People's Convention 2020

[Bofferbrauer2]

Shadow1980 said:

Like @vivster said, we need major electoral reform if American democracy can ever hope to support more than two major parties. Our electoral system is based on first-past-the-post, winner-take-all rules. Whoever wins the most votes wins the election, even if they only have, say, 35% of the vote. Because of this in nations with only two viable major parties, third parties serve only as a spoiler. In nations with three or more viable parties, this can result in incredibly unrepresentative outcomes in elections. The formation of a large left-leaning party would only serve to siphon votes away from the Democrats, and would only benefit the Republicans. Of course, conservatives would absolutely love this outcome, as if at least 10% of the Democratic base were to permanently shift their support to a new party separate from the Democrats, it would essentially guarantee Republican hegemony in American politics. Personally, I doubt this new "alternative" will ever amount to anything. Disaffected progressives have had the Green Party for decades as that alternative, and Nader managed to get close to 3 million votes running as a Green in 2000 (more on this in a bit).

Before we even consider forming a major left-wing alternative, we need to change the rules of our electoral system. First and most important of all, FPTP rules need to be eliminated and replaced with ranked-choice voting. That by itself would result in third-party candidates being far, far less likely to serve as spoilers in any election. Additional reforms may be needed as well, including replacing single-member districts for House elections with multi-member districts (which in addition to making the House more representative would make gerrymandering difficult if not nearly impossible) and replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote for president. But until we get those much-needed reforms, voting third-party does nothing but help the other side. You play the game by the rules as they are, not as you wish they would be. If you don't, the other side wins.

And there lies the hen-and-egg problem.

Neither Democrats or Republicans would ever change the system unless forced to, as it would mean they'd loose power to other parties. In other words, you can kiss goodbye the dream of winner-takes-all go away anytime soon - or ever, really.

Since the states choose themselves what system they use to vote in the presidential election, they need to win states (I think governor, or does it need a different post to be able to change state voting laws?) to be able to slowly change the voting laws in the states one by one until the number of states with winner-takes-all is relatively small and don't singlehandedly decide over the outcome in elections. Only then can third parties really attack the presidency.

The problem: They need to run in the next presidency to make themselves both visible to people who don't follow politics closely and for their own credibility. But that doesn't mean they'd have to run in swing states yet to not hand the election to republicans on a silver platter. Or that they even get widespread ballot access in the first place for that matter.