Many citizens are in a slump
because they don’t like Mr. Trump.
And on the other side I see
an almost equal number dislike Ms. Hillary.
So why do voters brave and hardy
not vote for some third party?
Would it be considered contrarian
to vote for a Libertarian?
And why is almost never seen
news of the party called Green?
There are other parties we can choose
but you never see them in the news.
Has our thinking gone hazy
or are we just plain lazy?
Jill Stein is a doctor with crazy scientific theories. Gary Johnson is a pothead who can’t remember basic things like the leaders of foreign countries. Which one would you choose?
The other guys are crazy.
Because even a viable 3rd party candidate would have zero chance of winning. The start of each presidential election has begun well before any candidates announce themselves.
A lot of the big corporate and special interest groups donation money was already given to the established 2 parties before the race begins. Both parties are well funded this way. Continuously funded.
There would have to be a well funded 3rd party already established before they chose a candidate too. Once the election campaign has started it is too late to form a 3rd party. None of the attempts at starting a new 3rd party have had the staying power to last between elections.
Money, money, message, more money. Start early.
The only Gary Johnson I know lives up the street. We live on Johnson Street, It is right off Carlson and Erickson streets. Now that I know he is pro-pot I will wave at him when I drive by.
The Gary Johnson running for president I know little about. Message takes money to get out. And I don’t hear his message.
Be glad of that. Or you’d regularly be spitting your beverage of choice at your TV screen.
I think there would be extremely high (by historical standards, not likely to win) vote totals for third party candidates if one of the regular Republicans had won the primary. Trump is odd enough that he attracts the far right and ‘lets do something wild to shake up the system’ voters to him, and scary enough that anyone who doesn’t want him to win REALLY wants to be sure someone else is in the office. There’s a lot of dissatisfaction with the major parties, but the Trump campaign has had some unusual effects.
Because, by and large, the platforms put forward by third parties are fringe positions that most Americans don’t agree with.
Thread relocated to Elections from IMHO.
We are constitutionally bound by the electoral college. States vote. They send electors. In almost all cases all the electors go for the candidate that wins the state (Maine and Nebraska go by district). When the electoral college meets, the person with the majority of electoral votes becomes president. If no one has a MAJORITY, the top TWO candidates are thrown for the House of Representatives to decide.
In other words, constitutionally, voting third party isn’t just throwing you vote away, it comes with a lottery ticket to hand your vote over to the House of Representatives.
This is really it. The two largest third parties - Libertarians and Green - are simply not ready for prime time.
Their candidates are loons, their organization is a joke and their political experience - as a party (Weld knows what he’s doing) - is actually damaging to their ability to elect candidates.
To begin with, they need to establish themselves. Get some mayorships and county-level offices and see where it goes. Build a state level of support before deciding whether to run for President. They lack the vision to build a proper organization before trying to take the top job.
Come back to me when they’ve got 10% in a few state houses and a handful of Representatives. Then they’ll be proving they’ve learned their lessons.
Most Americans develop a leaning toward Democrat or Republican at an early age and then become indoctrinated by the party.
Because we do not have runoff voting. Which means if you vote third party, then the candidate you really don’t like stands a higher chance of winning. If liberals vote Stein, then Trump may win. If conservatives vote Johnson, then Clinton might win.
If we had runoff voting, more people would support third parties.
But anyway, the third party candidates are not that great either. It isn’t like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein are bastions of reason and good ideas. I disagree with a lot of what Johnson says and even though I’m a liberal, I think pushing the green agenda all at once would never work. But meh.
Anyway, third parties are doing better than they’ve done since 1996 this election cycle. In 2012 the Green and libertarian parties combined got 1.4% of the vote. In 2016 they are polling at 15% or so combined.
Am I the only one having a hard time scanning the OP?
The opening couplet seems to pretty clearly contain 4 beats per line:
[ul]
[li]Many citizens are in a slump[/li][li]’’- '- '- ‘-[/li][li]because they don’t like Mr. Trump.[/li][li]’- '- '- '-[/li][/ul]
But already in the second couplet it gets difficult. Best guess: is it meant to be
[ul]
[li]And on the other side I see[/li][li]’- ‘- ‘- ‘-[/li][li]an almost equal number dislike Ms. Hillary.[/li][li]’’’- ‘’’’ ‘’- '-[/li][/ul]
That second line is a doozy. Is that a quartus paeon at the opening? Followed by a tetrabrach then an anapest before finally landing a solid iamb?
[ul]
[li]So why do voters brave and hardy[/li][li]’- '- '- ‘-’[/li][li]not vote for some third party?[/li][li]- - ‘- ‘–[/li][/ul]
…O.K…
[ul]
[li]Would it be considered contrarian[/li][li]’’- ‘-’ '- ‘-[/li][li]to vote for a Libertarian?[/li][li]’- ‘’- ‘- ‘-[/li][/ul]
Best guess
[ul]
[li]And why is almost never seen[/li][li]’- ‘- ‘’- ‘-[/li][li]news of the party called Green?[/li][li]-’’ -’ - -[/li][/ul]
? The second line is this one is really difficult too.
[ul]
[li]There are other parties we can choose[/li][li]’’- '- ‘- ‘-[/li][li]but you never see them in the news.[/li][li]’’- '- '- '-[/li][/ul]
Finally, a return to sanity perhaps?
[ul]
[li]Has our thinking gone hazy[/li][li]- ‘- ‘- -’[/li][li]or are we just plain lazy?[/li][li]’- ‘- - -’[/li][/ul]
Ouch.
I need to rest now. My brain hurts.
It’s actually the top three candidates that’s thrown to the House for each state delegation to vote on.
Voters remember 2000, when a couple dozen people accidentally voted for a third party, which resulted in the “election” of the worst president we’ve ever had.
The year George Wallace ran as 3rd party (1968) was similar. But not too similar.
A lot of people all across the country voted for him mostly to give the finger to politics as usual. Yes, a hefty fraction were southern racists (then called “traditionalists”) who were feeling abandoned by the Civil Rights era Ds and had not yet been welcomed by the Southern Strategy Rs.
IOW there was a ready-made constituency that felt abandoned by both traditional parties. And was therefore up for grabs.
Had Trump lost the R nomination and launched a third party bid he’d have gotten a bunch of votes in Nov. Maybe even a few EC votes. Or better yet had Trump never contested the R nomination at all and gone virtual social media 3rd party from the git-go.
This time the third party protest candidate is running from inside the R party, not outside. So there’s not nearly as much interest in truly voting third party. If I’m a non-deplorable straight ticket R voter I may abstain on this presidential race. Or I may vote Trump out of fear of the Hildabeest Faux told me about. Or for a mostly-principled concern about my tax rates under a D administration. Regardless of why, I have no incentive to vote for Gary Johnson.
Unless I’m a non-deplorable straight R voter whos also a pothead. Likely a small demographic.
The way our system is set up makes it impossible for more than two parties to exist. If someone wants a third party to exist, then they need to first change the way our electoral system works. All we have now is people voting for one of the two candidates who exist, and people abstaining from voting because they think they’re both equally good.
This ignores the possibility that a large percentage of the voting public is voting to keep Trump out of office. The best way to do that is vote Hillary.
But it’s the same case even in more normal years. Smapti already nailed the unpleasant truth: all third parties so far have been fringe entries wtih little appeal to the US electorate. Some, like the Green party, are a one-horse institution focused on a single issue, and you can’t run a country (or a county) with no coherent policy for things outside your area of interest.
Everyone who is a grownup about politics realizes you have to consider everything, and two parties with 95% of the voters are what results.
**Chronos **just said it but it bears repeating.
From a game-theoretical perspective the US system *demands *two parties. The inherent logic of the game prevents third parties from ever becoming significant, regardless of any and all considerations of policy, demographics, personalities, etc. The current crop of protest parties are as significant now as they’ll ever be.
What is *not *guaranteed is that the Big Two will always be the Democrats and the Republicans forever. Either by that name or by some later name(s).
The most plausible way the current duopoly is replaced with a different duopoly is that one party fragments as a result of some deep-seating internal contradiction. Some fragments stick to the other party, and some fragments re-coalesce around a new core.
Which “new core” might look a lot like the bulk of the old party. Or one of its fringe elements. It’s certainly possible that some true fringe group like the Libertarians or the Greens or ??? might join the newly coalescing party.
There’s simply no way something happens like the Libertarians or Greens or ??? organically growing to become a 20%-of-the-electorate party over the space of an election cycle or two.