3 ms·

There are multiple such parties. Wikipedia maintains a list of third parties. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States htt

There are multiple such parties. Wikipedia maintains a list of third parties. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in... Moderates also tend to run as independent candidates. Ross Perot is probably best known in the US. It is difficult to successfully invest resources contra the two party system in the US, though. I think it’s a legitimate pragmatic decision to try to influence from within one of the two parties.

anigbrowl 4y ago
There are multiple small parties, but the moderate bloc that likes to occupy the center of the US political system hasn't thrown in behind any of them because (it appears) swinging between the two large parties is more profitable. Like I said, if they really meant it they would stake out territory. I think it’s a legitimate pragmatic decision to try to influence from within one of the two parties. So, sit in the middle and say 'both parties are too extreme' while bargaining with both for concessions and refusing to organize outside that framework, even though moderates/swing voters consider themselves to be the largest political bloc. That seems like perpetuating the system you complain about for profit, which is exactly what I complained about in the first place - a lack of any identifiable principle. You mention 'principles that the extremes of the parties don't prioritize.' What are they? Where are your red lines? Moderates also tend to run as independent candidates. Ross Perot is probably best known in the US. Ross Perot ran 30 years ago, since when we have been through two major wars, a huge financial crisis (and multiple smaller recessions), a pandemic, and a constitutional crisis. No outside candidate has mounted a serious challenge since then. Plus he was only able to do that because he was independently very wealthy. I have posted this article about polarization here many times since it was published and all I ever hear from moderates is how bad it is, so bad that nobody can do anything about it. Moderates' unwillingness to anchor themselves to anything is a major contributor to the problem of polarization. https://www.vox.com/2015/4/23/8485443/polarization-congress-visualization https://www.vox.com/2015/4/23/8485443/polarization-congress-...
- 1123581321 4y ago
  Thanks. Fair weather moderates swinging between whichever party is advantageous, or less scary to espouse principles from within, wasn’t what I was talking about, but I see that you were. I’m glad you clarified that and hopefully we both understand we were talking past each other for part of this. I do see specific suggestions from moderates. A lot of them have to do with campaign finance reform. Others have to do with alternate voting systems, like ranked choice. Ranked choice can be advantageous to extreme parties, of course, but they also make 2-3 more self-aware middle parties possible because they can stay in power as the #2 or #3 choice without having to engage in tug-of-war. I agree that personal wealth is an unfortunate limitation to anyone seeking to run as whatever is in vogue D or R. I only mentioned Ross Perot to remind you of a well-known independent candidate. The 90s were a long time ago, yes!
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    I really appreciate your thoughtful clarification. Both of the proposals you mention are valuable and would do a lot to improve politics, narrow as they are. It would be great if there were an identifiable group clearly advocating for those approaches, whether within or outside existing party lines.

anigbrowl 4y ago

There are multiple small parties, but the moderate bloc that likes to occupy the center of the US political system hasn't thrown in behind any of them because (it appears) swinging between the two large parties is more profitable. Like I said, if they really meant it they would stake out territory. I think it’s a legitimate pragmatic decision to try to influence from within one of the two parties. So, sit in the middle and say 'both parties are too extreme' while bargaining with both for concessions and refusing to organize outside that framework, even though moderates/swing voters consider themselves to be the largest political bloc. That seems like perpetuating the system you complain about for profit, which is exactly what I complained about in the first place - a lack of any identifiable principle. You mention 'principles that the extremes of the parties don't prioritize.' What are they? Where are your red lines? Moderates also tend to run as independent candidates. Ross Perot is probably best known in the US. Ross Perot ran 30 years ago, since when we have been through two major wars, a huge financial crisis (and multiple smaller recessions), a pandemic, and a constitutional crisis. No outside candidate has mounted a serious challenge since then. Plus he was only able to do that because he was independently very wealthy. I have posted this article about polarization here many times since it was published and all I ever hear from moderates is how bad it is, so bad that nobody can do anything about it. Moderates' unwillingness to anchor themselves to anything is a major contributor to the problem of polarization. https://www.vox.com/2015/4/23/8485443/polarization-congress-visualization https://www.vox.com/2015/4/23/8485443/polarization-congress-...

1123581321 4y ago
Thanks. Fair weather moderates swinging between whichever party is advantageous, or less scary to espouse principles from within, wasn’t what I was talking about, but I see that you were. I’m glad you clarified that and hopefully we both understand we were talking past each other for part of this. I do see specific suggestions from moderates. A lot of them have to do with campaign finance reform. Others have to do with alternate voting systems, like ranked choice. Ranked choice can be advantageous to extreme parties, of course, but they also make 2-3 more self-aware middle parties possible because they can stay in power as the #2 or #3 choice without having to engage in tug-of-war. I agree that personal wealth is an unfortunate limitation to anyone seeking to run as whatever is in vogue D or R. I only mentioned Ross Perot to remind you of a well-known independent candidate. The 90s were a long time ago, yes!
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  I really appreciate your thoughtful clarification. Both of the proposals you mention are valuable and would do a lot to improve politics, narrow as they are. It would be great if there were an identifiable group clearly advocating for those approaches, whether within or outside existing party lines.