I fail to see how external pressure has been working to exact change within the two major parties in recent years. It seems to me that the Republican Party is firmly controlled by social conservatives and neoconservatives while the Democratic Party is made up of a bunch of disparate groups and lacks a coherent platform.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that the 2006 midterm election is a PERFECT example of why a third party is so badly needed in this country. The Democrats didn’t come up with any new ideas or moderate any of their more extreme positions. They didn’t present a coherent platform to American voters. And yet they gained both houses of congress and didn’t lose a single seat in either house of congress. The Democrats didn’t do anything special to convince Americans to vote for them. The GOP did all the work for them by being so God-awful these last six years. If there was a referendum from the election, it was in opposition to Republican Party’s policies–not in support of Democratic Party’s policies.

That’s what happens in a two party system. A mediocre party is rewarded so long as it is regarded as “the lesser of two evils.” In a two-party system, the party out of power can simply sit back and watch the party in power self destruct and expect to be rewarded on election day, even if their ideas aren’t any better than their opponents. In a multiparty system, at least the parties out of power have to compete with one another to PROVE which one has the best ideas and not simply sit back and wait for the voters to hand them power.

Furthermore, while there are many issues in which I would like to see the two major parties move towards the political center, moving in a centrist direction for the sole purpose of being “centrist” or appealing to voters from the opposite party isn’t always such a good idea, particularly if it means adopting some of the worst ideas of the opposing party.

Under Clinton, Democrats attempted to shed their “soft on crime” image by adopting some very draconian and misguided stances on the War on Drugs (i.e. Plan Columbia). Under Bush, Republicans have attempted to assert more federal control over education (i.e. No Child Left Behind. Both essentially co-opted the positions of the other party, to ill effect.

Given the Democratic and Republican parties’ 150-year-long lock on control of government in this country, I don’t see either of them fading away any time in the near future. The two major parties have written the ballot access laws and asserted control over the Presidential Debates in such a manner that they have virtually assured us of a two-party state.

I share you concern over a one-party state. The scenario you mentioned above, with Dems in control of the presidency as well as the House and Senate by wide margins would not be a good thing in my opinion. Divided government works best, and in terms of keeping federal spending down, history has borne this out.

To me, the root of the problem you expressed above is not immigration. It is 1) a welfare state that promises to give something to one group of voters at the expense of another group of voters, and 2) the voting for the lesser of two evils that is rampant in the two major parties.

I’ve given up with believing that the two major parties can be changed from the inside. The only way to incentivize them to change is to pressure them from the outside. A third party candidate is incapable of winning the president at the current time, but he/she does have the potential to alter the outcome of the election. If one of the two major parties begins to lose election after election due to the spoiler effect, sooner or later, it will be forced to change its ways.

The question is, what change is good change? Social conservatives would like us to return to “traditional values” and have the government dictate to us what lifestyle choices are and are not acceptible. Fiscal progressives would like for us to expand the welfare state and tax and regulate businesses more than we already do. And neoconservatives, undetered by our ongoing debacle in Iraq, would love for us to take an even more militant approach with regards to foreign policy in their never-ending quest to establish a benevolent hegemony throughout the world. Me…I just want a government that is socially tolerant, fiscally responsible, and knows when to leave the rest of the world alone.

That just ain’t going to happen under the current two-party system.

CStanley, I wasn’t offended. I just thought this was an interesting place for this subject manner to be brought up and thought that since the question had been raised, I might as well answer it.

I did not start my response to be about Hispanic voting trends but about the idea of the U.S. being a two party state. I believe that social and demographic trends in the U. S. will cause the Democratic Party to become the one dominate political party. I believe that how politics works now in places like Mass, D.C., or Maryland will become the model for national politics in the U.S.

I would like for there to be third parties but any third party starts out having to win every vote while the tradiational parties do not. The Democratic party starts out in any national election knowing it will get about 45% of the vote no matter who they run. The Republicans know that they will get about 40% of th e vote no matter who they run. That leaves the 15% of the voters that elections are fought over.

If you look at the demographic and social trends there will come a time in the U.S. that the Democratic Party will get 50% of the vote no matter who they run for president just like they get most of the vote for New Jersey Senator, Maryland governor, or Detroit Mayor no matter who they run.

To me, the worst scenerio would be a dominate Democratic party controlling the White House, Congress with enough senators to override any fillibuster, and control of about 40 state houses along with a hollow shell of a Republican party playng the part of a “bogeyman” that gives the Democrats something to run against. Such a scenerio will keep third parties out while ensuring that the liberal wing of the Democrats gets whatever it wants.

I think that in the long run the voting habits of Hispanics along with blacks, jews, Asians, and gay, on average, will ensure that the Democrats will be the one, dominate party.

I hope I didn’t offend by bringing up your ethnicity (or by presuming it). I couldn’t resist a jab at superdestroyer’s thesis because like you, I hate the idea of demographic voting blocks and I like to poke holes in trend theories that rely on these generalizations.

I see that my nonpartisan post about the 2008 presidential election and the inclusion of independent and third party candidates has naturally spawned a debate about…Hispanic voting trends?

I grew up in an area that was majority hispanic and I see nothing that the Republicans can do to gain Hispanic votes. From everything I saw, Hispanics loved the welfare state as long as believe that someone other than themselves were paying the bills. The current Edwards/Pelosi push for things like “free� medical care will solidify Hispanic support for large government Democrats.

I don’t think one’s ethnicity is particularly relevant to my particular post, but since this comment string has become one about Hispanic voting trends, and my own ethnicity has been referenced, I offer this. Yes, I am Hispanic. No, I’m not part of the immutable bloc of Democratic voters. I voted Libertarian in the last two congressional elections and in the last presidential election, so superdestroyer’s comment obviously does not hold true everywhere.

I hate the idea of voting blocks based upon ethnicity. Voting patterns should be based upon political beliefs. I don’t claim to speak for the beliefs of those in the Hispanic community. I don’t pay much attention to Hispanics who claim to speak for the Hispanic community, nor do I pay much attention to non-Hispanics who purport to know why Hispanics vote as they do.

Growing up, my family didn’t discuss politics much, and when they did, it was almost always about personal/social issues, not fiscal/economic issues. And when my parent’s did speak about fiscal/economic issues, more often than not, it was to criticize welfare, not support it.

The influx of Hispanics might partially explain why states like California have trended from Republican to Democrat over the last 30 or 40 years, but there are certainly other reasons to consider. During that same time period, the Republican Party has become increasingly socially conservative, which alienates socially liberal/libertarian voters like myself. Also, the idea that only Democrats support welfare and big government is kind of silly, particularly in light of the last six years of Republican control (prescription drug benefit plan, pork-laden highway bills, farm subsidies, corporate welfare in the form of no-bid government contracts, tariffs on steel, and growth in federal government spending at a rate not seen since the Johnson administration). If the Republicans still have an edge on being against welfare and big government, then that edge is quickly shrinking.

Getting back to the content of my post, I think it’s important for Americans to know that there are alternatives to the two major parties. Too many people, in my opinion, vote for one party simply because they cannot stand the other party. The voting for the lesser of two evils mentality is about as good a reason as I can think of for wanting to overhaul our two-party system.

Is a question for you: Is there a congressional district today that is over 45% minority (black and Hispanic) that is represented by a Republican? 40%? The democrats know that any district that is 40% black or 50% minority is a sure thing for the Democrats. As the demographic of the U.S. change, that puts more district into the “can’t lose” column for the Democratic Party.

The real question should be is what will happen will corporate america and the upper middle class decide that contribution to the Republicans are a waste of time and make you a target for the Democrats?

From everything I saw, Hispanics loved the welfare state as long as believe that someone other than themselves were paying the bills.

Which is exactly Kim’s point about the long term shift that might occur after Hispanic immigrants become more assimilated and wealthier; as they rise in socioeconomic status they will feel the brunt of taxation to support the welfare state and attitudes may shift.

I grew up in an area that was majority hispanic and I see nothing that the Republicans can do to gain Hispanic votes. From everything I saw, Hispanics loved the welfare state as long as believe that someone other than themselves were paying the bills. The current Edwards/Pelosi push for things like “free” medical care will solidify Hispanic support for large government Democrats.

The idiots like Rove think that the Republicans can win Hispanic support though niche marketing but examples like California have convinced middle class white Republicans that supporting unlimited immigration is political suicide. Amnesty and unlimited immigration will make the Democratic Party the dominate party much faster than will occur naturally.

Key tenets of the Libertarian Party platform include the following:

* Adoption of laissez-faire principles which will result in the complete separation of state and economics. This will include, among other things, enormous reduction in taxation, privatization of Social Security and welfare (for both individuals and companies), elimination of business regulation, abolition of labor regulations such as the minimum wage and the cessation of government interference in foreign trade.
* Protection of property rights.
* Minimal government bureaucracy. The Libertarian Party states that the government’s responsibilities should be limited to the protection of individual rights from the initiation of force and fraud.
* Strong civil liberties positions, including privacy protections, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and sexual freedom.
o In the area of abortion, though, there is a division in the ranks. Pro-choice Libertarians see the issue as one where the woman has a right to rule her own body, with government having no right to dictate otherwise. Pro-life Libertarians see the issue as one where the unborn child also has individual rights which should be protected by the government.
* Support for the unrestricted right to the means of self-defense (such as gun rights, the right to carry mace or pepper spray, etc).
* Abolition of laws against victimless crimes (prostitution, driving without a seatbelt, use of controlled substances, etc.).
* Opposition to conscription.
* A foreign policy of free trade and non-interventionism.
* Support a fiscally responsible government

I have looked at the analysis of left-of-center Democratic leaning pundits who have written books about the Republican Majority. Writers such as Tom Hamburger or Kevin Phillips always seemed to avoid the demographics of the situation. I wonder about books written about the Republican majority by a reporter for the Los Angeles Times in a state where the Republicans have no real prospects of ever getting a majority in the state legislature again and where the white middle and upper middle classes are shrinking in total numbers and very rapidly as a percentage of the population.

I assume that Mr. Rivera is part of the 30% of the Hispanic community that will vote for someone other than Democrats. If you look up the membership of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus it includes the 21 Democrats but not the four Cuban-American Republicans. 21 to 4 is even less than the 30% that Hispanics give to Republicans.