> James Devine writes:
>
> So, here's the rational argument. By voting consistently democratic,
> then consistently liberal democratic, and then consistently the
> so-called radical wing of the democratic party (grass-roots? or in
> local elections), you move the entire spectrum back. But you have to
> vote this way. Otherwise, you throw away votes on candidates that have
> no chance of holding office and the consistent results are the
> dissembled Democrats through out the seventies and eighties.
>
>
This is a a reasonable position. However, the alternative is that while thirdparties don't get elected, the threat they pose forces their views to be heard and acted upon. For example the most credible threat to democratic // republic hegemony in recent years was Ross Perot's independent party and its insistence that a balanced budget was necessary to help keep the US solvent. You may regard this as almost total nonsense (I do) but the bottom line was that Clinton's adminstration results looks more like the Perot program than either what he or Republicans proposed. One can argue that this is accidental but there are many similar examples in past politics.
However, third parties have to produce credible turnout and proportion of the vote to be regarded as more than a waste of time. Other than a billionaire like Perot for whom entrance fees to the game are irrelevant, its very hard for third parties to command the assets to enter the game effectively.
--mike -- Michael Cohen mike at cns.bu.edu Work: 677 Beacon, Street, Rm313 Boston, Mass 02115 Home: 25 Stearns Rd, #3 Brookline, Mass 02146 Tel-Work: 617-353-9484 Tel-Home:617-734-8828 Tel-FAX:617-353-7755