"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."
Last edited by mutantsushi - on 17 September 2020
But you're just asserting that with no evidence, merely reproducing the 2 party ideology that is opposed to other parties. The irony is Democrats are happy to say "even if you don't like our party/candidate, vote for us to stop the other guy/party". But then you insist Dem voters would not be willing to support a coalition "against other guy", even while their own party prevails at top level and only sharing minority of power (with somebody who is not a Republican, i.e. the main motive for many Democrat voters). DNC openly defends "deals in smoke filled backed rooms" to decide political candidates, but can't handle an openly publicized coalition?
"And they can't just cede Senate races to the third party. If they tried that the second party would win. "
Not even sure what you are saying. It is possible for candidates to withdraw, and there is no restriction on them then campaigning in favor of another candidate. Senator Sanders himself runs as Independent while Democrat party cedes to him. Assuming the second party would win is baseless, and there exists plenty of super "safe" seats for Democrats that would have very little risk of that (even assuming some Dem voters could not follow own advice and just vote pragmatically anti-Republican). Heck, there exist enough seats right now that are so safe for Democrats that a 3rd party could run against them, cannibalizing Democratic vote, and either 3rd party OR Dems would still reasonably win vs Republican... Not even accounting for tactical voting, of people seeing who is strongest and voting for strongest candidate against the Republicans etc. EDIT: Again, the US government supports those kinds of strategies overseas when it benefits its minions, this is all basic stuff in political science, but US domestic realm is kept in state of lobotomized prisoner, empire can't have it's core going rogue and getting it's own ideas...
"Supreme Court nominations require confirmations, so that's not a possibility unless the party has a strong hold on congress. "
Positions like this do depend on subsequent action of entire government and congress so can't be "assured" up front as easily, not that the broad concept depends on this specific position, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be included in deal. Congress makes deals over legislation all the time, and they aren't all "absolutely guaranteed". If the deal isnt followed thru with, that just publicly demonstrates the non-compliant party as traitor to those helped get them elected, and not reliable to make such deals in the future (or at least, not without much better conditions for other party that can't be overturned after the fact).
"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."
I don't know what this has to do with anything, how would removing EC help 3rd party vote politically? I personally don't remotely care about EC, as it's distraction from other structural issues of US political system.
"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. "
This isn't even true, as states can separately adopt compensatory systems to account for total national vote, after all original system involving appointments by state governments. But again, I don't think limits of existing system are an excuse, as PRE-electoral pacts can and do bypass constraints of electoral system. That is why they are used in other countries, otherwise there is no reason to have PRE-electoral pact if individually going to election and assembling post-electoral coalition is just as effective.
"But, the system is what it is, and we have to deal with it. "
And yet US government policy, including Democrats, nakedly supports overthrow of constitutional order in many countries. Literally nobody "serious" (close to power) cares about the nuances of removing Ukrainian President in favor of neo-nazi coup*, or countless other examples. But gosh darn it, gotta stay between the lines of 2 party system! Meanwhile... "Destroy the REGEEEMES, my minions..." This makes sense if you are loyal to empire and see 2-party system as inherently comfortable. That isn't an absolute truth though, it's a propaganda construction about defending hegemony.
"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."
Doing stupid things like voting for who they feel represents them, the nominal purpose of representative democracy?
"Meanwhile Democrats have never put forward a system which might avoid any problem from people voting for different parties, despite routinely controlling many States who could at least implement it locally. Which might itself lead to coalition majorities at national level, since only small numbe of seats would need to shift to break single party majority. Preference and interests of Democratic party is obviously what prevents that, not some malevolent moral failing of Green Party voters. More "you must support 2 party system because we have 2 party system" circular logic. "
Clinton is the one who sabotaged Copenhagen climate accord, disrupting China/India meeting in attempt to perpetuate hegemonic interests of US tech companies against those who would democratize green tech around the world for maximum efficacy, instead Clinton only tried to exploit climate agreement as way to globally mandate purchases of US tech and perpetuate global hegemony, undermining what would be most effective effort. The "pursuit of foreign interests" was explicitly warned against by American founders who saw empire as inherently opposed to sovereign democracy, and here we are. Democrats continue to support US military, Biden indicating plan to raise miltiary budget, when US military is the largest climate disrupting entity on Earth.
Dems openly host Republicans at their conventions, while continuing to demonize Green Party and their voters. How can one seriously believe a coalition with Green Party would crater the coalition vote, yet openly consorting with Republicans (i.e. the party that opposing is supposedly Dem's #1 goal and rationale for why 3rd party voters should support Dems) is fine? Obama appointed Republicans with no prompting, even with early full Democratic majority in Congress). Never mind perpetual worship of "bipartisan cooperation", frequently put into action by Dem-Repub cooperation in Congress when necessary for majorities/supermajorities (like treaties). There already is de facto Dem-Repub coalition/cooperation, despite "anti-Repub" being main rallying call of Dems... And somehow cooperation with Greens would lose Dem votes? Pretty clear what this is about: 2 party hegemony, that is to say a singular political monopoly that wears 2 masks. Dems roll over to allow Republicans to steal election, while keeping maximum hostility to anybody who even dreams of 3rd party within electoral system, never mind imagining political change outside of system (as they happily export against any country they don't like). "1.5 party system" might be better term.