What are your thoughts on third party/independent voters?

[Pizza Munch]

With the election coming up and there being little to no mention of third party candidates in the media or in general, I was wondering if y'all ever thought third parties will have a chance to infiltrate the US government in the future.

For presidential elections, polling numbers of 15% or more are required to be allowed into the nationally televised debates and thousands of signatures are needed to get onto the ballot in each state. This is simple for an R or D, but not for people associated with other parties. I know just running as a Republican or Democrat but holding more "idealistic" values in office has worked before: i.e. Justin Amash
I think that social media has helped promote ideas from third parties, and a few elections cycles from now they could be a larger threat

What do y'all think though? Should third parties be taken more seriously? Do they deserve more inclusion in elections? Could they be doing anything differently to achieve more success?

Edit: Thanks mods for moving my thread- didn't see this initial one :-)

 

[bordergore]

No.

 

[Alrakkan]

Lol no

This isn't even a point of discussion. Both Dems and Republicans, as well as Conservatives and Labour, will bus, fund as many attack ads, bitch on social media, silence, and even just not mention the thirds as much as necessary. We are in the Late-Stage Capitalism, Late-Stage First-Past-The-Post Democracy limit, they don't need to much anyway. We are fucked.

To quote another post made by @Gustav Schuchardt:

The system is failing irreversibly. Make ready, and keep your powder dry.

 

[Ita Mori]

Not without major financial backing and the endorsement of powerful figures.
A grassroots effort with no funding/nobodies won't ever leave the local stage.

Edit: lol, faggot revenge-rated. Umad?

 

[Alrakkan]

Not without major financial backing and the endorsement of powerful figures.

The people who could do this definitely don't form a generic class within a given society called the elite and this 'elite' is certainly not subdivided into byzantine social circles, each member of which being on the level of all others and looking out for each other as a consequence of the circle's optimal size, itself a consequence of these people knowing that they are the only people who could navigate this dysgenic structure. Certainly not.

Fucking skeptics.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

Lot of retards going to dismiss you.

No, but not for the reason you might think.

American political parties have ever changing mission statements and legislative goals, which is representative of their coalition nature.

For instance, the Democrats are a broad left coalition of socialists, a few actual commies, center left neoliberals, "national security democrats" i.e Obama-esque Warhawks, greenies, and some socially conservative/fiscally liberal religious types such as Jews and left-Catholics.

The Republicans are a broad right coalition that is slightly more homogenous. It encompasses center-center right fiscally conservative/socially liberal types, evangelical Christians, traditional Warhawks, libertarians, constitutionalists, nationalists, and a few ultra far right dudes like actual literal nazis.

In any normal country, each one of these would be their own party with far fewer seats, and they would join in ruling coalitions along these lines, in the US we skip that part. Any political movement that gains traction will IMMEDIATELY be adopted by one of the two major parties. We saw this in 2008-2010 with the Occupy Democrats, and we saw it in 2012 with the Tea Party Republicans. Both of these groups won primaries in "safe" party districts and forced the national party to legitimize them by compromising and adopting some of their points into the national platform, or else they would break the mold. Even if the Republicans technically controlled the House in 2013, if they didn't concede to the Tea Party, they could not reliably pass legislation favorable because the Tea Party could vote with the democrats against said legislation just to prove a point. That is exactly what happened when the RNC didn't take them seriously.

We are actually seeing this right now, where Republicans are increasingly shifting to more immigration-friendly platforms, not amnesty or anything, but you are hearing a lot of talk of "immigration reform" and "the broken visa system" whereas 15 years ago it was "we're full, fuck em." This coincides with Hispanics being 18% conservative in 2000 to 40% conservative in 2016, with the majority of hispanic voters expected to be "Republican or Republican leaning" by the 2032 general. Interestingly enough, the Democrats have been itching for Puerto Rico to be a state because they wrongly believe that, since Puerto Ricans that come to the CONUS vote heavily blue, that PR itself will be a safe state. Lmao no. PR is actually heavily conservative. The conservative party in Puerto Rico has controlled the legislature and executive for like 20+ years. In a poll, over 60% of Puerto Ricans identified with the Republican party over the Democratic party when the parties were explained to them.

Tl;Dr: party platforms change rapidly and frequently, and adapt to whatever is popular, eliminating most of the need for strong third parties.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Maybe if one of the big parties fractured due to a big enough reason. Like RINOs leaving or the woke left leaving. Of course, unless it was done early enough, it will annihilate the fractured party come the presidential elections, but there are political figures who will totally burn down their party for their egos.
The only case I can think of this happening is the Dems losing the next two elections and having the woke vomited out of them.

 

[Angry Shoes]

Anyone trying to make political predictions after Trump won against all odds is a fool.

 

[Red Hood]

Anyone trying to make political predictions after Trump won against all odds is a fool.

We're living in a post-prediction era. I deem it the Postradamus era.

 

[Not Really Here]

No, the US doesn't have a parliamentary system so you can't have obtuse power sharing agreements.
It's far easier to just lie about what your party will do/stands for and peel off enough votes to win everything.

 

[Women should die]

Short Answer; No. Long Answer; No. The entirety of the western world are basically on two sides that hate each other, Democrats vs Conservatives. Nobody is going to vote for a third party.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

I think there's no third-party talk because no third party wants to touch this election this year. Call me crazy, but this is already enough of a shitshow with just Trump and Biden. Adding in a third-party would just make things worse. Not like third-parties ever stood a chance to begin with, they've always seemed like the guy whose only purpose is to just fill out the third sport because there's no actual third party for the US to actually claim.l

 

[Not Really Here]

I think there's no third-party talk because no third party wants to touch this election this year. Call me crazy, but this is already enough of a shitshow with just Trump and Biden. Adding in a third-party would just make things worse. Not like third-parties ever stood a chance to begin with, they've always seemed like the guy whose only purpose is to just fill out the third sport because there's no actual third party for the US to actually claim.l

Literally a third party running currently.
Just like every year.

 

[Pizza Munch]

party platforms change rapidly and frequently, and adapt to whatever is popular, eliminating most of the need for strong third parties.

Thanks for your detailed response- I really don't know much about the inner workings of politics besides the basics. It makes sense that the two parties cover basically the two major points of view on a topic and a certain party will grasp at the more "popular" moderate views when they're closer to the party's stances. I think the reason why Libertarians place themselves in the Republican party is that, as you said, that party caters to their "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" point of view.

Maybe it's me being young and rebellious, but I just feel better about myself choosing a third party (for me the Libertarians) because they seem "cleaner" if that makes sense? I don't think as many of their people have become entangled in as much BS as the R or Ds have- maybe because they haven't had the chance to.

Literally a third party running currently.
Just like every year.

I think this is where my question came from. Joe Biden literally has dementia and Donald Trump might be the most polarizing president we've ever had (but sometimes I'm here for it lol). I'm just in my feels about "why pick the lesser of two evils when some candidates haven't had one accusation about sexual assault and meet in the middle about a bunch of the topics up for debate???"

 

[Not Really Here]

I think this is where my question came from. Joe Biden literally has dementia and Donald Trump might be the most polarizing president we've ever had (but sometimes I'm here for it lol). I'm just in my feels about "why pick the lesser of two evils when some candidates haven't had one accusation about sexual assault and meet in the middle about a bunch of the topics up for debate???"

The media.

As a group (generally speaking), the media chose their political party decades ago, and they gatekeep their industry.
This is why you will hear (for instance) that Trump has shadowy connections to Russia, and you won't hear that Bill Clinton took a check for a million dollars from a Russian businessman in Moscow for a speech while Hillary was Secretary of State, and Joe Biden's family (mostly his son) has taken nearly 100 million dollars (cash payments and investments for his venture capitol firm) from the national bank of China and Russian businessmen.

The moment anyone who is a conceivable danger to the media's chosen party you get truckloads of dirt.

No matter how poorly sourced.

The problem is that people have been convinced that THE PRESS is a valid source of information.

RIP Mike.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

Thanks for your detailed response- I really don't know much about the inner workings of politics besides the basics. It makes sense that the two parties cover basically the two major points of view on a topic and a certain party will grasp at the more "popular" moderate views when they're closer to the party's stances. I think the reason why Libertarians place themselves in the Republican party is that, as you said, that party caters to their "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" point of view.

Maybe it's me being young and rebellious, but I just feel better about myself choosing a third party (for me the Libertarians) because they seem "cleaner" if that makes sense? I don't think as many of their people have become entangled in as much BS as the R or Ds have- maybe because they haven't had the chance to.




I think this is where my question came from. Joe Biden literally has dementia and Donald Trump might be the most polarizing president we've ever had (but sometimes I'm here for it lol). I'm just in my feels about "why pick the lesser of two evils when some candidates haven't had one accusation about sexual assault and meet in the middle about a bunch of the topics up for debate???"

Part of the problem is that people feel they are "throwing their vote away" if they vote third party. Look at the 1968 election. A third party came out STRONG because the Democratic coalition cracked, and the Southern Dems voted for Wallace, who won 5 states and one electoral vote from VA. Any third party is going to just steal votes from one of the two major ones. The Libertarian Party steals Republican votes and the Green Party steals Democrat votes. This isn't bad, because if one of those parties becomes somewhat of a threat, then their "big brother" party will be forced to adapt. As a Libertarian myself, if, due to a strong national showing, the Republican party adapted their national platform to cater to some of my ideas like ending the war on drugs and relaxing gun laws, I could comfortably call myself a Republican.

I personally would prefer a system like Australia's, where you number your preferences. If your number 1 choice doesn't get enough votes to go to the next runoff, your vote goes to number 2, if your number 2 doesn't get enough votes, it goes to 3, and so on. So if you lived in a swing state, say Florida, and wanted Biden to lose at all costs but would prefer Jo, then you mark Jo as 1 and Trump as 2, and leave the rest blank. If Jo doesn't get enough votes to move up to the next runoff, then your vote goes to Trump. It's a better system imo.

 

[Not Really Here]

Part of the problem is that people feel they are "throwing their vote away" if they vote third party. Look at the 1968 election. A third party came out STRONG because the Democratic coalition cracked, and the Southern Dems voted for Wallace, who won 5 states and one electoral vote from VA. Any third party is going to just steal votes from one of the two major ones. The Libertarian Party steals Republican votes and the Green Party steals Democrat votes. This isn't bad, because if one of those parties becomes somewhat of a threat, then their "big brother" party will be forced to adapt. As a Libertarian myself, if, due to a strong national showing, the Republican party adapted their national platform to cater to some of my ideas like ending the war on drugs and relaxing gun laws, I could comfortably call myself a Republican.

I personally would prefer a system like Australia's, where you number your preferences. If your number 1 choice doesn't get enough votes to go to the next runoff, your vote goes to number 2, if your number 2 doesn't get enough votes, it goes to 3, and so on. So if you lived in a swing state, say Florida, and wanted Biden to lose at all costs but would prefer Jo, then you mark Jo as 1 and Trump as 2, and leave the rest blank. If Jo doesn't get enough votes to move up to the next runoff, then your vote goes to Trump. It's a better system imo.

Don't forget Ross.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

Don't forget Ross.
View attachment 1616784

Yeah that's a really good example of what I was talking about. The Republican party adapted to the popularity of Perot and incorporated his ideas into the 1994 RNC platform, and they had regained control by 2000.

Perot is also a really good example of how someone that carries no states can drastically affect an election.

 

[Not Really Here]

Yeah that's a really good example of what I was talking about. The Republican party adapted to the popularity of Perot and incorporated his ideas into the 1994 RNC platform, and they had regained control by 2000.

Perot is also a really good example of how someone that carries no states can drastically affect an election.

It's also an example of just how much effort, and how many media connections you MUST have to battle against mudslinging.

At least before social media came along and people could watch a BS narrative form in real time hours before it hits the news.

 

[Lodoss Warrior]

Vote because you've thought through your positions and genuinely decided your candidate was the best.

If you really think Jo is the best candidate, more power to you; if you think Joe Biden is the best candidate, I might think you're an idiot, but I'll respect you for thinking beyond "Orange Man Bad."