3 ms·

That is assuming that the third party candidate takes more from one party. Libertarians for instance can appeal to both Democrat and Republican voters. Tea Part

by throwaway2016a 10y ago

That is assuming that the third party candidate takes more from one party. Libertarians for instance can appeal to both Democrat and Republican voters. Tea Party or Green Party on the other hand... Also, a third-party capturing a large portion of the vote would be a signal in future elections potentially prompting even more third party votes in later elections so even if they don't win this year there is always next term. Likewise a strong third party vote sends a strong signal to whomever is elected as to what the voters want. One of my least favorite things is when people say they won't vote third-party because they are throwing away their vote. If everyone who said that voted third-party the world would be a different place.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> That is assuming that the third party candidate takes more from one party. Which, pretty much invariably, they do. > Libertarians for instance can appeal to both Democrat and Republican voters. The U.S. Libertarian Party is basically right-libertarian, and most of its supporters are closer to the Republican Party than the Democratic Party (there are left-libertarians in the US, but they mostly aren't in the Libertarian Party.) > Tea Party Isn't actually a political party, its a mostly republican grassroots (optimistically) or astroturf (cynically) organization. > or Green Party on the other hand... I've personally encountered more people who were on the fence between the Green Party and the Republican Party than between the Democratic and Libertarian Parties; I'm not saying that's representative, but, I think the Green Party isn't substantially more exclusive in which major party it effects than the Libertarian Party. > Also, a third-party capturing a large portion of the vote would be a signal in future elections potentially prompting even more third party votes in later elections We've seen unusually strong and noteworthy independent or third-party results in major elections in the US (usually around strong personalities, e.g., H. Ross Perot as an independent in 1992, and still unusually strong, but weaker, as the Reform Party candidate in 1996); they nearly invariably are not signals that prompt even more third-party votes in later elections, either for third parties generally or for the particular third-party with the one-time strong showing. > Likewise a strong third party vote sends a strong signal to whomever is elected as to what the voters want. They send a strong signal as to which voters you can safely alienate without increasing your major opponents vote total. The cost to a major candidate of losing someone who is willing to vote third-party rather than for the major opponent is 1/2 what it is to lose them to the major opponent.
- throwaway2016a 10y ago
  All fair points. And I do agree that in the US Libertarians skew right. But with that said, I know a fair number of people on the moderate left and when I talk to them I see a lot of similarities in their views. I think the two party system is bad for this country and I would love to see an end to it. So this is probably just me being wishful thinking.
  - r00fus 10y ago
    I don't think may would disagree with your sentiment. I think there's disagreement as to how change realistically happens.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> That is assuming that the third party candidate takes more from one party. Which, pretty much invariably, they do. > Libertarians for instance can appeal to both Democrat and Republican voters. The U.S. Libertarian Party is basically right-libertarian, and most of its supporters are closer to the Republican Party than the Democratic Party (there are left-libertarians in the US, but they mostly aren't in the Libertarian Party.) > Tea Party Isn't actually a political party, its a mostly republican grassroots (optimistically) or astroturf (cynically) organization. > or Green Party on the other hand... I've personally encountered more people who were on the fence between the Green Party and the Republican Party than between the Democratic and Libertarian Parties; I'm not saying that's representative, but, I think the Green Party isn't substantially more exclusive in which major party it effects than the Libertarian Party. > Also, a third-party capturing a large portion of the vote would be a signal in future elections potentially prompting even more third party votes in later elections We've seen unusually strong and noteworthy independent or third-party results in major elections in the US (usually around strong personalities, e.g., H. Ross Perot as an independent in 1992, and still unusually strong, but weaker, as the Reform Party candidate in 1996); they nearly invariably are not signals that prompt even more third-party votes in later elections, either for third parties generally or for the particular third-party with the one-time strong showing. > Likewise a strong third party vote sends a strong signal to whomever is elected as to what the voters want. They send a strong signal as to which voters you can safely alienate without increasing your major opponents vote total. The cost to a major candidate of losing someone who is willing to vote third-party rather than for the major opponent is 1/2 what it is to lose them to the major opponent.

throwaway2016a 10y ago
All fair points. And I do agree that in the US Libertarians skew right. But with that said, I know a fair number of people on the moderate left and when I talk to them I see a lot of similarities in their views. I think the two party system is bad for this country and I would love to see an end to it. So this is probably just me being wishful thinking.
- r00fus 10y ago
  I don't think may would disagree with your sentiment. I think there's disagreement as to how change realistically happens.