Talk:Third party (U.S. politics)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

This is America damn it!

There should be no references third parties in foreign counties. Look at the title "United States", get it? Third parties in the USA!216.174.52.242 11:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge Complete

So, since it's been on the board for almost a year now I figured nobody'd have a problem with me going through with the merge. Any feedback on the newly incorporated areas would be good. firehazard 06:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to mention what merger and what newly incorporated areas. Korky Day 02:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Add a list

Under "Third Parties in the US" or "Current Third Parties" I'm thinking of adding in a list of known third parties in the US, it seems logical that they should already be there. Any objections?
firehazard 11:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• there seems to be a good-length list of minor political parties in a separate article, and is linked to in this article, so a copy of that list isn't neccessary. My bad. firehazard 04:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

dinopup edit

I added a lot to the article. If it weren't for first-past-the-post, we would be a multi-party system. Ballot access probs are real, but if we had proportional representation, there would be no wasted vote syndrome.

Also, not all parliamentary systems use PR. Britain, Canada, India, are all FPTP. Many presidential systems do use PR, Mexico and Brazil are examples.

---

I deleted the section about the electoral college and third parties. I don't think the electoral college hurts third parties any more than does our being a presidential system. If the president were elected by the popular vote, the election would still be first-past-the-post/winner-take-all and thus there would still be the "wasted vote" syndrome. People who currently vote for third parties in non-swing states would lose the freedom they now have to make a vote of conscience. Regional parties (like George Wallace's American Independents) would still be regional parties.

If e votes were allocated proportionally, like some people in Colorado wanted to do, small third parties would still face some dimensions of the spoiler dilemma. Take an e vote away from the major party closer to your beliefs, help elect the candidate you most oppose. If the 12th amendment's majority requirement were kept in place, we would see more elections decided by the House. (I suppose a large third party candidate could win a plurality of the electoral college if it won a lot of second place votes though)

If we had a presidential election that used runoffs, like in France, perhaps you would see third parties gain a higher profile. dinopup

_________________________________________________________________________ It is misleading (in the extreme IMHO) to say that the Libertarian Party "won" an electoral vote in 1972. It received one because a supposedly-Republican elector was "faithless" and not because it carried a state or even part of a state, which it has never come close to doing.

Rlquall 18:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

National Parties in Canada

While it is true that there are strong differences in which parties are the most popular in Canada by region, it is a little strong to say that there are no national parties. All of the three national parties (Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat) currently represented in the House of Commons ran candidates in the last election in essentially every riding {district), as did the Green Party of Canada even though it has never had any seats in Commons. Of the parties with significant electoral strength, only the Bloc Quebecquois has only regional strength and no attempt to run a national campaign, and that is of course by design.

There are U.S. states where one of the two big parties is quite weak relative to the other, but that doesn't mean that neither party is truly national.

George Wallace

George Wallace is often portrayed as a long-time independent or third party candidate and office holder, but this is not really true. Of his four presidential bids, only 1968 was as the nominee of a third party, the American Independent Party, which was essentially of his own making, although he did "acquire" a couple of preexisting state right-wing parties and rename and merge them, largely for the purposes of ballot access. In his other three presidential races (1964, 1972, 1976) he ran in the Democratic primaries; this is of course what he was doing when he was shot in 1972. Also, all five of his races for governor of Alabama (the unsuccessful one in 1958 and the winning ones in 1962, 1970, 1974, and 1982) were all in the Democratic Party. So I have removed him as an example of a third-party winner who then found a major party to identify with – he essentially already always had one.

Rlquall 03:58, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More fixes needed

In the quote from Engles in the second paragraph of the article two things are needed. One is a source for the quote, either in the body or as a footnote. It would make the citation much stronger. Secondly, it needs work as it doesn't make sense as currently represented. Could the word "note" actually be "not"? I don't really know this as I am unfamiliar with the quote. I am refraining from now from making the change andhoping someone who is knowledgeable and familiar with the work cited will do so. Rlquall 00:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I changed "note" to "not." The Engels quotation came from the Seymour Martin Lipset book "Continental Divide," I made that clearer.

Thanks. There's a lot more to discuss here. To go back over a century, isn't interesting that the Democrats won in 1892 despite the presence on the ballot in many states of the Populists, but in 1896, when they used electoral fusion largely to co-opt the Populists, they lost, and lost the next four elections as well, not winning again at the Presidential level until 1912 (when a third party split the Republicans).

Another thing might involve the recent decline of influence of third parties at the national level in the U.S. Nader seemed on the verge of perhaps having a "movement" going with around 3% of the 2000 vote. Obviously he influenced the outcome in a way that he presumably wouldn't have liked; it seems very unlikely that GWB wins Florida without him (of course, the same arguement could have been made with regard to Pat Buchanan's presence on the infamous "butterfly ballot".) However, Nader seems to have dissipated any real influence that he may have had. He and the Green Party nominee combined totalled less than 1% in 2004; the influence of both seems to be at a low ebb. Conversely, the real future of a potentially influential third party in the U.S. in the near future would seem to be on the right; if a more centrist Republican like John McCain or Rudy Giuliani is the 2008 nominee, much of the "Religious Right" will "walk" from the Republican party but it remains to be seen if they will start a new third party, join an existing-but-tiny party in accord with many of their views already like the Constitution Party, or simply go back to what many of them did previously, which is not voting at all. I'm not trying to make this into a message board, but just to discuss what things that aren't in the article belong in it, if consensus is there are such. Rlquall 17:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Third parties are like bees, they sting once and then they die. If a moderate won the Republican nomination there could be a religious right third party challenge, but those voters would return to the GOP in the next presidential election, like what happened to the Dixiecrats and the Democrats between 1948 and 1952.

I personally do not think that the article should have any conjecture in it. It is not becoming of an encyclopedia to speculate on what would happen if McCain won the nomination. There are many analogous examples from history that could be used instead of guesses about the future. One time extremists bolted their party was in 1948, but they rejoined their original party 4 yrs later. Sometimes extremists join the other party, e.g. TR's progressives joined the Wilson coalition in 1916; Wallace's Independents joined Nixon's coalition in 1972.

"Conversely, the real future of a potentially influential third party in the U.S. in the near future would seem to be on the right"

Jesse Ventura says that the only place for a viable, enduring third party in the US today is the center. I think he's correct that you can't build a third party that's to the right of the Republicans and left of the Democrats, but I think he's overly optimistic about third party chances in the center.

PS If you are interested in reforming our electoral system (PR, IRV) you should check out the Center for Voting and Democracy, www.fairvote.org. Note, they call PR "full representation."User:dinopup

Let's consider a better quote source (than the Pa. state legislator)

The quote from the state legislator is probably not as interesting as would be one or more passages from U.S. Supreme Court opinions outlining the history of third parties in the U.S. influencing the political dialogue and eventually seeing their ideas become public policy.

For example, see what Justice Black wrote in Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 39 (1968):

In our political life, third parties are often important channels through which political dissent is aired: "All political ideas cannot and should not be channeled into the programs of our two major parties. History has amply proved the virtue of political activity by minority, dissident groups, which innumerable times have been in the vanguard of democratic thought and whose programs were ultimately accepted. . . . The absence of such voices would be a symptom of grave illness in our society." Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 -251 (opinion of WARREN, C. J.).

Anything wrong with using both quotes? I think that it might add validity and weight to the article to have mention of support for the concept of third-party movements from both the judicial branch and the legislative, from a politician who is obstensibly a member of one of the two major parties. Rlquall 17:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Third Party Lists

It seems that there sould be some objective criteria for the listings under "notable elections" or "notable candidates." For instance, under 1980, mention is made of Ed Clark's 1% showing, which is hardly notable (unless compared to other Libertarian candidates). Many third party candidates who are not listed anywhere have done better. Similarly, under "notable candidates" Millard Fillmore is missing, though he received a better showing than most of those who are listed. Any ideas or suggestions? meyerlondon 21:39, 10 January

Lincoln?

I don't know, I suppose that in the end it can be a matter of perspective, but I am not sure how valid the claim that Lincoln was elected as a third party President is.

The Whig Party was replaced by the GOP around 1854, following Winfield Scott's failed candidacy, and the deaths of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster in 1852. So, the GOP was already the second party in 1856, and hence in 1860: when Lincoln was elected.

Any thoughts?

I think you raise a valid point. I've always thought of the Republicans as not really a third party so much as a new party which emerged due to a restructuring of the existing parties. That being said, there is probably an argument for them being a third party in 1856, when it was unclear, between the GOP and the Know Nothings, who would emerge as the primary opponent of the Democrats, but by 1860, with the Know Nothings having disintegrated, that Republicans became the primary opposition party, and thus, one of the major parties.meyerlondon 01:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

3rd parties: is it a waste of your vote?

Is a third party really necessary? Does anyone ever wins against Republican or Democrates?

(I removed the accidental box from the unsigned questions above.)

There are two questions there, and I don't think they're directly linked, though the placement implies they are. First, what's "necessary?" Third parties tend to serve as a sort of social experiment, highlighting some issue or possibly giving expression to a focused viewpoint. The major parties often adopt some version of a third party's position, though usually quite some time later. So they can serve a political function, even if at times critics believe the third party is "taking away" from the support of one of the major parties.

Second, whether a third party wins at the polls against the GOP or the Democrats -- yes, from time to time. Jesse Ventura isn't the only state governor not to run as a candidate of a major party. And third party candidates also win in smaller offices -- mayoralities, state legislators, city councils, that sort of thing.

—OtherDave 20:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Title change

The title of this article should be Third parties in the United States. 216.174.52.78 22:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Things still needed

I left the tag, although IMO this page is not much more informal in tone than many others and far better than some. This still needs mention of the Free Soil Party and Van Buren in 1848; James G. Birney and the Liberty Party, and some more about Know Nothings (the first right-wing, anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant party to use this title in the 1850s) to come up to speed in the historical arena. Rlquall 18:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The existence of this article is proof of partisan bias

I know you USAmericans grew up with the term "third parties", so it seems sensible to you. Just like calling African-Americans the N word seemed perfectly sensible to Whites in the 1950s Deep South. But I am going to challenge your life-long assumptions. As the N word is an ignorant, hateful corruption of the Spanish word for black, "third parties" is an ignorant, innumerate, partisan term. Innumerate means you can't count. If 10 people run a race, how many can come in third? One, unless there's a tie, which is not the case in the politics we are discussing.

In Canada, we don't use the term, not even in the singular ("third party") for the party coming in third in an election. Why not? Because the term, even in the singular, is a USA custom which is part of the insidious myth that voting for anyone besides a Democrat or a Republican is hopeless and stupid, if not evil.

Therefore, Wikipedia is legitimising that partisan propaganda by having this article at all, and others like it. In other words, linguistically, by using the term, Wikipedia is favouring the 2 largest parties. I know it seems to you that you are merely acknowledging reality, but that's not true from a more objective, world view.

For instance, decades ago you had only 3 nation-wide television networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC. When other networks came along, such as PBS and FOX, did you call them "fourth networks" trying to challenge the big 3? Sounds silly, doesn't it? Just like you using the term "third party" sounds silly to people in countries without 2-party systems. Which is the first party? Second? Fourth? Why single out the third as something special? Because the duopoly (the "monopoly" of the 2 largest parties) wants to stigmatise its biggest threat(s). Wikipedia's use of categories like "major parties" and "third parties" and "minor parties" is part of the ghettoisation of threats to the Establishment.

We editors should just list the parties without such categories based on size. There are legitimate categories we can use, like national parties and regional parties; like current parties and defunct parties. Those are useful, neutral categories. But basing the categories on size or success merely contributes to partisan efforts of the duopoly to smear their competitors. The reader should see the large and small parties all in the same articles and lists, for easy comparison, not have to look up "Third parties" in a separate article, feeling like we're slipping into the "adult" section of the video store for "guilty pleasure". Korky Day 03:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem with the wording of parts of this article. I have called for a rewrite or removal of the section called "Third parties as tools of major parties". That part is especially hostile and promotes a slanderous and conspiratorial view of smaller parties in the US. It is also not referenced either. Personally, I think that it should simply be removed, as the only arguments that can be made in favor of it will inevitably come from partisans of the GOP or Democratic Party. Cmrdm 01:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a slightly pejorative flavour to the phrase 'third party', but it is also the most common term in use in the USA and it is a reasonable description where there is such an entrenched two-party system. Whether such a system is a good thing is another question. Duncan Keith 06:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The title of the article reflects historical fact: that only two parties in the last 150 years have elected Presidents in this country, and that incidents of third-party candidates even carrying a single state are rare. Vidor (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with what you're saying, especially as a member of one of the "third parties". Unfortunately, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and third party is the common vernacular that people will use when trying to find the article. Until the minds of the people at large are changed, I'm afraid this will have to stay as it is. --Estrill5766 (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

I see two problems with this article. First, the list of "notable third party candidates" is redundant with the section proceeding it listing significant third party candidacies since 1932. Second, there's no critierion for inclusion; the earlier part of the list is limited to candidates who got significant shares of the popular vote while the more recent part includes elections such as 1984, 1988 and 2004 where no third-party candidate had any impact. I am going to streamline and organize the article in this manner: only third-party candidates who exceeded 1% of the popular vote will be listed. Every election has third-party candidates. Either this article should list ALL third-party candidates regardless of how they fared, in which case it would be far too long, or it should confine itself to candidates who exceeded a definite threshold. 1% seems like a good threshold to me. Vidor (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. All candidates who broke 1% are listed. This resulted in adding several candidates in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, while at the same time deleting candidates from the elections of 1952, 1976, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004 who did not meet the 1% criterion. I included the third party (Libertarian) candidate who got an Electoral College vote in 1972. I omitted people like Harry Byrd in 1960 and Ronald Reagan in 1976 who received electoral votes because they were not "third party" candidates; Byrd was a Democrat and Reagan was a Republican. Proceeding to other cleanup, and removal of POV material. Vidor (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Criteria for inclusion should at least include the best finishes of each third party and other notable presidential campaigns. While I agree that there needs to be a threshold there are several notable campaigns that don't meet this threshold. One such campaign the 1972 libertarian John Hospers received less then 4,000 votes but is included because of the electoral vote, I'm not saying Hospers should be removed only that sometimes there are other considerations. Naders Vote per dollar in 1996 is a good case in point. 71.114.163.129 (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Clean up of 2000 Ralph Nader

All info after first sentence is speculation and should be removed. The numbers are represented in a biased way for during the 2000 election a significant number of the Nader votes came from voters who would not have voted if not for Nader. Ampersandexplainer (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The section on 2004 details one (partisan) analysis, of several equally valid analyses, and ignores other significance of the green party run. Bcharles (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Third party vs. independent

The article, as written, essentially treats third party candidates and third party officeholders exactly the same as independent candidates and independent officeholders. For example, both of Ross Perot's presidential campaigns are listed while only his 1996 run was as a "third party" candidate. Should the article stay that way, or should we make a distinction between third party and independent candidates--presumably by removing all info regarding independent candidates and officeholders? Vidor (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Most successful list?

About that list of the "most successful" third party candidates - by what standard? By electoral votes? No, or else Thurmond 1948 would be on there and Perot wouldn't. By popular vote? No, or else Nader wouldn't be no. 6 and we'd have Debs, Van Buren, and a few others higher than him. Or was it a purely subjective list that someone just came up with one day? Probably.

I think keeping the list is OK, but it needs to have objective criteria. Probably not electoral votes since those don't correspond well to actual performance (compare Perot 1992 to Thurmond 1948). If this list exists at all, it should be by popular vote. 96.228.50.119 (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• The criteria are spelled out exactly. Every third party candidate that got at least one electoral vote or 1% of the popular vote is listed. Vidor (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Whoops, never mind. I see someone put in a redundant "most successful" list. I'll delete that now. Vidor (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect percentages?

The percentages in the last line of the introduction add to 101%. Is this correct or should one of the values rounded to a number that would make the total 100%?

The line currently states: "In 2004 the U.S. electorate consisted of an estimated 43% registered Democrats and 33% registered Republicans, with independents and those belonging to other parties constituting 25%."

$43\%+33\%+25\%=101\%$ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laharley (talk • contribs) 09:00, 24 March 2008

I don't think this apparent rounding error is worth worrying about. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Largest 3rd party in the U.S. is now America's Independent Party National Committee

On June 27, 2008 America's Independent Party National Committee, 17195 Silver Parkway #336, Fenton, MI 48430, www.aipnc.com or www.SelfGovernment.US became the nation's 3rd largest political party following California's American Independent Party's affiliation with the recently formed national political party.

A press release is available at http://aipca.org/news.html confirming AIP-California has ended its affiliation with the Constitution Party in favor of America's Independent Party National Committee.

Contact person is: Markham Robinson, Parliamentarian of the AIP-CA Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Do they have any candidates or media coverage? None is shown on the Web site you provide. The Constitution Party has both. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be so kind as to note that the section title reads "Current largest U.S. third parties (voter registration over 100,000)" It is clear that the section ranks parties based upon voter registration.

Please visit http://www.aipca.org which is the California AIP's official website. The site is now updated to reflect affiliation with the American Independent Party (AIPNC), rather than the Constitution Party.

This is a quote from the Libertarian Party article based upon 2006 voter registration for the CP:

"The Constitution Party ranked third with 366,937 registrants, next to the Greens' 289,177 and the Libertarians' 235,500. However, Winger says, nearly all of the 315,151 California voters affiliated with the Constitution Party are actually registrants of California's American Independent Party."

Without AIP-CA, the Constitution Party's voter registration falls below the 100,000 threshold, making the CP inelligible for inclusion on the list. Likewise, AIP-CA's recent affiliation is sufficient justification for inclusion of the newly-formed America's Independent Party National Committee on that same list.Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To complete the quotation you truncated so conveniently, "However, Winger says, nearly all of the 315,151 California voters affiliated with the Constitution Party are actually registrants of California's American Independent Party -- and they so registered in the belief that they were registering as independents (i.e., not associating with any political party)." Your comments are a good argument for changing the criterion for ranking parties to something more meaningful. The measure of which parties' presidential candidates are on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win a majority in the Electoral College would be my suggestion, as it is what is used in List of political parties in the United States and other articles. This helps avoid potentially overstating the importance of an party as yet without candidates, media coverage, or even a Wikipedia article. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully submit that reporting the largest 3rd parties is pertinent to the article. Consistent with the Democrat Party article, party size is measured by voter registration.

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States) I read ...

The Democratic Party is currently the nation's largest party. In 2004, roughly 72 million (42.6 percent) Americans were registered Democrats, compared to 55 million (32.5 percent) Republicans and 42 million (24.8 percent) independents.[5] Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

However, party registration is rather uninformative in the case under consideration, since as mentioned above, many (most?) registrants in the "Independent Party" may have registered in it mistakenly, under the impression that they were registering as "independents", that is, not a member of any party. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please view the source documents for Libertarian Party (United States), section (Registration by party):

Access News, January 1, 2007 -- Partisan Registration in the United States. Retrieved November 22, 2006.

consultant Ron Gunzburger's Politics1.com web page describing American third parties Retrieved March 12, 2006.

One source is raw data without analysis. The other concludes opposite what the Libertarian Party (United States) article suggests. The source says, "The Constitution Party appear to have generally cemented their place as the third largest third party in the nation" -- this being written when roughly 86% of the party's registered voters were in the American Independent Party of California and not withstanding all other measures the Libertarian Party (United States) article used to lay claim to third largest political party, despite having fewer registered voters.Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what many assume the reason for the high registration of people in the AIP CA is, the fact is that they're registered. What you're saying is most likely the case, but wikipedia is facts, and the fact is is that the AIP is the third largest third party now, not the Constitution Party. Until the court rules otherwise, which it sounds like it won't, since the King branch already switched their name to the Constitution Party of CA, wikipedia should reflect the AIP, not the CP, as one of the three largest third parties. --Estrill5766 (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see American Independent Party for more information on the party's 2008 split. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Number of registered voters

I would be interested in hearing more opinions on whether number of registered voters is an appropriate metric to use to single out certain parties as more notable than others. This has recently produced the absurd situation that an all-but-unknown organization is now presented as more significant than such long-running, well-known, active and established organizations as the Constitution Party (with which I have no sympathy). This may be a special case -- as mentioned above, many voters may have accidentally registered in this "Independent" party in the mistaken belief that they were registered as "Independents", that is, without party affiliation. But something needs to be done about it one way or another to get this article back in line with common sense. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not see the point of having more than one list of US political parties. I think that section should simply link to this article: List of political parties in the United States. Cmrdm (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done so, but objections were raised on my talk page, to the effect that parties should be listed by ideology, which is done in this article, but not in the list. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with him about listing parties by ideology. First of all, the party wikipages themselves already describe what the parties stand for. In addition, this is also summed up by the material in the "infoboxes" on the political party wikipages. Therefore, listing them by ideology is just redundant. Secondly, it is most accurate to list the parties in the way that the other list is already formatted. This is because it distinguishes between the parties that have ran candidates in the recent past, and the parties that have had no recent electoral activity. Cmrdm (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In the introduction...

As currently written, second paragraph. "Although third parties rarely win national elections, they can have an effect on them." Does, "rarely," strike anyone as weasel-y? It does to me, at least without being referenced as to what rarely means in this context. My opinion for a fix: Either reference or cite where a third party candidate has one a national election, or rephrase it. (And I suppose, "National election," in the United States, could refer to members of Congress.) Maybe, "Although no third party to date has won a United States presidential election, they can have an effect on them." Or something which recognizes third party congressional wins, but no presidential wins?

At any rate I'm not editing it yet, as I can understand what the topic sentence means (along with the rest of that paragraph.) LaughingVulcan 12:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I do read "national" as "federal" in this context, and think it would be sensible to use the latter word. The most recent example of a third-party candidate elected to Congress is Lieberman in 2006, though he had the de facto support of the Republican Party. I know the Socialist Party elected a couple of Congressmen in the early twentieth century, but don't know of anything more recent (if there are any) off the top of my head. Ballot Access News would probably be a good source for this sort of information. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 02:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)