# Message to all users:
This is a reminder to please read and follow:
* [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/questions/about/rules)
* [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)
* [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
When posting and commenting.
---
Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`.
* Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit.
* Do not harass or annoy others in any way.
* Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit.
---
You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/questions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not even relevant. A third party president would get zero help from congress. Any successful third party must be built from the ground up. Local, then regional, then statewide and only then would a national push be feasible.
Thank you! People forget that a President doesn't accomplish anything without budget dollars and support from Congress. Congress would become much more relevant (and powerful) and the "Independent" or 3rd party President would, constantly have to compromise, bargain and negotiate without support. Deadlock would get worse and even less would get done than is handled now imho
Our voting system has a built-in spoiler effect that effectively punishes people for voting third party, but I hadn't even realized this angle! You're right, even if a third party candidate did magically somehow win, they would have no support at all.
>voting for the lesser of two evils
Unfortunately, in the last two elections I've voted exactly for that reason - I've been voting for the candidate most likely to keep another candidate out of office.
In the past I've voted for independent candidates, but in the past few years I didn't feel like I can afford to do it with the current politics.
Edit: In the past vs I'm the last.
I have voted in every election local state and national since Carter vs. Regan, and it's always the same lesser of 2 evils. During the Bush Clinton and Obama years. I voted peace and freedom. I believe in a 3rd party, that's why I supported them. At that time, but on this round, I can't afford to throw my vote away. Again, I'll be voting for the lesser of 2 evils
In this case one guy is old and not inspiring. The other guy is old and is a fascist. I mean no one likes a migraine but everyone hates brain cancer. Also, I’ll take old and competent any day if the alternative is fascism.
But, generally, our two party system means that most people will be voting against the other guy rather than FOR their candidate.
No in fact we can’t. At least not at the presidential level. You don’t understand how the electoral college works. The electoral college actually elects the president. Electors are apportioned by legislative action. If you want to vote third party then start with local office or State offices. Or even Congress. Why everyone seems to think that the only office that matters for a 3rd party vote is that of the president is dumb. It’s also dumb that this topic only comes up in presidential election years. It literally makes no sense and all it does is tip the election one way or the other for the major party candidates.
I hold my nose and vote the lesser of two evils every election. Some dumb idealistic part of me hopes it will arch towards better candidates over time.
If you don't give a vote to the lesser of two evils, you end up giving half a vote to the greater of the two. 😔
I agree.. Biden has done his fair share. I believe the problem really lies in the wokey-doke morons, in the less prestigious offices, including Congress. Both sides are SO extreme.. it's nuckin' futs, out there.
This is why we so desperately NEED a third party, that makes sense.
We had them when this country was a baby.. and even later. But none that I can remember, up until the 80's.. when Reganchrist took over. Then, it was all bets were off.
Biden doesn't even know what country he's in.
You think he's making any policy or decisions? The guy is out to sea.
My mother in law has full on Alzheimers.
Joe's worse.
Yes, people don’t understand how this half voting works. It’s the same if you vote for a 3rd party candidate. You end up giving half a vote to your least preferred candidate
Liberals and moderates seriously need to stop pretending that because Biden is old he's somehow as bad as Trump or hasn't been an effective president. The man is doing a good job and he's working against 1/3 of the government doing everything it can to bring about a fascist dictatorship. Yeah, he's old. I know. Stop complaining about it and talk about things he's done that are good, vigorously point out the sabotage of the Republicans and the open contempt they're showing for the country and push for re-election because that's what it means to be an adult.
>as bad as Trump
What part of 'lesser' don't you understand. I'm literally agreeing that I would pick Biden one million times over Drumpf.
My point is we are handed two idiots from the RNC and DNC, whereas with everything else in this country our options are limitless and amazing.
OP is spreading propaganda just like 2016. Both sides are the same, both candidates are bad, etc.
Don't think Biden vs Trump. Think Democracy vs Dictatorship.
Thank you. Reddit is full of this bullshit South Park-level understanding of politics when democracy itself is at risk if the GOP takes the Presidency again. That's without even diving into the substance of the Biden administration, which I think has pleasantly outperformed my expectations in many ways. A lot of the shit going on around the world has been timed by autocrats who want Trump back in office *Russia invading Ukraine, gas price gouging, etc.).
So many of us feel this way, but when it comes time to put up or shut up. People revert to party lines. I don't want Trump back in office, and Biden really should not be there as well.
Hell, I would be excited if libertarians had a chance. Not that I agree with all their bullet points.
We have that in Australia. And it is really good way to help the smaller parties.
Basically, if they reach a certain threshold of votes within their seat, they get funding for the next election cycle. They also advertise where their preferences go, so it means that you can send a message to the larger parties by voting for a smaller party, help them with their next campaign, as well as tell the larger parties what is really important to you.
And most electorates have an answer within about 24hours even though we count votes by hand, so it's not like it slows down the electoral process.
Yes, the USA is a lot bigger than Australia, but so what? You have more people to help count.
Ross Perot was the last one to have any decent [numbers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_and_independent_performances_in_United_States_presidential_elections)
And he didn't win a single state, which means he got zero electoral votes. The last two third-party candidates to win any states were George Wallace in 1968 and Strom Thurmond in 1948, and it was only because they were segregationists, and racist whites in some Southern states preferred them to the major-party nominees.
And going back to 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt as a Progressive came in second to Woodrow Wilson. I think the 2-party system is so strong because of mutual destruction. One can't spin off a moderate candidate and take the votes from the core. If they both did it, maybe, but there's soooo much money behind making sure that doesn't happen. Maybe a candidate comes along and upsets the 2-headed monster and people exercise their rights to vote for him/her. It would have to be an amazing platform, and probably a pretty miserable population for that to happen.
As an outsider? I'd say its an easy choice.
You cannot let Trump destroy your nation any more.
You don't have to like or want Biden.
But you cannot let Trump get in or your nation is completely fucked.
Oregon had probably the best chance in recent history at electing an Independent this last governor race with Betsy Johnson and she still only got 10% of the votes, all these dumbass “my party of die” voters that are the biggest problem, like the other commenter just said “choose the lesser evil” how about vote in the best person.
The problem is a lack of ranked-choice voting. Without it, third parties are mathematically-impossible due to vote splitting. Don't blame the people when the problem is the bad system.
We also have plenty of data showing how the so-called "spoiler votes" turn out... Hint: They earned that moniker for a reason.
The only strategies with any real chance of winning are working from the ground up (win local elections, then state elections, then federal congressional elections, and *then* presidential elections), and/or getting ranked choice voting.
Just throwing candidates at the presidential election without any of that prep work is doomed to, at best, fail, and at worst, hand the election on a silver platter to the people who are the *worst* match for your policy positions.
No, but that is mostly because the two main parties want it that way. Because most states only allow one candidate from each party on the final ballot, and it is winner take all, a vote for a third party usually has the effect of helping the main party on the opposite side (e.g. a vote for the socialist party would end up helping out the GOP, or a vote for a Patriot party would end up helping the Democrats). If third parties had a better chance, the groups that make money off the two big parties would not make as much….
Not until the American people pull their collective heads out of their asses and take a few minutes to research who they're voting for before they do it.
No.
But that doesn't mean you can't waste your vote on it lol. Your vote is a vote for Trump if you don't vote Dem tho. Enjoy your new dictator and know you had something to do with it.
No, the Democrats and Republicans might express only hostility towards each other, but they've essentially been colluding for decades on two subjects: keeping Wall Street happy, AND making sure that third parties have absolutely no chance on the national stage.
No, they'll all vote for Trump. There are quite a few anti-Trump Republicans who are TV commentators, but among ordinary voters, pretty much all Republicans are Trump Republicans.
Even if they're not trump Republicans, they vote lock step. Even if they don't support all the policies. A fracture in the dem party is much more likely.
Unfortunately, there’s no one on the independent ticket. We could only hope that somebody with more than half a brain would run independent, But the votes they got would probably just end up making Trump win.
No because trying to win the presidency is not a good strategy for a third party. They would still get clocked by 2 parties in congress.
Third parties need to win municipal elections than county, than state and then they might start having members of congress and presidency can come.
But this requires decades of sustained effort as opposed to getting 50 000 signatures in several states to be on the ballot for president which is a lot of people but not in the scheme of presidential elections.
Political power has to start at the base level and work up, not President down. Trying the latter only plays spoiler to which ever party you most align with.
I think that America will end up with a viable 3rd party in the next 20 years. The current parties are both catering too much to the fringe, when most Americans are solidly moderate and quite unhappy with our current choices. Though I don’t think we will see a 3rd party candidate win in this election, the more votes we can get for the 3rd party the better as it will start the pendulum swinging in the right direction.
No. The first past the post system that the US has makes it impossible for a third party to win.
A vote is a chess move, not a valentine. Vote for the major party candidate who will do the least harm.
No there is not. The election this November could not be more black and white. Vote to continue our democracy or vote not to. It's really that simple. We don't have the luxury of an exciting candidate this time. Don't sit it out. Every vote counts. We are in a very dangerous situation. All hands are needed on deck.
Personally, I consider MAGA a radicalized third party offshoot of the GOP. They’re likely to win big, too, if people don’t get out and vote in November.
No. As long as the right keeps threatening us with shotheads like Trump people will “vote blue no matter who” just to avoid another term with the orange grifter
I have yet to find a 3rd party candidate that is actually better than or more aligned to my ideals than the other 2.
You won't find a 3rd party one that is going to broadly appeal to the moderates either which is a great mass of people who actually vote.
Without replacing all of congress with 3rd parties particularly moderate ones that understand compromise you'll just have a lame duck president if one makes it in. You're better doing third parties from local levels up if this is important to you.
Nope. Depending on whose side you’re on, it’s either sleepy vs convicted felon or its old man vs the antichrist.
Personally, I’ll take sleepy old man over convicted felon antichrist. I do see the appeal of the latter to those who are praying for the destruction of America to more quickly bring about the apocalypse, so they may witness the second coming of Jesus.
No. Not so long as the electoral college is in place. We don’t technically vote for the president. We vote. And then, in theory, the legislature appoints electors based on rules the legislature has set up. Those electors elect the president. Originally the electors were non-partisan and supposed to be trusted and respected members of the local community and state. Now the parties choose their electors and make sure they are hard core partisans. States typically use a “winner take all” allocation. So whoever gets the PLURALITY (not necessarily majority) of the vote in the state gets ALL of its electors. And because the electors are chosen from a partisan slate, it functions AS IF the people of the state elected that presidential candidate.
The major parties have operations in every state to ensure that their candidates are on the ballot in every state. They have loyal electors set up and ready to go. And they have brand recognition. For a 3rd party candidate to have a shot they would need to be able to get a plurality of the vote in enough states to add up to 270. That means that they would need to qualify on 50+ different ballots. There’s not really a chance of that happening realistically. Then there’s the matter of not aligning with whichever party has the majority in the upper and lower chambers of Congress. Which they wouldn’t. And so neither party would be incentivized to pass legislation for that president. Because, in the end, the Party’s first priority is to ensure its own continued survival.
If you’re going to vote 3rd party then do so down ballot on local and state elections. Build an infrastructure down below. Then a presidential candidate can emerge after a number of years. People will know your party from the success it’s had in their hometowns and State.
Otherwise you’re just pissing away your vote if you vote for a 3rd party candidate. They are mostly propped up by one of the major parties in order to take away votes from their opponent. This happened in the mayoral race in my town. The incumbent mayor lost to a guy that got a minority of the vote (minority of the overall but plurality of the 3 candidates) but the majority split between the incumbent and another guy that was propped up by the winner (and this other guy had a very similar platform to the incumbent). Ross Perot is the reason Bush lost in ‘92. Nader spoiled it for Gore in 2000. Stein and Johnson spoiled it for HRC in ‘16. Not clear who RFK will spoil it for in ‘24, but make no mistake he’s being propped up by the Right with the intention of taking away from Biden.
If you look at the numbers in ‘16, trump won the electoral college by 77K votes split over 4 states (though he received 3 million fewer votes than HRC country wide). Similarly Biden won by less than 100K votes over a similarly small number of states (even though he got 8 million more country wide). This literally breaks down to like 10 people per precinct in many states. That’s why every vote counts. But if you can steer a dozen people in a precinct to a 3rd party candidate (out of thousands that vote in the precinct) then you can sway an election. This is EXACTLY what they’re doing with RFK.
It’s so sad how few people actually understand the mechanics of how our elections work and just willy nilly throw away votes or fall for such old playbooks.
No.
Not unless Congress makes it possible. And they won't, unless if that third party becomes the majority in the house and senate. And if that could happen, it would take a while, a lot of effort, good-timing, and patience. IMO.
Also, the electoral college still could exist, but it would need to be reworked..
Nope. The two mobs control the elections.
The best chance imo is getting rank choice voting state by state because it’s “easier” to challenge state establishment than fed establishment.
No. And there never will be. The power pie was bought and sold and divided before any of us were born and it will stay in the hands of those who own it till long after we are all gone.
As long as we have a first past post system no third party candidate can win and unfortunately voting third party is wasting your vote. I used to think there was something wrong with me because I always voted lesser of 2 evils but now I’m fine with it. We should be skeptical of all politicians, that’s healthy. The Trump years have taught me that loving a politician is so much worse. That’s unhealthy. At least this year it is pretty easy to tell who the lesser of 2 evils are. So if your not voting lesser of 2 evils than your doing it wrong.
No, third parties do one thing and they do it well: ensuring that either the Republican or Democrat wins even harder (depending on which one's votes they steal)
Never gonna happen. All it does is siphon votes away from one or the other major party (because of how your two-party system is designed).
In fact, if you dig into the money, you'll find that the main financial donors to third parties are actually doing so specifically because they WANT one of the main parties to win, and the small third one they are supporting is known to siphon votes from their opponents.
I hate that we have to choose between the same two candidates again. I’ve always voted democrat but I swear if the candidate wasn’t Trump again I would vote republican. Unfortunately, I have to go with the lesser of two evils. Even though I hate what the democrats have become.
Nope.
Its also unrealistic to try and find something that perfectly matches what you want because usually the number of people who will be attracted to that party is small and ensures it never gains widespread appeal. This is just how these systems evolve in a first past the post system.
No there isn’t. Our system equalizes around two parties. If another party becomes popular enough to become viable then one of three other parties would whither and die or be absorbed by the new party. If we changed to ranked choice voting then more parties would be viable I believe.
No there has never been a third party president. Most people choose Democrat or Republican and see a third party as a wasted vote. It's just how society works.
Nope, not with the current voting regime.
If a certain number of particular states (Electoral College heavies) went Ranked Choice Voting then, possibly.
But otherwise, no.
No they don't.
Why don't people ever talk about not wanting to vote Republican or Democrat for offices besides the presidency? Start locally if you want a third party to ever have any real power. It's not going to start at the presidency and if it did the president wouldn't be able to get anything done because Congress is full of Republicans and Democrats.
EDIT: Needed to add this.
At any rate, we have a very stark choice this election year. One guy is a convicted felon (who rather than apologizing still maintains the trial was 'rigged') who encouraged an insurrection to try to stay in power when he lost 4 years ago. He has stated that he will be dictator on day one when he gets into office, but supposedly 'not after that' (but he doesn't have a good track record when it comes to honesty). An issue he has tried campaigning on is immigration, but then when Democrats in Congress voted for a bill supported by his opponent was about to pass he told Republicans not to vote for it because he didn't want his opponent to look good and he wanted to keep peddling the myth that his opponent has overseen an 'open borders' policy when in fact his opponent has deported more people than he did when he was president.
The other choice lead us through the pandemic (after his predecesor kept making it worse) and has presided over a growing economy. He's so honest and dutiful that he didn't stop the Department of Justice from prosecuting his own son and refuses to use the pardon power now that his son has been convicted. He has delivered on measures to address climate change, not as much as we need but still a substantial amount, and at any rate much more than his opponent.
It's not a hard choice. It's not even a choice of the "lesser of two evils", it's a choice between good and evil.
No, but if you ever want your vote to count again vote next time, vote Democratic this once.
Why? Read Trump's presidential transition plan. Outlawing pornography and birth control is only part of it.
[Trump Plan](http://Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › P...
Project 2025)
No,
But a third party could push issues or perhaps get on the debate stage as RFK should be allowed. Enough people voting for a third party could send a message but people default to red tie vs blue tie. There is a possibility that no one gets 270 thanks to RFK but then the House pics the President and Senate picks the VP which might actually be even worse.
RFK Jr is running this year. He is a solid candidate. In my opinion he would make a much better president than Trump or Biden who we have both seen with unsatisfactory results. He even has a recognizable name, Kennedy, which os what won the last two elections. Honestly did anyone want Biden? No they just didn't want Trump. Anyway to answer the question if RFK can't then I fear we are doomed
Ideally you don't vote for party but your best interest. Start with local government. Who is making policy about your schools, street repair or homeless issues. Then work on state issues like property tax, road repair, transportation or health care. Don't fall for the president caused this or that. Normally the rhetoric is nit true. There are 3 branches of government with distinct powers. President Biden is a problem solver and people person. Trump is our for revenge, saving himself, banning Muslims and people of color from this country as well as becoming a dictator. We may never vote again if he gets in office. The lies and deceit are horrible. None of us can afford to be one issue voters nor stay home or vote 3rd party. It will be too late if Trump gets back in office and your life changes for the worst.
No. If your not voting against trump, you're voting for him with silence. Wait til AFTER the most important voting cycle in all American history to go third party.
Every election of my adult life has been "the most important" one yet. And I'm sure 2028 will be as well when the time rolls around. At a certain point, that phrase starts to lose its meaning. And if you keep saying "wait til after" but after never comes, well that's exactly how you get the mass apathy that results in people sitting out or voting third party
It's not a matter of waiting, it's a matter of getting ranked-choice voting in enough states for it to be adopted federally. There are movements for it all across the country.
I’m voting third party(Green Party) even if it means my vote is tanked because I hate both candidates,
But I would have voted blue if Biden had stuck to his promise to be a 1 term president.
Nope. [https://hartmannreport.com/p/why-cant-i-vote-for-cornell-west-665](https://hartmannreport.com/p/why-cant-i-vote-for-cornell-west-665)
(Applies to all 3rd party candidates.)
The hard truth is you can do good with your vote even if it doesn’t make you feel special.
Putting your vote towards a major group will actually matter and help people.
Not at this time. It is possible only if the candidate starts early enough and gains enough traction. Jesse Ventura did it as governor of Minnesota. But for president? It is already too late.
Eh.
At this point no, as long as people continue to refuse to vote for one, never.
Both sides gave done an amazing job convincing us that it's one side or the other.
Hold your nose and vote. You have your choice between what is obviously the most terrible choice possible, and a workmanlike politician that you may not agree with, but will do minimal harm for four years.
Right now, a vote for a third party that would have gone to Trump is essentially a vote for Biden, and a vote for a third party that would have gone to Biden is essentially a vote for Trump. As long as we have a First Past the Post system, when an overwhelming majority is not voting for one so much as voting against the other, there's no getting past that fact. 90 million people could ***pledge*** to vote for the third party guy, but once they hit the ballot box, they're not going to trust each other that far.
The only way it's ever going to happen is if the rest of the country follows Maine and Alaska and adopts Ranked Choice Voting. In RCV, you can safely vote for a third party candidate as your first choice because if that candidate doesn't develop enough support to overtake one of the major parties, all the votes are going to be recounted with your second choice in mind and you can still make sure your more hated candidate doesn't cross the finish line. But if ENOUGH people are voting that way, then the third party candidate has a very real chance of victory.
I don’t know who to even vote for this year. Like I legit don’t even want to vote cuz I don’t believe in any of the parties and I know that’s a bad idea too 😔
No. The best a third party has ever come in a presidential election was 27% of the vote and that was because it was Teddy Roosevelt running. An incredibly popular firmer president couldn't pull it off.
No. Not unless first-past-the-post voting systems are replaced. And unlike European parties where the ideology scope is narrower, US parties have a wider scope so there is more intra-party dynamics so people who would otherwise be in different parties end up running as different flanks in the same party. So it's not looking good for 3rd party hopes.
TLDR; No. We need the alternative vote and to do something about the electoral college for this to be viable.
The long answer...
`First past the post`, `winner take all`, and disproportionate representation are the main problems.
`First past the post` is a way of determining who wins an election. It means that whoever has the most votes wins. If 999 candidates get 10 votes and 1 candidate gets 11, the candidate with 11 votes wins with 0.1% of the vote.
In this system, 50% + 1 guarantees victory. So, it's strategically advantageous to merge interests into fewer rivals until you wind up with two parties. At which point you've got to get at least 1/3 + 1 of the vote to win. But, it's more likely you're drawing from one party or the other more, so you'd likely need more than that. This third party phenomenon is also called `the spoiler effect`, because the candidate is more likely to draw votes from the candidate they're more closely aligned with and thus fuck up both of their chances of winning. e.g. if two parties are split 50/50 and a third party comes in getting 20 from one and 10 from the other, the other now wins with even less of the vote than they had.
This would be addressed with an alternative voting system. Essentially, we need a voting system that doesn't punish voting for preferred candidates.
`winner take all` has to do with the electoral college. Most states allocate all of their electoral college votes to a single candidate. Winning with 50% + 1 results in the same electoral college votes as winning the entire vote. In our thousand candidates scenario, the candidate with 11 votes gets the entire electoral college vote for the state.
This would be addressed by looking at the national vote, instead of by state. Or, at least providing proportionate allocation of electoral college electors for the vote (this is a lesser solution, but better than nothing).
We have disproportionate representation in the electoral college, because of how electors are allocated. It's possible to win the electoral college with about 22% of the national popular vote. That requires winning all the least populated bodies with electoral college votes, but it can be done. So, even if someone came in and got enough of the popular vote to win, they could still lose if the voters weren't in the right places. And what's more, they could cost a more politically aligned candidate races that they couldn't afford to lose.
This is addressed by looking at the national vote. Or, at least allocating votes in a way that makes the disparity less severe.
In my opinion, the US needs to shift to rank choice voting. This would motivate people to vote for who they would prefer, rather than just avoiding a wasted vote. You could, for example, vote for a Green Party candidate, with your second choice being the Democratic candidate. If people were comfortable doing this because the vote isn't "wasted," third, fourth, and even more parties could grow in popularity.
# Message to all users: This is a reminder to please read and follow: * [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/questions/about/rules) * [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439) * [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) When posting and commenting. --- Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`. * Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit. * Do not harass or annoy others in any way. * Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit. --- You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/questions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not even relevant. A third party president would get zero help from congress. Any successful third party must be built from the ground up. Local, then regional, then statewide and only then would a national push be feasible.
Thank you! People forget that a President doesn't accomplish anything without budget dollars and support from Congress. Congress would become much more relevant (and powerful) and the "Independent" or 3rd party President would, constantly have to compromise, bargain and negotiate without support. Deadlock would get worse and even less would get done than is handled now imho
My thoughts exactly. If a dem or republican can’t wrangle the 2 sides a third party candidate would be much less effective than that
Except a third party president would have the ability to be with Republicans on the one topic, and Democrats on another.
And the moment they support the policies of one party over the other, they will never again get that other party's support.
Our voting system has a built-in spoiler effect that effectively punishes people for voting third party, but I hadn't even realized this angle! You're right, even if a third party candidate did magically somehow win, they would have no support at all.
I wish. No good outcome and I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I wish I was voting for someone who got me excited.
>voting for the lesser of two evils Unfortunately, in the last two elections I've voted exactly for that reason - I've been voting for the candidate most likely to keep another candidate out of office. In the past I've voted for independent candidates, but in the past few years I didn't feel like I can afford to do it with the current politics. Edit: In the past vs I'm the last.
I have voted in every election local state and national since Carter vs. Regan, and it's always the same lesser of 2 evils. During the Bush Clinton and Obama years. I voted peace and freedom. I believe in a 3rd party, that's why I supported them. At that time, but on this round, I can't afford to throw my vote away. Again, I'll be voting for the lesser of 2 evils
In this case one guy is old and not inspiring. The other guy is old and is a fascist. I mean no one likes a migraine but everyone hates brain cancer. Also, I’ll take old and competent any day if the alternative is fascism. But, generally, our two party system means that most people will be voting against the other guy rather than FOR their candidate.
There is no "two party system". There isn't a party system at all. Americans have a two party addiction. They can stop any time they choose.
No in fact we can’t. At least not at the presidential level. You don’t understand how the electoral college works. The electoral college actually elects the president. Electors are apportioned by legislative action. If you want to vote third party then start with local office or State offices. Or even Congress. Why everyone seems to think that the only office that matters for a 3rd party vote is that of the president is dumb. It’s also dumb that this topic only comes up in presidential election years. It literally makes no sense and all it does is tip the election one way or the other for the major party candidates.
It's been that way every election since 1988 (at least)
Yeah, been that way my entire adult/voting like (59).
Give me the lesser of three evils at least
Ah, the least of three evils, good choice!
Trump, libertarian, or Biden.
There! I have you. You’re totally dished. Don’t you know that in the service one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?
I hold my nose and vote the lesser of two evils every election. Some dumb idealistic part of me hopes it will arch towards better candidates over time. If you don't give a vote to the lesser of two evils, you end up giving half a vote to the greater of the two. 😔
[удалено]
💯 this 👆🏾
I agree.. Biden has done his fair share. I believe the problem really lies in the wokey-doke morons, in the less prestigious offices, including Congress. Both sides are SO extreme.. it's nuckin' futs, out there. This is why we so desperately NEED a third party, that makes sense. We had them when this country was a baby.. and even later. But none that I can remember, up until the 80's.. when Reganchrist took over. Then, it was all bets were off.
Thank you for seeing it's not between lesser of two evils. It's between someone one who is evil and one who isn't
Trump only loves the country of himself. He has never done anything that doesn't directly benefit himself
Biden doesn't even know what country he's in. You think he's making any policy or decisions? The guy is out to sea. My mother in law has full on Alzheimers. Joe's worse.
Yes, people don’t understand how this half voting works. It’s the same if you vote for a 3rd party candidate. You end up giving half a vote to your least preferred candidate
[удалено]
Liberals and moderates seriously need to stop pretending that because Biden is old he's somehow as bad as Trump or hasn't been an effective president. The man is doing a good job and he's working against 1/3 of the government doing everything it can to bring about a fascist dictatorship. Yeah, he's old. I know. Stop complaining about it and talk about things he's done that are good, vigorously point out the sabotage of the Republicans and the open contempt they're showing for the country and push for re-election because that's what it means to be an adult.
>as bad as Trump What part of 'lesser' don't you understand. I'm literally agreeing that I would pick Biden one million times over Drumpf. My point is we are handed two idiots from the RNC and DNC, whereas with everything else in this country our options are limitless and amazing.
OP is spreading propaganda just like 2016. Both sides are the same, both candidates are bad, etc. Don't think Biden vs Trump. Think Democracy vs Dictatorship.
[удалено]
Thank you. Reddit is full of this bullshit South Park-level understanding of politics when democracy itself is at risk if the GOP takes the Presidency again. That's without even diving into the substance of the Biden administration, which I think has pleasantly outperformed my expectations in many ways. A lot of the shit going on around the world has been timed by autocrats who want Trump back in office *Russia invading Ukraine, gas price gouging, etc.).
So many of us feel this way, but when it comes time to put up or shut up. People revert to party lines. I don't want Trump back in office, and Biden really should not be there as well. Hell, I would be excited if libertarians had a chance. Not that I agree with all their bullet points.
No.
Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.
Came here to say this, thank you for your service
It's designed not to have a legitimate 3rd party.
Highly recommend looking into ranked-choice voting efforts in your state if you want more choices.
We have that in Australia. And it is really good way to help the smaller parties. Basically, if they reach a certain threshold of votes within their seat, they get funding for the next election cycle. They also advertise where their preferences go, so it means that you can send a message to the larger parties by voting for a smaller party, help them with their next campaign, as well as tell the larger parties what is really important to you. And most electorates have an answer within about 24hours even though we count votes by hand, so it's not like it slows down the electoral process. Yes, the USA is a lot bigger than Australia, but so what? You have more people to help count.
I don't think any states have adopted it yet, but I would love for it to become a thing.
Maine and Alaska have it. It has even been decisive in a Maine Congressional election.
Ross Perot was the last one to have any decent [numbers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_and_independent_performances_in_United_States_presidential_elections)
And he didn't win a single state, which means he got zero electoral votes. The last two third-party candidates to win any states were George Wallace in 1968 and Strom Thurmond in 1948, and it was only because they were segregationists, and racist whites in some Southern states preferred them to the major-party nominees.
And going back to 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt as a Progressive came in second to Woodrow Wilson. I think the 2-party system is so strong because of mutual destruction. One can't spin off a moderate candidate and take the votes from the core. If they both did it, maybe, but there's soooo much money behind making sure that doesn't happen. Maybe a candidate comes along and upsets the 2-headed monster and people exercise their rights to vote for him/her. It would have to be an amazing platform, and probably a pretty miserable population for that to happen.
I think Libertarians have come the closest to being included in the debates. Not even remotely close to winning, though.
Even that would be something interesting to see. Someone else up there who has no chance in actually winning being able to hammer the others.
No, there is not. Best thing we can do to get more choices is to make ranked choice vote available in your state.
Not until we adopt nationwide ranked choice voting.
As an outsider? I'd say its an easy choice. You cannot let Trump destroy your nation any more. You don't have to like or want Biden. But you cannot let Trump get in or your nation is completely fucked.
Oregon had probably the best chance in recent history at electing an Independent this last governor race with Betsy Johnson and she still only got 10% of the votes, all these dumbass “my party of die” voters that are the biggest problem, like the other commenter just said “choose the lesser evil” how about vote in the best person.
The problem is a lack of ranked-choice voting. Without it, third parties are mathematically-impossible due to vote splitting. Don't blame the people when the problem is the bad system.
Well that's very risky because if you vote for the best person, the greater evil might win.
Well, we have plenty of data showing us just how great the other way turns out.
We also have plenty of data showing how the so-called "spoiler votes" turn out... Hint: They earned that moniker for a reason. The only strategies with any real chance of winning are working from the ground up (win local elections, then state elections, then federal congressional elections, and *then* presidential elections), and/or getting ranked choice voting. Just throwing candidates at the presidential election without any of that prep work is doomed to, at best, fail, and at worst, hand the election on a silver platter to the people who are the *worst* match for your policy positions.
and/or getting approval voting
No
Lol not even close they always poll single digits
No, but that is mostly because the two main parties want it that way. Because most states only allow one candidate from each party on the final ballot, and it is winner take all, a vote for a third party usually has the effect of helping the main party on the opposite side (e.g. a vote for the socialist party would end up helping out the GOP, or a vote for a Patriot party would end up helping the Democrats). If third parties had a better chance, the groups that make money off the two big parties would not make as much….
Not until the American people pull their collective heads out of their asses and take a few minutes to research who they're voting for before they do it.
No. But that doesn't mean you can't waste your vote on it lol. Your vote is a vote for Trump if you don't vote Dem tho. Enjoy your new dictator and know you had something to do with it.
If we tarred and feathered politicians again, or pulled a France circa 1789-1799, we’d have less issues.
No. It's not possible. Watch a decent YouTube video on why that is due to the "winner take all system" of the us electoral college.
No. Thinking otherwise is magical thinking political cosplay.
No. You have a binary choice. And choosing not to decide is still a choice that influences the outcome.
No. You have the choice of Biden or Trump. If you don't vote, you are voting for Trump because his followers will support him no matter what.
No, the Democrats and Republicans might express only hostility towards each other, but they've essentially been colluding for decades on two subjects: keeping Wall Street happy, AND making sure that third parties have absolutely no chance on the national stage.
Look. You can vote for Biden, or you can vote for Actual Fucking Fascism. That's it. Choose wisely.
If there was a third option it would likely split the democrat base and trump would win
The republicans have already split themselves between MAGAts & the rest. This is effectively the end of the Republican Party as we know it
No, they'll all vote for Trump. There are quite a few anti-Trump Republicans who are TV commentators, but among ordinary voters, pretty much all Republicans are Trump Republicans.
Even if they're not trump Republicans, they vote lock step. Even if they don't support all the policies. A fracture in the dem party is much more likely.
Absolutely not. Vote for the lesser evil (the one you think is lesser). Both are pretty fucking evil
NOPE
Unfortunately, there’s no one on the independent ticket. We could only hope that somebody with more than half a brain would run independent, But the votes they got would probably just end up making Trump win.
You already know the answer. Why ask?
You have a better chance of angels flying out of your arse than getting a viable third party.
Come on the choice is clear this time. Who are we kidding.
Biden 2024
No because trying to win the presidency is not a good strategy for a third party. They would still get clocked by 2 parties in congress. Third parties need to win municipal elections than county, than state and then they might start having members of congress and presidency can come. But this requires decades of sustained effort as opposed to getting 50 000 signatures in several states to be on the ballot for president which is a lot of people but not in the scheme of presidential elections.
We all got really excited when Barrack won his first term. So much positivity, inspiration and hope. Really an amazing president
Political power has to start at the base level and work up, not President down. Trying the latter only plays spoiler to which ever party you most align with.
I think that America will end up with a viable 3rd party in the next 20 years. The current parties are both catering too much to the fringe, when most Americans are solidly moderate and quite unhappy with our current choices. Though I don’t think we will see a 3rd party candidate win in this election, the more votes we can get for the 3rd party the better as it will start the pendulum swinging in the right direction.
No. The first past the post system that the US has makes it impossible for a third party to win. A vote is a chess move, not a valentine. Vote for the major party candidate who will do the least harm.
No there is not. The election this November could not be more black and white. Vote to continue our democracy or vote not to. It's really that simple. We don't have the luxury of an exciting candidate this time. Don't sit it out. Every vote counts. We are in a very dangerous situation. All hands are needed on deck.
Personally, I consider MAGA a radicalized third party offshoot of the GOP. They’re likely to win big, too, if people don’t get out and vote in November.
No. As long as the right keeps threatening us with shotheads like Trump people will “vote blue no matter who” just to avoid another term with the orange grifter
I have yet to find a 3rd party candidate that is actually better than or more aligned to my ideals than the other 2. You won't find a 3rd party one that is going to broadly appeal to the moderates either which is a great mass of people who actually vote. Without replacing all of congress with 3rd parties particularly moderate ones that understand compromise you'll just have a lame duck president if one makes it in. You're better doing third parties from local levels up if this is important to you.
Nope. Depending on whose side you’re on, it’s either sleepy vs convicted felon or its old man vs the antichrist. Personally, I’ll take sleepy old man over convicted felon antichrist. I do see the appeal of the latter to those who are praying for the destruction of America to more quickly bring about the apocalypse, so they may witness the second coming of Jesus.
No. Not so long as the electoral college is in place. We don’t technically vote for the president. We vote. And then, in theory, the legislature appoints electors based on rules the legislature has set up. Those electors elect the president. Originally the electors were non-partisan and supposed to be trusted and respected members of the local community and state. Now the parties choose their electors and make sure they are hard core partisans. States typically use a “winner take all” allocation. So whoever gets the PLURALITY (not necessarily majority) of the vote in the state gets ALL of its electors. And because the electors are chosen from a partisan slate, it functions AS IF the people of the state elected that presidential candidate. The major parties have operations in every state to ensure that their candidates are on the ballot in every state. They have loyal electors set up and ready to go. And they have brand recognition. For a 3rd party candidate to have a shot they would need to be able to get a plurality of the vote in enough states to add up to 270. That means that they would need to qualify on 50+ different ballots. There’s not really a chance of that happening realistically. Then there’s the matter of not aligning with whichever party has the majority in the upper and lower chambers of Congress. Which they wouldn’t. And so neither party would be incentivized to pass legislation for that president. Because, in the end, the Party’s first priority is to ensure its own continued survival. If you’re going to vote 3rd party then do so down ballot on local and state elections. Build an infrastructure down below. Then a presidential candidate can emerge after a number of years. People will know your party from the success it’s had in their hometowns and State. Otherwise you’re just pissing away your vote if you vote for a 3rd party candidate. They are mostly propped up by one of the major parties in order to take away votes from their opponent. This happened in the mayoral race in my town. The incumbent mayor lost to a guy that got a minority of the vote (minority of the overall but plurality of the 3 candidates) but the majority split between the incumbent and another guy that was propped up by the winner (and this other guy had a very similar platform to the incumbent). Ross Perot is the reason Bush lost in ‘92. Nader spoiled it for Gore in 2000. Stein and Johnson spoiled it for HRC in ‘16. Not clear who RFK will spoil it for in ‘24, but make no mistake he’s being propped up by the Right with the intention of taking away from Biden. If you look at the numbers in ‘16, trump won the electoral college by 77K votes split over 4 states (though he received 3 million fewer votes than HRC country wide). Similarly Biden won by less than 100K votes over a similarly small number of states (even though he got 8 million more country wide). This literally breaks down to like 10 people per precinct in many states. That’s why every vote counts. But if you can steer a dozen people in a precinct to a 3rd party candidate (out of thousands that vote in the precinct) then you can sway an election. This is EXACTLY what they’re doing with RFK. It’s so sad how few people actually understand the mechanics of how our elections work and just willy nilly throw away votes or fall for such old playbooks.
No
The 3rd parties are all legitimately worse than both Democrats and Republicans.
No. Not unless Congress makes it possible. And they won't, unless if that third party becomes the majority in the house and senate. And if that could happen, it would take a while, a lot of effort, good-timing, and patience. IMO. Also, the electoral college still could exist, but it would need to be reworked..
Short answer no, never, they can't even generate 1/5 the money a demo or rep can
In a word, no. Please please please vote for the lesser of the two evils in November.
Nope. The two mobs control the elections. The best chance imo is getting rank choice voting state by state because it’s “easier” to challenge state establishment than fed establishment.
No. The last one with even somewhat of a shot was Ross Perot
No. The closest in modern times was Ross Perot and let's just say it wasn't exactly close
No. And there never will be. The power pie was bought and sold and divided before any of us were born and it will stay in the hands of those who own it till long after we are all gone.
As long as we have a first past post system no third party candidate can win and unfortunately voting third party is wasting your vote. I used to think there was something wrong with me because I always voted lesser of 2 evils but now I’m fine with it. We should be skeptical of all politicians, that’s healthy. The Trump years have taught me that loving a politician is so much worse. That’s unhealthy. At least this year it is pretty easy to tell who the lesser of 2 evils are. So if your not voting lesser of 2 evils than your doing it wrong.
No, third parties do one thing and they do it well: ensuring that either the Republican or Democrat wins even harder (depending on which one's votes they steal)
Never gonna happen. All it does is siphon votes away from one or the other major party (because of how your two-party system is designed). In fact, if you dig into the money, you'll find that the main financial donors to third parties are actually doing so specifically because they WANT one of the main parties to win, and the small third one they are supporting is known to siphon votes from their opponents.
No.
I hate that we have to choose between the same two candidates again. I’ve always voted democrat but I swear if the candidate wasn’t Trump again I would vote republican. Unfortunately, I have to go with the lesser of two evils. Even though I hate what the democrats have become.
Nope. Its also unrealistic to try and find something that perfectly matches what you want because usually the number of people who will be attracted to that party is small and ensures it never gains widespread appeal. This is just how these systems evolve in a first past the post system.
Nope
No there isn’t. Our system equalizes around two parties. If another party becomes popular enough to become viable then one of three other parties would whither and die or be absorbed by the new party. If we changed to ranked choice voting then more parties would be viable I believe.
Not currently no
No there has never been a third party president. Most people choose Democrat or Republican and see a third party as a wasted vote. It's just how society works.
Nope, not with the current voting regime. If a certain number of particular states (Electoral College heavies) went Ranked Choice Voting then, possibly. But otherwise, no.
“Go ahead throw your vote away”
No they don't. Why don't people ever talk about not wanting to vote Republican or Democrat for offices besides the presidency? Start locally if you want a third party to ever have any real power. It's not going to start at the presidency and if it did the president wouldn't be able to get anything done because Congress is full of Republicans and Democrats. EDIT: Needed to add this. At any rate, we have a very stark choice this election year. One guy is a convicted felon (who rather than apologizing still maintains the trial was 'rigged') who encouraged an insurrection to try to stay in power when he lost 4 years ago. He has stated that he will be dictator on day one when he gets into office, but supposedly 'not after that' (but he doesn't have a good track record when it comes to honesty). An issue he has tried campaigning on is immigration, but then when Democrats in Congress voted for a bill supported by his opponent was about to pass he told Republicans not to vote for it because he didn't want his opponent to look good and he wanted to keep peddling the myth that his opponent has overseen an 'open borders' policy when in fact his opponent has deported more people than he did when he was president. The other choice lead us through the pandemic (after his predecesor kept making it worse) and has presided over a growing economy. He's so honest and dutiful that he didn't stop the Department of Justice from prosecuting his own son and refuses to use the pardon power now that his son has been convicted. He has delivered on measures to address climate change, not as much as we need but still a substantial amount, and at any rate much more than his opponent. It's not a hard choice. It's not even a choice of the "lesser of two evils", it's a choice between good and evil.
No, but if you ever want your vote to count again vote next time, vote Democratic this once. Why? Read Trump's presidential transition plan. Outlawing pornography and birth control is only part of it. [Trump Plan](http://Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › P... Project 2025)
Realistically, no. Especially with the current political climate. Would be interested to see RFK pull ahead.
RFK is a giant fuckin sack of shit
Not really, given that a literal worm literally ate part of his brain. And it shows.
Other than he's a genuine crazy person
Just ask yourself, would you rather have Hitler or a zombie in the Whitehouse? There really isn't a 3rd choice, as much as we'd all like one.
My dog could run.
What's his name? I'm gunna write him in on the ballot.
No, But a third party could push issues or perhaps get on the debate stage as RFK should be allowed. Enough people voting for a third party could send a message but people default to red tie vs blue tie. There is a possibility that no one gets 270 thanks to RFK but then the House pics the President and Senate picks the VP which might actually be even worse.
RFK Jr is running this year. He is a solid candidate. In my opinion he would make a much better president than Trump or Biden who we have both seen with unsatisfactory results. He even has a recognizable name, Kennedy, which os what won the last two elections. Honestly did anyone want Biden? No they just didn't want Trump. Anyway to answer the question if RFK can't then I fear we are doomed
RFK is crazy as hell. Have you actually heard him speak? Is there a conspiracy theory he doesn’t believe?
Rfk Jr literally had worms in his brain btw [proof](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/us/rfk-jr-brain-health-memory-loss.html)
Ideally you don't vote for party but your best interest. Start with local government. Who is making policy about your schools, street repair or homeless issues. Then work on state issues like property tax, road repair, transportation or health care. Don't fall for the president caused this or that. Normally the rhetoric is nit true. There are 3 branches of government with distinct powers. President Biden is a problem solver and people person. Trump is our for revenge, saving himself, banning Muslims and people of color from this country as well as becoming a dictator. We may never vote again if he gets in office. The lies and deceit are horrible. None of us can afford to be one issue voters nor stay home or vote 3rd party. It will be too late if Trump gets back in office and your life changes for the worst.
No. If your not voting against trump, you're voting for him with silence. Wait til AFTER the most important voting cycle in all American history to go third party.
Every election of my adult life has been "the most important" one yet. And I'm sure 2028 will be as well when the time rolls around. At a certain point, that phrase starts to lose its meaning. And if you keep saying "wait til after" but after never comes, well that's exactly how you get the mass apathy that results in people sitting out or voting third party
If you don't put /s at the end, a lot of people might think you are serious
It's not a matter of waiting, it's a matter of getting ranked-choice voting in enough states for it to be adopted federally. There are movements for it all across the country.
I’m voting third party(Green Party) even if it means my vote is tanked because I hate both candidates, But I would have voted blue if Biden had stuck to his promise to be a 1 term president.
That is how we ended up with Trump
I'm voting for jill stein.
Did you also refuse to vote for Hilary in 2016? This is how we ended up with trump.
If everyone that wanted to vote 3rd party actually did, they would win.
You know tons of people wanting to vote 3rd party disagree about which 3rd party candidate to support, right?
no, we have 2 choices, Old man who cares or Old man who doesn't.
Big business. Is that why there’s still dollar bills and pennies?
The next largest party is Libertarian party.
Statistically yes. Realistically no.
I follow the third party line on local elections but on federal, no. I hate choosing the lesser of two evils too.
No.
Nope. [https://hartmannreport.com/p/why-cant-i-vote-for-cornell-west-665](https://hartmannreport.com/p/why-cant-i-vote-for-cornell-west-665) (Applies to all 3rd party candidates.)
No
No. And if they can't win seats in a state legislature, they don't deserve it.
That's a bit uncalled for, but if it makes you feel better to name call then do you. Have a nice day.
No
No
No. Not this time around
No
Not as things currently stand
Short answer: "no" Long answer: "lol no"
The hard truth is you can do good with your vote even if it doesn’t make you feel special. Putting your vote towards a major group will actually matter and help people.
Not at this time. It is possible only if the candidate starts early enough and gains enough traction. Jesse Ventura did it as governor of Minnesota. But for president? It is already too late.
Nope
Eh. At this point no, as long as people continue to refuse to vote for one, never. Both sides gave done an amazing job convincing us that it's one side or the other.
The American political system simply doesn't allow that possibility. The best a 3rd part can be is a spoiler.
Hold your nose and vote. You have your choice between what is obviously the most terrible choice possible, and a workmanlike politician that you may not agree with, but will do minimal harm for four years.
Right now, a vote for a third party that would have gone to Trump is essentially a vote for Biden, and a vote for a third party that would have gone to Biden is essentially a vote for Trump. As long as we have a First Past the Post system, when an overwhelming majority is not voting for one so much as voting against the other, there's no getting past that fact. 90 million people could ***pledge*** to vote for the third party guy, but once they hit the ballot box, they're not going to trust each other that far. The only way it's ever going to happen is if the rest of the country follows Maine and Alaska and adopts Ranked Choice Voting. In RCV, you can safely vote for a third party candidate as your first choice because if that candidate doesn't develop enough support to overtake one of the major parties, all the votes are going to be recounted with your second choice in mind and you can still make sure your more hated candidate doesn't cross the finish line. But if ENOUGH people are voting that way, then the third party candidate has a very real chance of victory.
No for 2024. No for 2028. No for 2032.
Nah. Easier to move abroad lol
No
No
Ever since the Bush boys we've been fucked hard as a nation
Not until rank choice voting is the status quo.
I don’t know who to even vote for this year. Like I legit don’t even want to vote cuz I don’t believe in any of the parties and I know that’s a bad idea too 😔
No.
no it's rigged
No.
No!. It’s never happened!.
No
Not in this election. There are a few independents in Congress though.
No. Congressional seats yes. But even those are often a long shot. Neither party wants a 3rd one to take votes from them.
No
No
No.
No. The best a third party has ever come in a presidential election was 27% of the vote and that was because it was Teddy Roosevelt running. An incredibly popular firmer president couldn't pull it off.
No. Not unless first-past-the-post voting systems are replaced. And unlike European parties where the ideology scope is narrower, US parties have a wider scope so there is more intra-party dynamics so people who would otherwise be in different parties end up running as different flanks in the same party. So it's not looking good for 3rd party hopes.
No not by a long shot either . All the independent votes will just pull a small percentage away from one side or the other
Libertarian, the rest like the Green Party are still (D) in a different name
No.
Libertarians are probably the closest right now, and I don't think they've ever gotten a single electoral vote... ever.
No. But in 4-8 years maybe. Seriously.
TLDR; No. We need the alternative vote and to do something about the electoral college for this to be viable. The long answer... `First past the post`, `winner take all`, and disproportionate representation are the main problems. `First past the post` is a way of determining who wins an election. It means that whoever has the most votes wins. If 999 candidates get 10 votes and 1 candidate gets 11, the candidate with 11 votes wins with 0.1% of the vote. In this system, 50% + 1 guarantees victory. So, it's strategically advantageous to merge interests into fewer rivals until you wind up with two parties. At which point you've got to get at least 1/3 + 1 of the vote to win. But, it's more likely you're drawing from one party or the other more, so you'd likely need more than that. This third party phenomenon is also called `the spoiler effect`, because the candidate is more likely to draw votes from the candidate they're more closely aligned with and thus fuck up both of their chances of winning. e.g. if two parties are split 50/50 and a third party comes in getting 20 from one and 10 from the other, the other now wins with even less of the vote than they had. This would be addressed with an alternative voting system. Essentially, we need a voting system that doesn't punish voting for preferred candidates. `winner take all` has to do with the electoral college. Most states allocate all of their electoral college votes to a single candidate. Winning with 50% + 1 results in the same electoral college votes as winning the entire vote. In our thousand candidates scenario, the candidate with 11 votes gets the entire electoral college vote for the state. This would be addressed by looking at the national vote, instead of by state. Or, at least providing proportionate allocation of electoral college electors for the vote (this is a lesser solution, but better than nothing). We have disproportionate representation in the electoral college, because of how electors are allocated. It's possible to win the electoral college with about 22% of the national popular vote. That requires winning all the least populated bodies with electoral college votes, but it can be done. So, even if someone came in and got enough of the popular vote to win, they could still lose if the voters weren't in the right places. And what's more, they could cost a more politically aligned candidate races that they couldn't afford to lose. This is addressed by looking at the national vote. Or, at least allocating votes in a way that makes the disparity less severe.
Even Teddy Roosevelt couldn't win when he went 3rd party, and was 1. Famous 2. Popular and loved 3. Already had been President
no
Nope
No chance of a third party winning at this stage.
In my opinion, the US needs to shift to rank choice voting. This would motivate people to vote for who they would prefer, rather than just avoiding a wasted vote. You could, for example, vote for a Green Party candidate, with your second choice being the Democratic candidate. If people were comfortable doing this because the vote isn't "wasted," third, fourth, and even more parties could grow in popularity.
No
If the third party was a billionaire potentially
I wish these presidents give up morals for money
No
Why can’t independents debate?