WI: Populists become a stable third party?

Dorozhand

Banned
Let's say that, given better circumstances; like a stronger showing in the South and Midwest, and/or perhaps earlier NM, AZ, UT, OK statehood, victory in California, and the development of a kind of "Solid West" mentality; the Populists successfully get to the White House and become an established party.

So you have an election something like this:

Populist Party.png

Could a Populist Party that builds up a "Solid West", a more effective and concrete platform, and wins the White House in the late 19th century survive as a direct third competitor to the Democrats and Republicans without one of them dying?

Populist Party.png
 
Let's say that, given better circumstances; like a stronger showing in the South and Midwest, and/or perhaps earlier NM, AZ, UT, OK statehood, victory in California, and the development of a kind of "Solid West" mentality; the Populists successfully get to the White House and become an established party.

So you have an election something like this:

View attachment 210161

Could a Populist Party that builds up a "Solid West", a more effective and concrete platform, and wins the White House in the late 19th century survive as a direct third competitor to the Democrats and Republicans without one of them dying?

That isn't going to happen. Sooner or later one of them is going to die, most likely either the Populists or the Democrats as they are competing for mainly the same votes.
 
The Presidency and Electoral College really discourage successful Third Parties. You could have a situation like the DFL in Minnesota, where a party runs under a different name in some regions or you have some form of fusionism take place (similar to several states in the 1860 election) as a short-term solution, but the incentives are very much against a stable three-party system without some serious Constitutional revision.

Either the Populists supplant one of the other 2 parties, they merge, or they die. Since there can only be one president, any other option is going to eventually fail.
 
Actually I think the idea works if you work under the assumption the Democrats only operate as the party of the south (having lost the immigrant working class either to the Republicans or the Populists). I mean that's the general way in which a three party system can work in FTTP.
 

Dorozhand

Banned
Actually I think the idea works if you work under the assumption the Democrats only operate as the party of the south (having lost the immigrant working class either to the Republicans or the Populists). I mean that's the general way in which a three party system can work in FTTP.

Exactly. A Populist party that creates an anti-racist and pro-immigrant identity could gain the vote of Chinese immigrants in California and win that state, as well as possibly New York. It could combine its agrarian tenets with a semi-socialistic anti-poverty economic stance, and pro-immigrant stance to create a distinct bloc equal but not greater than the democrats and republicans. A Presidential win would solidify its reputation.
 
Exactly. A Populist party that creates an anti-racist and pro-immigrant identity could gain the vote of Chinese immigrants in California and win that state, as well as possibly New York. It could combine its agrarian tenets with a semi-socialistic anti-poverty economic stance, and pro-immigrant stance to create a distinct bloc equal but not greater than the democrats and republicans. A Presidential win would solidify its reputation.

Yeah, although I have to say the biggest problem I see with the map is that New York is democratic. Theres no way that New York would vote democrat if it's the former confederacy's Bloc Quebecois.
 
It would depend on the Republican party as much as anything else. Do they remain somewhat progressive? Are the populists eventually going to swing towards rural conservatism?

Or how about federal politics becoming essentially regional? A Republican Northeast and Midwest, Democratic South and Populist West.
 

Dorozhand

Banned
Yeah, although I have to say the biggest problem I see with the map is that New York is democratic. Theres no way that New York would vote democrat if it's the former confederacy's Bloc Quebecois.

Yeah. Maybe something more like this?

Populist Party2.png

Populist Party2.png
 

Dorozhand

Banned
Yeah, although I have to say the biggest problem I see with the map is that New York is democratic. Theres no way that New York would vote democrat if it's the former confederacy's Bloc Quebecois.

The general cores of the three parties, and the major swing states in white. So, when the Democrats are at their weakest, they'll lose in Missouri, Oklahoma, Alabama, and North Carolina to the Populists. When the Republicans are at the weakest they'll lose the Midwest to either the Populists or the Democrats. When the Populists are at their weakest, they'll lose Oregon, Montana, and Oklahoma to the Democrats or Republicans. AZ and NM are wild cards.

Populist Party3.png

Populist Party3.png
 
West Virginia would not be a Democratic state. Even IOTL, Republicans won the governorship for all but one term between 1896 and 1932. It was only the rise of organized labor during the FDR administration which turned it into a solid Democratic state. The state might even become Populist if the coal miners become Populist supporters when they unionize.

I don't think Delaware would be Democratic under these terms either. Republicans were quite competitive there in the early 20th century. Tennessee and Kentucky had enough Republican support in the eastern portions of the state that they were periodically competitive, and in a situation where the populists were also involved there might be some...interesting...results.

Honestly, in a three-way electoral system, lots of states would be in flux. The only way the South would really be solidly Democratic is if it was run as even more of a sham Democracy than IOTL. And there's no way the Northeast/Midwest would be solidly Republican, or the west solidly Populist.
 
This thread is completely ASB. The Upper Midwest was among the most anti-free silver areas of the country. Asian immigrants were a politically insignificant minority in California and everyone else hated them, acting on their behalf would create massive backlash against the Populists especially in California, not to mention that nativism was in their original platform and was a very significant component of their ideology, even more so than the GOP. And being pro-immigration was a losing issue for the Democrats at the time in every state except New York. Declaring themselves to be openly "socialist" would be lunatic.
 
Actually I think the idea works if you work under the assumption the Democrats only operate as the party of the south (having lost the immigrant working class either to the Republicans or the Populists). I mean that's the general way in which a three party system can work in FTTP.

Except doing this essentially concedes the Presidency. The reason 3rd parties FPTP systems in places like the UK can work is that they're parliamentary; you win seats in your strongholds, and hope to pick up enough marginals (or form coalitions) to get a majority of Parliament. There is only one President, and he's elected nationally, so splitting the votes makes no sense; at best you can throw the election to the House every time.

The best you could do would be have separate regional Congressional parties that formed a fusion ticket in Presidential races, or have something like the election of 1836 where you aim to deny a majority of electoral votes and throw the election to the House to sort it out there.
 

Dorozhand

Banned
Except doing this essentially concedes the Presidency. The reason 3rd parties FPTP systems in places like the UK can work is that they're parliamentary; you win seats in your strongholds, and hope to pick up enough marginals (or form coalitions) to get a majority of Parliament. There is only one President, and he's elected nationally, so splitting the votes makes no sense; at best you can throw the election to the House every time.

The best you could do would be have separate regional Congressional parties that formed a fusion ticket in Presidential races, or have something like the election of 1836 where you aim to deny a majority of electoral votes and throw the election to the House to sort it out there.

What if the party represents an ideological and demographical bloc distinct from the other two parties? A wide swathe of the population that feels unrepresented by either the Democrats or the Republicans throwing in their lot with a Populist Party that makes a more successful campaign under better circumstances and with a more concrete platform.
 
Except doing this essentially concedes the Presidency. The reason 3rd parties FPTP systems in places like the UK can work is that they're parliamentary; you win seats in your strongholds, and hope to pick up enough marginals (or form coalitions) to get a majority of Parliament. There is only one President, and he's elected nationally, so splitting the votes makes no sense; at best you can throw the election to the House every time.

The best you could do would be have separate regional Congressional parties that formed a fusion ticket in Presidential races, or have something like the election of 1836 where you aim to deny a majority of electoral votes and throw the election to the House to sort it out there.

Hmmmm.... hows this for an idea

Instead of running for President, either the Populists co-nominate someone (say a Populist-Democratic ticket for President based on the issues of Free Silver) or just focus on Congress only: never nominating or running a Presidential ticket. Do so while still running for House, Governor, and State Legislature (thus the Senate) on their own. That way they could force the House and/or Senate to coalition and still affect their own states where there messages have power. The Populists weren't just some obscure group of idiots, they were reformers who did win House and Governor seats, and majorities in the state legislatures.

Could they manage to hold on out west, make inroads South, and force one of the parties to give them a partnership deal?
 
Except doing this essentially concedes the Presidency. The reason 3rd parties FPTP systems in places like the UK can work is that they're parliamentary; you win seats in your strongholds, and hope to pick up enough marginals (or form coalitions) to get a majority of Parliament. There is only one President, and he's elected nationally, so splitting the votes makes no sense; at best you can throw the election to the House every time.

The best you could do would be have separate regional Congressional parties that formed a fusion ticket in Presidential races, or have something like the election of 1836 where you aim to deny a majority of electoral votes and throw the election to the House to sort it out there.

In conclousion presidential systems are dumb.
 
Except doing this essentially concedes the Presidency. The reason 3rd parties FPTP systems in places like the UK can work is that they're parliamentary; you win seats in your strongholds, and hope to pick up enough marginals (or form coalitions) to get a majority of Parliament. There is only one President, and he's elected nationally, so splitting the votes makes no sense; at best you can throw the election to the House every time.

The best you could do would be have separate regional Congressional parties that formed a fusion ticket in Presidential races, or have something like the election of 1836 where you aim to deny a majority of electoral votes and throw the election to the House to sort it out there.

I actually disagree. If Democrats had enough electoral votes in the South to ensure that Republicans or Populists would not get a majority, the presidential election would be up to the House, with each state getting one vote. the southern rump of the Democrats would be able to use this to "wheel and deal," attempting to extract concessions out of either party in order to win over their votes.

Yes, this would mean that the Democrats effectively ceded the presidential election. But so what? IOTL, the South didn't get a Democratic president until LBJ, who ended up implementing policies unpopular with then (then) Southern Democratic base. Democrats were elected to the Presidency from time to time with southern support of course, but they were "Northern" candidates. In a world with populists, this would be more formalized, but otherwise it would be pretty much the same.
 
Top