If there was ever a year a third party could make traction... (1 Viewer)

[tenordas]

surely this is it.

One party is running a man half the country hates - no, despises, the other is running a woman even most of the other politicians in her own party can't stand.

Where are you Libertarians? Green Party? Hello?

I thought 2016 was a real shot, but the two most viable third parties both put up unelectable morons.

All one of them needs is someone actually viable and IMHO they could sway a lot of people away from these two...

 

[LA - L.A.]

We would do well with 4 or 5 political parties...

If we had 4 or 5 viable political parties, every president would be chosen by a small minority of Americans because no candidate would get the required 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the election, so each state's delegates of House Representatives would get to cast 1 collective vote for their state. That would allow the Representatives from the states with the least population decide who's president.

 

[Btthegreat]

If we had 4 or 5 viable political parties, every president would be chosen by a small minority of Americans because no candidate would get the required 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the election, so each state's delegates of House Representatives would get to cast 1 collective vote for their state. That would allow the Representatives from the states with the least population decide who's president.

No, what has to happen in the electoral college would be multi party coalition-building exercise, if they wanted to retain their relevance in the process, Those states that want to use their numerical elector advantage as clout, will want to remove any obstacles to their electors engaging negociating with others to come up with the magic number so that it does not move to the House. .

 

[LA - L.A.]

No, what has to happen in the electoral college would be multi party coalition-building exercise,...

You can want the Electoral College system to work that way, but that's not how it works per the Constitution. The process is specifically laid out in the Constitution. You'd have to amend the Constitution first to get what you want to achieve to give states any incentive to do what you want.

There was recently a big push to build a coalition of states that represented 270 Electoral College votes to all agree to give all of their Electoral College votes to whoever won the popular vote. The push fell way short of getting commitments from enough states to obtain the 270 votes needed.

What you're wanting will never work as long as the current constitutionally mandated Electoral College system is in place. Of course, you're going to argue it will, so explain step by step exactly how you think it will work.

How will each of the 4 or 5 parties going to choose their nominee?

After they each have a nominee how are they going to build a national coalition with just one general election held individually in each of the 50 states?

In the military there's a saying that goes something like "amateurs talk strategy, while pros talk logistics." You're talking about what you want, but you can't logistically get to what you want without first changing the election logistics as mandated by the Constitution's Electoral College processing of selecting the president.

There is no national ballot, there are 50 individual state ballots to determine the winner of each individual state. The Constitution dictates that. Theoretically, 50 different people can each win one state and that state's Electoral College votes.

I think you are from Europe and think the system here works like it does in Europe. The constitutionally mandated system here is very different from how things are done in Europe.

 

[Heathen]

Thank you for acknowledging the very good things below that you like about the Democratic Party. I think your list is why everyone should vote for Harris, instead of voting for anyone else or not voting at all.

I don’t agree. Or rather, I don’t agree fully.

The voting situation is not as black and white as you’re making it seem.

A voter should always vote for who best represents their interests. We need to remember that we’re a democracy and one should ALWAYS vote for those who most closely align with their views - and no amount of vote shaming should ever change that.

There are in fact many voting situations in this election that are valid that won’t help get Trump elected but also will allow you to express one’s dissatisfaction with where the Democratic Party is on certain issues. If you have views that align with those I mentioned and you live in a state that is a swing state, I personally think voting blue is the best choice.

In another example, many who like me want change from liberals in power can make their voices heard in states where there is no contest (deep red states) by voting 3rd party.

That choice is both logical and democratic.

 

[MT15]

That choice is both logical and democratic.

Well, it’s definitely democratic. Even what you call deep red states are a lot closer to 50-50 than you might think. I would posit that this election is an all-hands-on-deck moment if you want to truly hurt what the GOP has become. So I wouldn’t agree with the logical part. But of course you do what you want with your vote.

 

[Heathen]

Well, it’s definitely democratic. Even what you call deep red states are a lot closer to 50-50 than you might think. I would posit that this election is an all-hands-on-deck moment if you want to truly hurt what the GOP has become. So I wouldn’t agree with the logical part. But of course you do what you want with your vote.

So I’m curious - in what situation is it ever logical to you to vote 3rd party?

 

[MT15]

So I’m curious - in what situation is it ever logical to you to vote 3rd party?

Well, I have voted 3rd party before. But it was never when one option was authoritarian in nature and dedicated to taking away women’s rights, and the other was dedicated to preserving those rights.

 

[Btthegreat]

You can want the Electoral College system to work that way, but that's not how it works per the Constitution. The process is specifically laid out in the Constitution. You'd have to amend the Constitution first to get what you want to achieve to give states any incentive to do what you want.

There was recently a big push to build a coalition of states that represented 270 Electoral College votes to all agree to give all of their Electoral College votes to whoever won the popular vote. The push fell way short of getting commitments from enough states to obtain the 270 votes needed.

What you're wanting will never work as long as the current constitutionally mandated Electoral College system is in place. Of course, you're going to argue it will, so explain step by step exactly how you think it will work.

How will each of the 4 or 5 parties going to choose their nominee?

After they each have a nominee how are they going to build a national coalition with just one general election held individually in each of the 50 states?

In the military there's a saying that goes something like "amateurs talk strategy, while pros talk logistics." You're talking about what you want, but you can't logistically get to what you want without first changing the election logistics as mandated by the Constitution's Electoral College processing of selecting the president.

There is no national ballot, there are 50 individual state ballots to determine the winner of each individual state. The Constitution dictates that. Theoretically, 50 different people can each win one state and that state's Electoral College votes.

I think you are from Europe and think the system here works like it does in Europe. The constitutionally mandated system here is very different from how things are done in Europe.

1. How parties choose their nominees is up the party now, and it can stay up the party. I don't envision any changes. Some years the Libertarian/ Green party primaries may be competitive, sometimes not. Just like happens with the two parties we already have.

2. The only question here is whether electors must reflect the constituant vote, or whether its advisory and they have discretion to vote for someone else other than what was anticipated. We don't actually have clear guidance on that issue from the Constitution. We have a lot of state legislatures that have chimed in in the last 10 years with statutory requirments that the electors must mirror the voter support of the candiates. Now that would have to change for a coalition candidate to reach that 270.

3. I could have seen a time frame problem, but if electors managed to travel all the way from timuktu on horse and buggy to Philidelphia to cast their ballots surely they can use social media to meet, over the months and learn to coalesce around a candidate.

 

[Heathen]

Well, I have voted 3rd party before. But it was never when one option was authoritarian in nature and dedicated to taking away women’s rights, and the other was dedicated to preserving those rights.

Every GOP party selection has tried and will continue to try to erode women’s rights. This won’t change drastically after Trump is gone.

 

[MT15]

Every GOP party selection has tried and will continue to try to erode women’s rights. This won’t change drastically after Trump is gone.

Trump isn’t a normal GOP candidate. Women didn’t lose bodily autonomy under any of them. Trump has also changed the party dramatically by enabling the extremists. I cannot imagine considering voting third party in the current political climate whether it’s Trump or not.

 

[LA - L.A.]

If Trump wins this election, American democracy most likely falls. Even if it doesn't, millions of people who are not white, Christian, cis, heterosexual and male will suffer severely. The best chance Trump has of winning is if people in this election vote for a third party candidate or not at all, just because Harris and the Democrats aren't perfect. This is not a normal election in which we have the luxury of protest voting against imperfection. For this election, protesting voting against imperfection is the enemy of protecting millions of people and our democracy.

Regarding specifically this election, anyone who makes excuses for voting for a third party candidate or not voting at all, just because Harris and the Democrats aren't perfect, is basically giving people excuses to cut off their heads to spite their imperfect bodies. Anyone who actually votes for a third party candidate or not at all, just because Harris and the Democrats aren't perfect, is playing Russian roulette with the lives of millions of other Americans. It's selfishly short-sighted.

It's illogical to think that a person who has no chance of winning an election can best represent one's interests. Ideals are useless if they can't actually be implemented. Having ideals about how things should or could be without equally considering how to actually achieve those things is daydreaming, it's not problem solving, and it doesn't change or improve anything.

John Lennon wrote the beautiful song Imagine. It's one of my favorite songs and is very inspirational. The world is not a more peaceful place because of it. Daydreaming is easy. Complaining about imperfection is easy. Stomping your feet and declaring you're not going to vote is easy. Offering implementable solutions and rolling up your sleeves to get the work done is hard work, and that's when the daydreamers and perfection demanders jump off the train.

 

[LA - L.A.]

What is being advocated for below by @Btthegreat is to ignore the will of the voters and let each state's government decide who they want as president. They say they want to give voters more choice by having more candidates to choose from, but in reality they want to completely ignore the choice of voters. I break it down below.

1. How parties choose their nominees is up the party now, and it can stay up the party. I don't envision any changes. Some years the Libertarian/ Green party primaries may be competitive, sometimes not. Just like happens with the two parties we already have.

This is consistent with reality.

2. The only question here is whether electors must reflect the constituant vote, or whether its advisory and they have discretion to vote for someone else other than what was anticipated. We don't actually have clear guidance on that issue from the Constitution.

Actually, the Constitution very clearly leaves how each state casts their Electoral College votes completely up to the state. If all the electoral votes from the states get divided just between 2 candidates, then it's highly likely one of the candidates will get the 270 votes needed to win. The winner is not the person who gets the most electoral votes, it's the person who gets 270 or more electoral votes.

If no candidate gets at least 270 electoral votes, then the next step is the House Representatives takes a vote to choose any candidate they want. There is no way that will ever be anyone other than a Democrat or Republican as long as the Electoral College system remains in place. It will take a Constitutional Amendment to change that.

...surely they can use social media to meet, over the months and learn to coalesce around a candidate.

You think you're calling for something new, but you're not. Originally, state legislatures decided how their state would allocate it's electoral votes. They didn't have any elections at all. They would wheel and deal within their legislature and with the legislatures of other states. Guess what? They still did it on a 2 party basis.

What you are calling for is for states to ignore the will of the voters. You ultimately want Electoral College electors to vote however they want, regardless of how the people in the state wanted.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Every GOP party selection has tried and will continue to try to erode women’s rights.

You know Roe was overturned, because Trump won in 2016. You know that whoever wins this election will likely get to replace two of the Heritage Foundations justices on the Supreme Court. You know tha if Trump wins his nominees would give the fascist right control of the Supreme Court, and therefore the entire country, for a least a generation.

You know that if it's Harris, her nominees would swing the court back to representing and protecting all people equally. You know it would lead to the reinstating of the protections of Roe, and possibly on stronger Constitutional grounds.

You know that Harris nominees on the Supreme Court would also reinstate the voter rights and protections that Trump's Heritage Foundation court gutted. You know that they would reinstate Chevron which would protect Americans from pollution causing death and disease.

You know that we can't effectively combat climate change without Chevron and you claim to care about climate change. You know that a Harris appointees to the Supreme Court would reverse a lot of the fascist right's other injustices and protect us from them moving forward.

This won’t change drastically after Trump is gone.

If Trump wins, things will change drastically for the worse for you and almost every American. If Trump wins, we will not ever have another true election again without having to physically fight to get it back. I'm convinced you know this.

 

[Btthegreat]

What is being advocated for below by @Btthegreat is to ignore the will of the voters and let each state's government decide who they want as president. They say they want to give voters more choice by having more candidates to choose from, but in reality they want to completely ignore the choice of voters. I break it down below.


This is consistent with reality.


Actually, the Constitution very clearly leaves how each state casts their Electoral College votes completely up to the state. If all the electoral votes from the states get divided just between 2 candidates, then it's highly likely one of the candidates will get the 270 votes needed to win. The winner is not the person who gets the most electoral votes, it's the person who gets 270 or more electoral votes.

If no candidate gets at least 270 electoral votes, then the next step is the House Representatives takes a vote to choose any candidate they want. There is no way that will ever be anyone other than a Democrat or Republican as long as the Electoral College system remains in place. It will take a Constitutional Amendment to change that.


You think you're calling for something new, but you're not. Originally, state legislatures decided how their state would allocate it's electoral votes. They didn't have any elections at all. They would wheel and deal within their legislature and with the legislatures of other states. Guess what? They still did it on a 2 party basis.

What you are calling for is for states to ignore the will of the voters. You ultimately want Electoral College electors to vote however they want, regardless of how the people in the state wanted.

Yes! You got it! We are never getting rid of the electoral college so I want incentivise states to get rid those state mandate laws requiring electors to follow the dictates of voters so that electoral college functions just as it did before.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Yes! You got it! ...get rid those state mandate laws requiring electors to follow the dictates of voters...

You want the voters to have less of a voice in choosing the president, not more of a voice. You want less democracy, not more democracy. You are not who you originally tried to present yourself as being. I appreciate you coming clean about that now.

 

[UriUT]

So I’m curious - in what situation is it ever logical to you to vote 3rd party?

When you want to perpetually protest, and not really care about making real changes. You see, changes can only be made when one is in power. Instead of settling for incremental changes, protesters ask for maximalist outcomes, which never comes. Similarly to those who throw paint at valuable works of art. What gets accomplished? You know what actually moves the needle? Biden's small step in passing the biggest environmental bill.

I loathe to quote Tony Blair, but he is correct in describing Jeremy Corbyn and his fumbling of Brexit.

​

“The Labour party, by its self-indulgence – and that’s what it was in the end – was the effective handmaiden of Brexit. It’s not our fault, because the fault is with those who advocated it. But our combination of misguided ideology and utter incompetence allowed it to happen,”​

...​

“It’s essentially a cry of rage against the system. It’s not a programme for government. To win power we need self-discipline, not self-indulgence.”​

​

Corbyn was wildly popular amongst the left; proudly idealistic and socialist. Yet, he was never pragmatic. He didn't truly believe in the common market of the EU, and thus didn't wholeheartedly fight against Brexit. Now, I'll stand corrected if RobF tells me otherwise, but the UK's economy has an unpleasant outlook. Corbyn's inability to win votes lead to years of conservative rule, which has dramatically diminished government investment, and the UK will be considered a poor country per capita.

Now you say that it's democratic to cast that protest vote. Yes, it's your right. No one's forcing you to vote how you want to vote. Similarly in that same democratic vein, there are those who vote for regressive changes. And we see the consequences when those voters win. Roe, Citizens United, etc.

I'll give you an example. You appear to care deeply about Gaza. As do I. I've been highly critical of Israel's far right turn for as long as I can remember. Unfortunately, this country is ruled by AIPAC, the ADL, and those who blindly support Israel. Even if you can convince half of the dems, no, I'll give you three quarters... that's barely 40% of the votes in Congress. So instead of throwing your weight against the entire system with your protest vote, wouldn't the pragmatic approach of voting for the one closest to your views and has better chances to win be better for real changes? Incremental changes? Because the Biden administration has been far more progressive than even the Obama admin, and Biden was considered moderate.

Those with power make changes. (Edit finishing Blair's point....) Otherwise, labour's [the dems] are just a "glorified protest movement".

 

[Heathen]

When you want to perpetually protest, and not really care about making real changes.

Yikes. This seems like an incredibly short sighted view.

 

[UriUT]

Yikes. This seems like an incredibly short sighted view.

Is it? How so? Rather than stump and pout, the French center and left banded together to thwart le pen's far right. Realizing that what can be lost by far right rule, they banded together to save what they can. Is that short sighted? Rather than give in to complete defeat with a Maga Alaskan senator, dems compromising on murkowski, who at least believe in the ideals of rule of law and the constitution is a long term strategy. Short sighted is pout like a child and put a bull in a China shop.

Christ I was shocked at how many democratic registered voters with a significant percentage of black voters in louisiana. And we are talking about fighting for ONE additional black voting district in la. Don't show up to vote. Voter suppression (edit i take this back. Its out of the voter's control even if the outcome is the same). Protest vote. All the same. Short sighted. Take the ball and go home bc the player that can help you win has a sickly birthmark.