The Next Model of American Politics.

[Hum Dinger]

Mathematically, if you vote for a third party your vote actually counts more than if you vote for one of the major parties!

Dem vote = 50% chance. GOP vote = 50% chance. Third-party vote = 0% chance. Go back to a real school, Jr.

I should have expected a simpleton to reply like that.

O.K. here's the reality:

Let's say that 100 million people vote. About 49 million vote Republican and about 49 million people vote Democratic. 1 million vote for a 3rd party candidate.

Effectively voting third party is a protest vote.

Now, if you've voted for a major party candidate your 1 in 49 million, you vote is worth 2 times (ten to the negative eight power). If you vote third party your vote is worth 10 to the negative sixth power. Your vote is 50 times more effective than if you voted for a major party candidate.

In fact, if you vote for a major party candidate, it doesn't matter at all. I've voted Democratic my whole life. Did it make any difference? No. If I had not voted, would it have made any difference? No. If I had voted Republican, would it have made a difference? No.

We know that in the 2000 election, the result was determined by the number of people voting for the Green party - if everyone that voted Green has Voted Democratic Al Gore would have won. Again, in this post election the third parties served most probably to prevent Clinton from getting elected. Like it or not, any single third party vote had more influence on the outcome than any single major party vote.

What's more is the larger the percentage of third party votes, the more the major party candidates have to court third party voters - changing their platforms. Winning the potential third party vote is increasingly vital to winning the election.

Perhaps you should stop thinking that if the candidate that you voted for does not win, your vote is wasted. You will have a greater effect on the political landscape voting third party - by far.

 

[Hum Dinger]

The power brokers in this country love the two party system. They only have to contribute to two parties to hedge their bets.

We have a abundance of 'third' parties and always have, but none ever gain a traction.

The only way we will ever have a true multi-party system is if the two major parties would divide.

Right now, the Alt-Right has taken over the Republican party and pushed the old school Republicans (RINOS) aside. Meanwhile the Dempcrats are divided between the old school (Progressive/liberals) and Democratic socialists.

The main reason that this is happening is that it's too easy to join a party - you just have to check off a box on your voter registration. Theere's NOTHING to confirm that you actually conform to any standard whatsoever.

Each party should have a narrowly defined party platform or constitution and anyone that tries to join the party should have to agree to that platform. Secondly, anyone who joins a party should have to do volunteer work and make contributions to that party. They should have to prove that they are committed to the party's principals. You should have to be accepted into the party formally.

If that were the case, the Alt-Right people would have to go back to the Liberatarian party (or whatever wingnut party they want), the RINOS could have their Republican party back, the democratic-socialists would have to join the democratic-socialist party and the progressive/liberals could have the Democratic party to themselves.

It would be a whole new ball game. (Except then, the powers that be would have to contribute to 4 parties if they wanted to hedge their bets).

Glancing through some comments about a multi-party system, the one thing that gave me pause was, with three or four parties, someone can get elected who is supported by much less than half the people. Of course, at this point, Trump's pretty much at that point of his own volition, but it would be good if at least at the outset, about half or more of the voters wanted the person.

That may be true, but it means that everyone will be aware of that fact and the Presidency will be politically weaker. All elected official will be politically weaker. That means that they will be forced to make alliances and to compromise. That's the way it works in Parliamentary systems.

Perhaps having a government where the elected officials are not polarized would result in a more effective government.

As things are now, if only 3 people in the whole country vote, and one major party candidate gets 2 out of those three votes, they declare themselve4s to have won 67% of the vote and have a major mandate to govern.

As of now, given that only about 50% of the people vote, NO CANDIDATE EVER HAS A MANDATE. But they don't like to look at it that way.....

Interesting to note:

In the Soviet Union, while there was only one candidate on the ballot (Union of Communists and Independents), there was an option to vote 'No'.

The percentage of 'No' votes were very much taken into account by the government to determine how happy or unhappy the people were with the government.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Mathematically, if you vote for a third party your vote actually counts more than if you vote for one of the major parties!

Dem vote = 50% chance. GOP vote = 50% chance. Third-party vote = 0% chance. Go back to a real school, Jr.

Not really great analysis here. Because with 1 and 2% margins, the winners are often determined by the Indie and 3rd party votes. In fact, over 6% voted AGAINST both Clinton and Trump in the last election. You provide MORE CHOICES and clearly the Indies will flock to them. Making Indies and 3rd Parties MORE powerful in determining who can "win". But more important, having to WIN those 3rd party and Indie votes, the deviants in the Dem/Rep dynasties will HAVE to discuss things other than the character or morals of each other..

Name the last Third-Party to win anything that mattered a damn? I'll be waiting, for a very long, long time.

You have a simplistic viewpoint. Third parties have had a huge effect on the outcome of elections. The larger the percentage of third party votes, the larger the effect on political system.

Instead of thinking in terms of winning and losing, perhaps you should think in terms of the overall effect on the political landscape.

 

[Hum Dinger]

The power brokers in this country love the two party system. They only have to contribute to two parties to hedge their bets.

We have a abundance of 'third' parties and always have, but none ever gain a traction.

The only way we will ever have a true multi-party system is if the two major parties would divide.

Right now, the Alt-Right has taken over the Republican party and pushed the old school Republicans (RINOS) aside. Meanwhile the Dempcrats are divided between the old school (Progressive/liberals) and Democratic socialists.

The main reason that this is happening is that it's too easy to join a party - you just have to check off a box on your voter registration. Theere's NOTHING to confirm that you actually conform to any standard whatsoever.

Each party should have a narrowly defined party platform or constitution and anyone that tries to join the party should have to agree to that platform. Secondly, anyone who joins a party should have to do volunteer work and make contributions to that party. They should have to prove that they are committed to the party's principals. You should have to be accepted into the party formally.

If that were the case, the Alt-Right people would have to go back to the Liberatarian party (or whatever wingnut party they want), the RINOS could have their Republican party back, the democratic-socialists would have to join the democratic-socialist party and the progressive/liberals could have the Democratic party to themselves.

It would be a whole new ball game. (Except then, the powers that be would have to contribute to 4 parties if they wanted to hedge their bets).

Your solution to declaring party is a good exercise. MORE folks are declaring Independent. In fact, very soon, perhaps this year -- there will be MORE Independents than the sum total of both Damn Parties.

Nominations and Primaries should be a PARTY responsibility and effort. Let the Independents have a slate of "all other choices" if they don't want to rely on the 2 Brand Name Parties. The LParty doesn't even USE local primary polling to choose their candidates. There's a grass roots level nomination of delegates to convention and the candidates are CHOSEN THERE... If you''re gonna rely on parties, let THEM be responsible for choosing their candidates. No monkey business of "open primaries" where Dems and Repubs "cross over" to monkey the opposition nomination procress. Not "Top 2" system where one of the Dynasty parties can literally wipe out ALL the opposition choices on the General Election ballot...

The only reason we HAVE primaries is because voters RELY on the 2 major parties to DICTATE the choices...

I've always been an Independent and nowhere I've lived could I vote in a primary. That SUCKS. That should change and be nationwide. If more Independents had been allowed to vote in the primaries, I don't think we would have had the two candidates we wound up with.

Why should you be allowed to vote in someone else's party? These parties are private institutions - they're not government institutions. In theory anyway.

If you were to form a party, would you want just anyone to have a vote in your party?

I think that the solution is that these parties should be much much less inclusive, not more inclusive. Only people that are dedicated to a narrow and well defined party philosophy should be allowed to participate. Get the Alt-Right out of the Republican party, and get the socialists out of the Democratic party.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I'm sure the long list of important Third-Party wins will be here soon??? Anybody?

Winning isn't the point dumbass!

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm sure the long list of important Third-Party wins will be here soon??? Anybody?

We had a Libertarian member of the House of Representatives for 4 months last year. You never heard about it because the Media was too busy with junk and fake news. But this guy was a PRIME example of how the Parties muzzle CongressPeople and neutralize them. He was planning to leave and wanted to make a statement. Because EVERY politician on Capitol Hill is chained and muzzled by the 6 people who RUN Congress.

There are also Libertarians and Greens thru-out government today. Either elected as such -- or taking cover in the 2 Brand Name parties. The Repubs have a "Liberty Caucus" with about 70 members. And some very vocal Libertarians like Ron Paul have served in Congress and run for Prez on both 3rd party and Repub tickets.