The Myth of the Third Party Solution

[Minimalist]

However, if a third party enters in todays political world, they simply hurt the major political party

Absolutely. Which is why it is in the interest of the major parties to make it as difficult as possible.

I'm sure Obama would have loved Ron Paul to head the Lib. ticket. Would have meant one less asshole in the House after the election.

[Waratah]

Get rid of "first past the post" voting system and introduce the preferential system.

[Polaris]

It's sad that the only liberal party, the Green Party, in America has barely any power.

[Minimalist]

People have never forgiven the Greens for sticking us with that tit turd, Bush.

[Polaris]

People have never forgiven the Greens for sticking us with that tit turd, Bush.

Greens say grow some balls. It's not our fault Gore did not even win his home state. Had he done so, he would have won and you would not be acting so pathetic 12 years later.

[Minimalist]

No one gives a shit what the Greens say.

Jill Stein is a non-entity.

[The Grand Nudger]

The system is open to 3d parties....if they can jump through all the hoops that have been in their way.

Did you watch the video I attached?

Yes, technically, third parties do have a chance. However, if a third party enters in todays political world, they simply hurt the major political party that is most sympathetic with them by taking votes away from them. I mean, think about it: how much would Obama have loved it if Ron Paul had run on the Libertarian party ticket? He would have won by a much bigger margin, I can tell you that much. And Bush supporters were encouraging Ralph Nader to run in 2000, largely because they knew the election would be close and Nader would take votes away from Gore.

Sounds like a problem with the people voting, not the process.

[TaraJo]

Did you watch the video I attached?

Yes, technically, third parties do have a chance. However, if a third party enters in todays political world, they simply hurt the major political party that is most sympathetic with them by taking votes away from them. I mean, think about it: how much would Obama have loved it if Ron Paul had run on the Libertarian party ticket? He would have won by a much bigger margin, I can tell you that much. And Bush supporters were encouraging Ralph Nader to run in 2000, largely because they knew the election would be close and Nader would take votes away from Gore.

Sounds like a problem with the people voting, not the process.

I still say it's a problem with the process.

Suppose everyone does vote for the candidate that actually matches them best, even if it means taking generally unpopular positions. We'll have each, individual group voting for a different candidate. In the end, our president would be someone who won the election in spite of only getting 20% or so of the vote (less, depending on how many different candidates and/or parties run). If you think the Republicans are pitching a fit now, how do you think people would react if someone became president in spite of 80% of the population voting against them?

Because of that, even far-left liberals such as myself would rather vote for Obama than let a corporate psychopath like Romney take over the white house and it's why Libertarian Republicans are so willing to vote for Romney, simply because they fear Obama inching us towards socialism. We don't vote for the candidate we want, we vote against the candidate we don't want and the way the system is currently set up, that's always how it's going to be (incidentally, it's also why there's always so much negative campaigning from both sides).

[The Grand Nudger]

Right, so rather the devil you know. If you've decided to vote -against- the candidate you don't want rather than voting -for- the candidate that you do I can hardly see the point in complaining about the system. You're the one gaming it.......and you're getting out of the system exactly what you put in, less of what you don't like..but not really more of what you do. How else is it going to play out if those are the metrics you vote by? So maybe you're afraid that others wouldn't vote similarly? Boohoo. If you vote for your guy and they lose..boohooo. Other people would complain if their guy lost (they don't already?) boohoo. There are always winners and losers.

Suppose that our system was set up so that a minimum of 8 people had to run for president, and of those 8, 6 had platforms that revolved around something you abhorred. How do you propose to vote against the candidate you don't want (in truth you're voting against the issue on the platform, right?), and how do you avoid the problem you mentioned (won the election despite low overall support) by voting for the candidate that you do want?

Now, I get that there's less risk involved in voting against what you don't want compared to voting for what you do, but I can't really see how that's a problem with the system. What should we be doing, minimizing risk in political campaigns to a baseline? I believe that was one of the things that got us this stale two party shit to begin with...less chance for your boy to lose if there's only one other guy running.

[TaraJo]

Right, so rather the devil you know. If you've decided to vote -against- the candidate you don't want rather than voting -for- the candidate that you do I can hardly see the point in complaining about the system. You're the one gaming it.......and you're getting out of the system exactly what you put in, less of what you don't like..but not really more of what you do. How else is it going to play out if those are the metrics you vote by? So maybe you're afraid that others wouldn't vote similarly? Boohoo. If you vote for your guy and they lose..boohooo. Other people would complain if their guy lost (they don't already?) boohoo. There are always winners and losers.

Suppose that our system was set up so that a minimum of 8 people had to run for president, and of those 8, 6 had platforms that revolved around something you abhorred. How do you propose to vote against the candidate you don't want (in truth you're voting against the issue on the platform, right?), and how do you avoid the problem you mentioned (won the election despite low overall support) by voting for the candidate that you do want?

My suggestion was an automatic-run off between the top two candidates if nobody got at least 50% of the popular vote. If you don't want to vote for either Obama or Romney, you don't have to, but in the run off, you have to vote for one of those top two candidates or your vote simply doesn't count. I suppose an alternative vote could be another valid option, too, but, again, it might have to be combined with a run off system as well.