps fatally so--and that the stakes for just blindly hunkering down into our two same old warring camps per usual not only isn't going to work, it might result in the end of America.

(Which, I mean, if it comes to that, I'm ready for that route too, having just received my passport--having one now for the first time in my 60+ years, and mentally prepared to use it, if Trump looks like he's coming anywhere near the Oval Office again.)

For all practical purposes, there's no such thing as a third party. Any political system which has an executive elected by a general vote will evolve into a two party system. The more power the executive holds, the faster this will happen. All the existing factions will have a stark choice, either to remain an uninfluential small percentage of the electorate, or merge with other factions in an attempt to create a majority.

The reality of this means a third party will always be built on the ashes of the old second place party. Political issues which can create a lasting schism in a party are rare. The last time this happened in the US was in the 19th century when slavery divided the Whig party. This led to the rise of today's Republican and Democratic party, although neither of today's parties bear much resemblance to their ancestors.

In US politics, anyone who can't find a comfortable seat in either of the main parties is relegated to the "I'd rather be right than exercise any influence over anything" party.

LoAmmo said:

according to this new party, 62% of Americans now want a third party.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt that 62% or more OF DEMOCRATS would like to do away with gerrymandering and would love to see voting rights honored.
I therefore conclude that this "Forward" thing is about bleeding off enough lib'rul votes to allow right wing fascists to win "fairly".

LoAmmo said:

About the most specific things they seem to be advocating are ranked-choice voting, open primaries, "the end of gerrymandering," and nationwide protection of voting rights.

Click to expand...

None of which are achievable unless and until they gain significant power under the current system; And none of which are ever going to be desirable to any party which gains significant power under the current system.

In the unlikely event that they were ever to be in a position to enact these changes, they would no longer want to do so.

Looks like I need to post this again:  Duverger's law

Third parties can succeed but only by influencing existing parties.

ZiprHead said:

Looks like I need to post this again:  Duverger's law

Click to expand...

At this point I see trying to organize any third party by any mechanism beyond "from within" insurgency to implement some form of post-FPTP election formats, as pointless.

Patooka said:

I don't see how a third party even has a snowball's chance in hell unless they campaign from the ground up. Which means winning local and state seats first before even considering going federal.

Click to expand...

It doesn't. The only chance of change is a vigorous progressive caucus within the Democratic party that can guarantee victory over the reactionary and not sane GOP. Sweeping aside super-annuated politicians and conservative Democrats. Long term, this might happen not because America becomes progressive, but because the GOP becomes totally insane. And more people want a savage reaction to the GOP moderate Democrats cannot seem to offer.

Third parties in first-past-the-post election systems are bound to be spoilers and dwindle to nothingness after first elections when their voters realize they've been duped to help the worse party win. However, anomalies do happen so sometimes third parties might win in local elections.

If any third party is to have a future, they need to have electoral reform on their platform. Specificly, move away from FPTP to ranked-choice or proportional representation. That's the only way for them to ever win anything. Of course, if these parties are just created to sucker people into not voting one or the other party, then that's not necessary.

This sounds like another GOP ploy to filter off Dem voters. The GOP has way more extremists than the Dems and I think we can all agree that the extremists aren't going to be splitting to the middle with a centrist third party. This means the centrist party will be pulling much more from the Dems than the GOP.

Even if I would theoretically welcome more strong alternatives to the Dems and the Reps because I would love to have more than 1 non-insane option in an election, I think it's just a trap.

Yeah, that's never been tried before.

Jayjay said:

Third parties in first-past-the-post election systems are bound to be spoilers and dwindle to nothingness after first elections when their voters realize they've been duped to help the worse party win. However, anomalies do happen so sometimes third parties might win in local elections.

If any third party is to have a future, they need to have electoral reform on their platform. Specificly, move away from FPTP to ranked-choice or proportional representation. That's the only way for them to ever win anything. Of course, if these parties are just created to sucker people into not voting one or the other party, then that's not necessary.

Click to expand...

But if they ever get into a position to implement electoral reform, they will by definition have become beneficiaries of the status quo, and will drop that element from their platform.

The only option to bring about electoral reform is a popular uprising outside the party political system. And such uprisings have their own set of in-built problems, so the cure is often worse than the disease.

As a matter of history, am I not correct that a third party has almost NEVER succeeded in the U.S.? The Jackson Democrats weren't a third party; they were in effect just a SECOND party (the D-R's had essentially a monopoly on political power). The Republicans weren't a centrist "third party"; they were in effect a rebranding of the Whigs, more radical than Whigs in their opposition to slavery, a key issue of the day.

Right-wing racist parties had some success, until the GOP turned racist and more right-wing to capture the racist vote. Third parties like Perot's (or the Libertarians) are not centrist, but Populist, espousing anti-trade anti-immigrant policies which most serious thinkers view as bad policies though they appeal to uninformed "centrists."

How about other major democracies? Are there examples of systems dominated by two parties in which a third, centrist, party achieved dominance?

Jimmy Higgins said:

LoAmmo said:

And as deeply divided as America has become, and split into just-short-of-warring camps over hot-button issues like abortion, gun control, LGBTQ issues and others, I could believe that there's a significant middle ground to be had, IF a new third party could carefully cultivate it. A big IF, for sure. But I have to believe there DOES exist an overlooked, non-hysterical, un-radicalized "middle" that offers a retreat from the extremist fringes of both parties; room for people who recoil from both the MTG's AND the AOC's of the political world.

Click to expand...

The Democrats ARE the middle ground. The "radical fringe" of the Democrat party want green energy and have a dozen or so seats in the House. The "radical fringe" of the GOP is over 1/2 the GOP in the House.

Click to expand...

Mr. Higgins makes the key point. The Democrats appear to be leftist ONLY if the most radical of them are viewed as their spokesmen. The Democrats are dominated, at least until very recently, by rational centrists. The GOP has been taken over by liars, racists and criminals.

What IS needed is for any Republican with self-respect to repudiate their atrocious leaders. However, two of the most obvious choices for such "New Republicans" are Liz Cheney and John Kasich, each of whom has hard-line right-wing views. To build a "centrist" party from the likes of Cheney or Kasich is rather silly.

Collins, Romney and Murkowski are three GOP Senators who COULD form the core of a centrist "New Republican" Party. That they have failed to do so makes me despise them far FAR more than I despise the right-wing views of Cheney or Kasich.

If there is a way to move toward a successful "Forward Party" it is important that it be initially populated mostly by desertions from the GOP rather than desertions from the Democrats. Otherwise it will be only a ploy to split the Democrat vote and hasten the rise of totalitarianism in our disintegrating democracy.

During the 1950's, 60's and 70's (and perhaps much earlier) both the Ds and the Rs were "big-tent" parties. The Ds were clearly to the left of the Rs on balance, but BOTH parties contained people on the left AND people on the right. Legislation wasn't always passed on party lines, but attracted support from parts of both parties. Changing from a D governor or president to an R, or vice versa, was not a LURCH like we see today, but continuity.

I think the system of two "big-tent" parties, one left of center, the other right of center, made much sense and worked well.

For me, important questions are (1) Why did the model of two big-tent Parties fall into decline?; and (2) Is there a way to restore it? The answers, I'm afraid, are (1) Cable news and social media; and (2) No.

Swammerdami said:

Are there examples of systems dominated by two parties in which a third, centrist, party achieved dominance?

Click to expand...

The rise of Labour in the period around the Great War and into the 1920s saw Labour Parties replacing one or other of the two dominant (Tory and Whig/Liberal) parties in the British Empire and its dominions; In England and Wales, the Liberal Party were demoted to third party status, while in Australia the Tories essentially disappeared altogether, with the Liberal Party moving to the right to occupy the void, while Labour took over the left hand side of the political spectrum.

In none of these cases was the new party centrist though; The Labour movement muscled in to the left of the two dominant parties, and pushed them rightward, to the effective demise of one or other of them.

In today's US, the Democrats are distinctly right of centre, so adding a party between right and far right seems unlikely to succeed, and rather pointless. A new left-wing Labour-style party seems more likely to be able to break the current system, but the dramatic decline in the size of the blue collar workforce over the last century, coupled with the Cold War influence on the American people which has them irrationally terrified by any hint of socialism, makes the rise of such a party seem unlikely.

If someone in the USA can come up with a way to promote "not being totally fucking horrible to poor people" without invoking the spectre of Stalin, then there's a chance there, I guess. The revolution is just waiting for a slogan that looks good on a T-shirt, as Billy Bragg observed.