3 ms·
This strategy makes sense in battleground states but what about in the opposite case (say hawaii (very D) or wyoming (very R)) - I'd argue that by voting for th
by rbcgerard 10y ago
This strategy makes sense in battleground states but what about in the opposite case (say hawaii (very D) or wyoming (very R)) - I'd argue that by voting for the third party candidate is the better option as you are unlikely to change the outcome of the election one way or the other - but you reduce the mandate of the winner that you are less aligned with, and by marginally improving the showing of the third party, make it more likely that mainstream candidates will want to address issues of concern to a newly visible voting block?
- Spoom 10y agoI would agree that it matters less in non-battleground states, and could have the effects mentioned. This, in general, causes one of the two parties to absorb some of the causes put forward by the third party, which is one of the reasons the system tends to centralize toward two parties.
- ascagnel_ 10y agoTo a degree, this has already happened. Some planks of Clinton's platform came directly from Sanders (I'm thinking of revamping college tuition and enhancing other social safety nets specifically).
- dragonwriter 10y agoSanders is not a "third party", but a Democratic candidate. The effect unsuccessful major party campaigns have an on the major party despite failing to secure the nomination is a different issue than the effect of third parties on major parties.
- ende 10y agoExactly. The general third party and independent share of the vote is a metric that should be tracked more visibly.