We’d have to change a lot more than just our voting habits. Remember, Ross Perot - the most successful third-party presidential candidate in modern times - got nearly 20% of the popular vote, but not a single vote in the electoral college. On top of our weird and archaic not-actually-federal election system for president, the two major parties have erected tremendous roadblocks to serious competition at nearly every level in every state, making the entire process much more expensive and difficult for outside contenders.
Without a serious overhaul of the underlying election process, third-party candidates will at best be vote-splitters for the most disaffected half of the country. @jproffitt71 is right, electorally the Democrats have the left by the short and curlies, and they know it. Thus, there’s no real impetus for them to change anything, because they’ll get those votes by default just to avoid an even worse outcome.
It would be great if someone like Sanders or Warren could have mounted an effective third-party candidacy in 2016, but the existing electoral infrastructure heavily advantages the incumbent players. I’d love to see the DSA become a major party and even supplant the Democrats, but that’s a long row to hoe, and there’s going to have to be a huge amount of movement at the local level for years before there’s any serious hope of a DSA candidate winning an election for Congress or the presidency. The only way to be an effective national candidate right now is to work within the two-party system we currently have. That’s why Sanders ran as a Democrat. Was it personally and politically expedient for him to do so? Heck yeah it was. Would he have been anywhere near as effective if he hadn’t? Not even remotely.
The presidency means little without support from congress so going straight to the top under no party flag or an unpopular one won’t accomplish much, even if you could get past the electoral college.
Real change begins at the local and state level. Without that, you won’t have a solid foundation on the national stage.
I can understand your confusion. Unlike most of the world with parlimentary systems that are comprised of members from many parties, the USA has what is in effect a two party system. This basic fact changes the game theory that goes into the decision of which candidate to pick. For systems where there are many parties, it makes more sense to do what you’ve said (though, you can see there is a lot of debate WRT your charactarization of Bernie as a newcomer).
Outside the USA (generally speaking, clearly) it makes the most sense to pick a candidate that reflects the parties views (and has a proven history of doing so) and who can work well with other parties. This is because the party gains little by picking a candidate who is not as reflective of the beliefs of the party but whom appeals to a larger chunk of the voters. This is simply due to there being more parties and, hence, more chance that some party will more closely reflect the views of any particular voter.
In the USA, there are two parties and elections tend to be ‘winner take all’. There is no coalition building (there should be, but with a simple majority, one party can very effectively control the system), so there is no reason to worry about staying true to your beliefs. You simply want to pick a candidate that will garner the largest chunk of the voters.
This disparity is why many consider the USA not to be a true democracy as it’s a degenerate case rather than a more generalized one.
Instant fail. He registered as a Democrat, as required by DNC rules, to run. He then left the party afterwards.
Try the Instant Pot, it’s all the rage. Where in the rules was the collusion to elect Hillary, or Hillary getting debate questions, or Bernie supporters ignored at primaries, or the DWS corruption or the paid seat fillers at conventions designed to weaken Bernie’s support or or or or
Pardon? You need to reread what I wrote. I was correcting someone who insisted that Bernie wasn’t a Democrat during his campaign, which is categorically false.
@Lava, thanks for demonstrating LurksNoMore’s point. No need to determine Brazille’s veracity, she’s likely telling the truth because we’re talking about a Clinton. Don’t let any pesky facts alter what you know.
Excuse me? Apparently you are unaware that HUGE percentages of the population have Native ancestry. No, 1/64th Native blood doesn’t mean much, but denying simple reality is foolish. For example, I have a (verified) Blackfoot ancestor; so what? Your doubt means little against extensive research by several people in my family =). Nor do we generally “bandy about” such things, because none of us really care, beyond wanting to know our family history.
It’s exactly congruent to the rather large number of (pasty Caucasian) folks with African ancestry.
Really, the people that are telling me the reflex reaction to accusations at Clinton is to not believe them are lecturing me on jumping to conclusions with out facts?
Here is the facts. Brazille has given her testimony in a very public forum with very little to gain.
or
Clinton - the liar and cheater - is being falsely accused again.
With blind dedication to the Dem establishment we can brace ourselves for another term of Trump…
Right. Whether Clinton was leading Sanders or not - once they were caught cheating she should have been OUT.
Then at least America would have felt one of the candidates was honest, and we would not have President Trump. Instead, we all saw Clinton cheat, and advance to take the nomination. For a great deal of America that was hardly different than the cheating and lying that is in Trump’s DNA. How do I know? - because she f-cking lost dipshit.
What Clinton, and no one else in history, got from the DNC.
-the ability to approve/reject any memo or communications from the DNC.
-veto power over the staff of the DNC.
-the ability to pick how many debates will happen and when.
-the ability to get money from donors that have maxed out to HRC, ostensibly for the DNC and state parties, then funnel that money straight to the HRC campaign, starving the DNC and state parties of funds (how is this not a violation of election finance laws?)
-the ability to data mine who should be kicked off the voter rolls pre-primary.
Completely unorthodox a year before the nomination.
Conservatives of all stripes have trouble with truthfulness, apparently/
