The big story out of the UK elections has been the emergence of the Liberal Democrats, although like a lot of third parties they seem to have polled better leading up to the election than they actually did once the votes were cast.
US elections are sort of one big Prisnor’s Dilema of sorts. Most voters want more choice when it comes to candidates and political parties. But a lot of voters don’t vote FOR a candidate, they essentially vote AGAINST one. I know plenty of people in 2008 who voted either McCain or Obama not out of enthusiasm but fear of the guy they didn’t vote for. Two significant yet underrepresented political views in current US politics are libertarian and Pro-life liberals.
The problem of course is that 3rd party candidates invariably throw elections to the guy the most different from them. NY-23 was a great example of a moderate conservative and an extreme conservative splitting the majority of voters handing the election to the moderate liberal. Bill Clinton couldn’t have won the Presidency in 1992 without H. Ross Perot grabbing a lot of moderate conservatives (and some moderate liberals).
Some states are better than others. Campaign finance and equal time laws can help legitimize 3rd party candidates in states like Minnesota. States like Texas and California are pretty bad in terms of gerrymandering of districts and encouraging political choice.
There’s no easy fix. If everyone dissatisfied with the status quo went out and voted for independant and 3rd party candidates in November, they’d swing elections in the opposite direction of their preferences.
Anyways, the UK is probably going to see gridlock and another expensive election really soon, thanks to their vote of no confidence rules as opposed to having scheduled elections like we do.
