In Canada at least, third parties are often most successful at the provincial level although there are exceptions. The Bloc Quebecois is a federal party of Quebec separatists!
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Nathan Newman wrote:
> >On Behalf Of Ken Hanly
> >In Canada, the CCF pioneered medicare and introduced many
> > other reforms while in power in Saskatchewan...To a lesser
> > extent the CCF's successor also introduced
> > significant reforms.
> > Perhaps one of the reasons that third parties in the US have not been
> > successful is that activists such as Nathan have continued to work for the
> > Democrats.
>
> Except my point was that I have worked in third party efforts, probably more
> than most of those from the US who complain about the Democrats, but have
> probably never worked a precinct or manned a phone bank for the Greens or
> other third party. I actually would take all the accusations of being a
> Democratic hack more seriously, if I didn't know that I had spent more time
> campaigning for third party candidates than almost all the accusers on this
> list.
>
> It's precisely because a large portion of third party advocates like it in
> theory, but do nothing to advance it that makes me so pissed off that they
> denigrate the hard work of those working to elect the best progressive
> candidates they can, even if they happen to be Democrats. I have the
> general activist bias that if you aren't doing organizing yourself, don't
> piss on other peoples work. If you want to prove your point, organize,
> demonstrate a successful model and then pursuade others to emulate it.
>
> The problem is that almost all the third party campaigns in the US have been
> abysmal failures that have left successive waves of activists skeptical that
> it is a useful approach. There are no useful models, so most organizers are
> unpursuaded to do it themselves.
>
> The Canada example is a good illustration of exactly why US leftists
> continue to be mesmerized by the lure of third party politics, yet I think
> miss the point. What most illustrates the difference between the US and
> Canada is that in 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act criminalized most union weapons
> in the US and made union elections much harder. Canada retained card-check
> recognition and while the US union numbers began their slow plunge to their
> present pathetic level, Canada's unionization rate continued to rise.
>
> Given that union power, grassroots forces were able to push through more
> reforms than in the US. Whether the label was CCF, New Democratic, or had
> it been Liberal, the key issue is non-electoral power, not the party name or
> other electoral gimmicks. Union and other forces had power, so they could
> push through reforms. The electoral vehicle is pretty much besides the
> point.
>
> As to the question- Why Canadian unions went third party from the Liberals,
> that probably has to do with party rules there. Information question, do
> parties in Canada have control of who the candidate is in each district or
> is each district free to choose their candidate on the party list? I was
> under the impression that parties had strong power to pick the candidate
> lists (as they do in England), so dissident party members have no option but
> third party since they can't run candidates in specific districts against
> the party's wishes. In the US, local activists and unions have almost
> always had the power to take over party selection if they had the voting
> power to do so in a particular district, whatever the national party might
> desire. This allowed unions in the US to fund and control the selection of
> Democratic party candidates in districts where they were strong, making a
> third party label unnecessary. The problem was that the unions are not
> strong enough in enough districts to wield as much power proportionately as
> Canadaian unions were able to.
>
> -- Nathan Newman