mutantsushi said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:
<
An option is an option, no matter their chances in the end.
|
The casual demonization of anybody who votes "3rd party" tells you alot of "2 party" system and how it is "defended". I remember Bush Jr's FL "win" where after DNC rolled over to accept result "for same of system" (i.e. 2 party system) despite all Dems believing it fraudulent... They still went around and demonized 3rd party voters to blame for result. It's easy to say non-proportionate/non-parliamentary system isn't conducive to multiple parties, although that rather ignores the many many jurisdictions where that does exist (of course, "exceptional America" can't be compared to normal countries). But it's not even about that, everybody knows every election is hyper-polled to the Nth degree. If there is any reasonable chance of losing "because of 3rd party vote", well isn't it Dems' responsibility to do something about that? Like arrange pre-electoral pact... offer 3rd party the Vice Presidency, power ministries like State and Justice, choice of Supreme Court nomination, maybe cede some Senate/Congress races to them, in exchange for withdrawing from Presidency race and publicly supporting and campaigning for them. That would result in de facto coalition government... But of course, they don't WANT that, so prefer to lose to Republicans and keep things "safe" in 2 party system. Of course a 3rd party could potentially refuse to cooperate like this, but obviously nothing of the sort is remotely considered by Dems. It's always weird how US so casually calls other countries it doesn't like "dictatorships" when they fairly often have MORE relevant, elected in office political parties than the US itself does. But again, "exceptional America" can't be compared to other countries, it is morally superior etc "by definition" (per 18th century slavers with property requirements for voting etc etc) |
That really wouldn't work, because third parties are generally not very popular. Putting the green party or libertarian party on the ballot as VP would lose more votes than it gains. And they can't just cede Senate races to the third party. If they tried that the second party would win. Supreme Court nominations require confirmations, so that's not a possibility unless the party has a strong hold on congress. The solutions you're putting forward aren't really practical.
The problem is the combination of the backwards electoral college system where someone could lose the popular vote by 2-3 million and still win the election. Ranked choice voting or some kind of parliamentary system would work better, but states would have to adopt them in unison which would be pretty much impossible.
But, the system is what it is, and we have to deal with it. And a lot of third party voters are straight up doing stupid things. Like, Jill Stein voters care about the environment... And they helped get someone elected who would pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement, allow for more oil drilling, decimate protections for endangered species, slow the needed transition to clean energy, appoint oil executives to cabinet positions, and block any efforts to combat global warming for at least 4 years. Good job guys. Hope making your statement against the system was worth it.
