keylock71: I love the idea of a third, fourth or fifth party that can force the two big parties to compromise more and build coalitions, but until those parties have built up a nationwide infrastructure that would allow them to compete with the Big Two, I don't see it happening, regardless of who the candidate is.

They don't actually need to compete. They just need to be large enough to be relevant. I imagine if the green party got 15% of the vote, both the R's and the D's would take a hard look at how they could swing some of those voters to their side. Let's say one of the major issues is legalizing marijuana, the D's might take a hard look and agree so they can swing the votes their way. And that is how we might get real change.

But this is all beside the point, the real point is we need significant election reform. And we'll never get it -

Sybarite: It's unfortunate, but first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections is what we're stuck with, and the apparatus of both major parties have a powerful vested interest in keeping it that way.

Yup.

Sybarite: A non-proportional system of representation will always fall back into a two-party system.

I think it also has to do with the plurality voting system we have. Some sort of single transferable vote or instant runoff in a Weeners the post system would at least give smaller third parties a chance.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Sybarite: A non-proportional system of representation will always fall back into a two-party system.

I think it also has to do with the plurality voting system we have. Some sort of single transferable vote or instant runoff in a Weeners the post system would at least give smaller third parties a chance.

Hmmm... "f-i-r-s-t p-a-s-t" gets filtered, eh?

Although, Weeners the post would give smaller third parties something, I guess.

FTFA
What these independent activists hope to achieve is carrying just enough states-5? 10?-to deny either of their rivals the 270 electors needed for victory and to force the decision into the House of Representatives, as described in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. At that point, the third-party advocates argue that surging public demand for a fresh start in Washington, evidenced by a strong showing in the popular vote, could force the members of the House to pick their unencumbered candidate over the tired, hyperpartisan alternatives.

Or you know, they'll just put their party's guy in office

manwithplanx: FTFA
What these independent activists hope to achieve is carrying just enough states-5? 10?-to deny either of their rivals the 270 electors needed for victory and to force the decision into the House of Representatives, as described in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. At that point, the third-party advocates argue that surging public demand for a fresh start in Washington, evidenced by a strong showing in the popular vote, could force the members of the House to pick their unencumbered candidate over the tired, hyperpartisan alternatives.

Or you know, they'll just put their party's guy in office

So they'd have a candidate that technically "won" the election, but only had a small amount of real popular support. And then what? If they think Obama has a hard time pushing things through the Congress now, think about how hard it would be for President Thirdparty when no one is on his side.

Yup, we might get President Gingrich. That would certainly be a "real change".

If Nader didn't run in 2000, and 50% of the people who voted him voted for Gore (with the other 50% voting for either a third party or not voting), Gore would have won Florida and New Hampshire and the Presidency and the Iraq war would have never happened.

Even if we had a significant number of third-party candidates, I see no reason why they'd be immune to the same patronage system that corrupts our politics now.

Money talks. If you're a big business or a union, you can write your own laws and get your stable of representatives to push it through. If you're not, best of luck to you.

Even if you got a President who was outside of the system and uncorruptable, he or she would still have to deal with a legislature which is ethically bankrupt.

I remember a bunch of people tried that not too long ago and got bit in the arse for it.

Marcus Aurelius: But if it helps any, I've been doing write-ins for years now. It's the people voting for the stinkers printed on the ballot that are throwing their votes away.

About that: You can stop writing in "Lizard People." WeThey already control everything, anyway.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: manwithplanx: FTFA
What these independent activists hope to achieve is carrying just enough states-5? 10?-to deny either of their rivals the 270 electors needed for victory and to force the decision into the House of Representatives, as described in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. At that point, the third-party advocates argue that surging public demand for a fresh start in Washington, evidenced by a strong showing in the popular vote, could force the members of the House to pick their unencumbered candidate over the tired, hyperpartisan alternatives.

Or you know, they'll just put their party's guy in office

So they'd have a candidate that technically "won" the election, but only had a small amount of real popular support. And then what? If they think Obama has a hard time pushing things through the Congress now, think about how hard it would be for President Thirdparty when no one is on his side.

I was just saying that the House would put a Republican in charge no matter what the election results looked like

/a third party candidate's got a better chance of winning the E.C. than the House

Did anyone in here actually RTFA? Article was anti voting third party, its titled "Drop the Fantasy of a Third-Party Candidate Winning in 2012". And means it.

I've always hated that term. The only votes thrown away are those not cast.

MindStalker: Did anyone in here actually RTFA?

Welcome to the site! There's no guide, so find you're own way around. Good luck!

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Linoleum_Blownapart: Mike_LowELL: Why vote for a third party when the Republicans offer solutions to the problems we face today?

I was going to disagree but then I had to admit that technically, snake oil can be described as a 'solution'.

Well certainly it can, the power of placebo is a powerful thing. Especially when dealing with macro economics.

//Personally I'm almost tempted to vote R in the next election because maybe something might get done if our lawmakers weren't so worried about destroying Obama. Then I realize that the long term consequences of the Rs winning due to their antics over the last 4 years would just be too great.

Huh. I hadn't thought of that.

Voter dissatisfaction is so high these days that if, instead of actually campaigning, the GOP starts blasting the airwaves with a "Vote third party!" campaign, they might actually win it.

/it's a lot like telling Latinos and black people not to vote, except you get all the independent voters with this one. And also nobody can call it racist.
//That's actually... brilliant. Why aren't they already doing that?
///They must be waiting for the campaign season to start up for maximum efficiency.

If that third party is Ron Paul trust me, that's not change you want.

manwithplanx: I was just saying that the House would put a Republican in charge no matter what the election results looked like

/a third party candidate's got a better chance of winning the E.C. than the House

Which House gets to vote on this? Outgoing or incoming?

Want a third party? Go ahead and start one. Just don't expect to be taken seriously if you run for president right out of the gate. Get council seats in cities, and run for state legislature first. Get some actual infrastructure and record behind you. Have an actual ticket, rather than just a presidential candidate. But that takes time and work, and people want this stuff to happen quickly and easily.

All that said, I'd love to see our government's structure changed to naturally support several parties. Namely a House built around multi-member districts, and a Senate that works like the Israeli Knesset. I just wish we didn't need the legislature's permission to change how it works.

ASlyLittleFox: Huh. I hadn't thought of that.

Voter dissatisfaction is so high these days that if, instead of actually campaigning, the GOP starts blasting the airwaves with a "Vote third party!" campaign, they might actually win it.

/it's a lot like telling Latinos and black people not to vote, except you get all the independent voters with this one. And also nobody can call it racist.
//That's actually... brilliant. Why aren't they already doing that?
///They must be waiting for the campaign season to start up for maximum efficiency.

They already do; the GOP pushed to get Nader on the ballot in as many states as possible in 2000.

sweetmelissa31: Mike_LowELL: Why vote for a third party when the Republicans offer solutions to the problems we face today?

Because Donald Trump might run as an Independent, and he really has some good solutions, being a successful businessman and all.

I hope Sarah runs. She has some really good solutions, being a successful mayor and governor and all.

Mike_LowELL: Why vote for a third party when the Republicans offer solutions to the problems we face today?

Those solutions rhyme with "brax mutts," don't they? DON'T THEY???

(btw, you made me laff, this time!! :D)

We have to get people to think about politics in a different way. Only people who pay attention to the issues would vote for a third party. Most people don't read the news and when they turn on CNN, they understand that every single issue just has two sides.

I got a kick out of the MSM reporting on Nader's campaign in 2000. It went like this:

Some "analyst" would say "Nader can't win because people won't vote for him because they don't think he can win because we keep telling them 'Nader can't win because people won't vote for him.'"

So sure enough, people didn't vote for Nader because they thought he couldn't win because real Fart Smellers kept telling them "Nader can't win because people won't vote for him because they don't think he can win because we keep saying 'Nader can't win because people won't vote for him.'"

Pointing out that if the majority of voters DID vote for Nader he would win got nothing except arguments where they'd say "Nader can't win because people won't vote for him because they don't think he can win because the Experts keep saying 'Nader can't win because people won't vote for him.'"

Always trust the Experts and repeat what they say. (The "human mic" was not invented by OWS.) And always do what they order you to predict you will, because you know the Experts always have only your best interests at heart. And besides thinking is HARD!

"Gee, this life is great! We don't even have to move around looking for fresh grass because they bring Little Debby's right to us! By the way, Fluffy Fred got chubby and then he disappeared, I wonder what happened?"

B-A-H! B-A-A-A-A-H-H!

Geotpf: Yup, we might get President Gingrich. That would certainly be a "real change".

If Nader didn't run in 2000, and 50% of the people who voted him voted for Gore (with the other 50% voting for either a third party or not voting), Gore would have won Florida and New Hampshire and the Presidency and the Iraq war would have never happened.

And this easily demonstrated by Gore's choice for VP who wanted nothing to do with Iraq.

Lots of people wanted war with Iraq. Some of them almost assuredly would have been in Gore's cabinet and heading the CIA. Regime change was official US policy before George Bush got to Washington. Rewriting history ca be fun, but it's pointless and unknowable.

However, if Boies and Gore had demanded a full recount of Florida from the start instead of cherry picking counties, the SCOTUS would not have been able to run out the clock on the recount and Gore would have won, that much is known. But instead, Demcrats tried to serve themselves instead of the practice of democracy. And that same thinking is already well represented in this thread. "Keep voting Democrat, eventually they'll get it right" seems to be the motto of modern Democrats. Too bad history history doesn't support that type of slavish partisan dedication as being effective when systemic reform is the agenda.

I'll just leave this right here...

www.americanselect.org (pops)

DamnYankees: How would a third party lead to real change?

The ruling class would have to set the Army loose on us a little sooner?

Every time the GOP is running things we get a ton of "Vote Third Party" articles.

It can't be because they know that makes it easier to get Republicans elected. Nah...

DamnYankees: How would a third party lead to real change?

It never, ever will. We don't have run off voting and we don't have a parliamentary system.

Stamping your feet and claiming otherwise is an act of a child.

You need to build a coalition of constituents, and co-opt the existing channels. Only then, when you have enough support, can you break away.

Geotpf: Yup, we might get President Gingrich. That would certainly be a "real change".

If Nader didn't run in 2000, and 50% of the people who voted him voted for Gore (with the other 50% voting for either a third party or not voting), Gore would have won Florida and New Hampshire and the Presidency and the Iraq war would have never happened.

And what did the Dem's do? Ran even more to the right...

Karma Curmudgeon: But instead, Demcrats tried to serve themselves instead of the practice of democracy.


No. I think they believed asking for an entire recount would be denied due to how long it would take. I think they honestly thought that if they asked to recount counties both sides found suspect, it would take a lot less time and have much less pushback.

How the SCOTUS ever for a minute thought they had a say in something the Constitution clearly leaves up to the states is beyond me...

MindStalker:

Did anyone in here actually RTFA? Article was anti voting third party, its titled "Drop the Fantasy of a Third-Party Candidate Winning in 2012". And means it.

Yes, another "expert" telling me how to think. And he's not even offering to pay me for it.

I disagree: I think we should get rid of the Electoral College AND build other parties. (Plural; not just the one "third party" I think would benefit me most.)

But then what do I know? After all, I'm so inexpert that I think Nader could have won if enough people had voted for him.

pwhp_67: Every time the GOP is running things we get a ton of "Vote Third Party" articles.

It can't be because they know that makes it easier to get Republicans elected. Nah...

You mean like how Ross Perot helped Bush crush Clinton?

(The third party helps the side from which it draws the least votes)

I worry a bit about this Americans Elect thing, because if you have signed up and answered some of the questions, its members clearly lean left. So it looks to me like it may end up putting another Nader on the ballot to siphon just a bit of support from the Dem nominee.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: No third parties without instant runoff voting. One of the few things our two parties will ever work together on is making sure nobody else gets a seat at the table.


truth