I’m arguing that I reject that “spoiler” premise in general. Political parties should work for our votes, not just assume them. And third parties can be an effective way for reminding the two parties that they should be working for us.
Just look at this election, where Biden ran in the primary as a third way centrist but incorporated ideas from the progressives during the election. That’s what I’d like to see more of, listening to all wings of the party, not just the Sinemans and Manchins of the party.
I may not agree with Yang on everything, but I definitely want to see more parties in the ring. But it won’t work with our current system. First past the post and the direct voting for the executive branch dooms us to two parties, though in the past those two parties have changed.
Ranked voting is the only way I see the possibility of a viable third party candidate who is more than a one time novelty like Ross Perot. But neither party in power really wants to create a system that will allow them to lose power (though a handful of states have done this, IIRC).
One thing I find interesting with the parliament/prime minister model, is that they usually have more than just 2 parties in power in the legislature. Who is the leader is usually from a coalition of 2 or more parties. And this results in more than 2 parties in parliament, usually.
The upside of that is he could splinter some of the conservative vote, as Carlson’s audience doesn’t have many Biden voters. But legitimizing Carlson is inherently bad.
There are advantages to that model, but it’s no panacea either. Just look at the craziness in Israel right now. Netanyahu was Prime Minister for the last 12 years even though his party never won an outright majority of the vote. In the last election, after several failed attempts to form a government, the opposition parties were finally able to oust him by forming an unlikely coalition between parties with very different political goals, but now actually governing is all but impossible.
I think all politicians try to get support from as many as they can, but in unsuccessful elections (Bush/Gore/Nader, or Trump/Clinton/Johnson/Stein), in the last month, I wonder what would have been the effect of Stein or Nader realizing they weren’t going to win, but they could campaign for the lesser evil. Many republicans were very leery of Trump, but enough came out for the greater evil. Trump attempted to use fractiousness within the Democratic party for his advantage, both times around. I can’t see how splitting the left vote is good for anyone.
What was the end result of those votes? Did Green votes for Nader and Stein reduce pollution, help enforce regulation, stop new drilling, help fund alternative energy? Or did they help elect people who sided with industry and oil companies?
That’s the thing- if these guys really cared about these issues, there are plenty of ways to go after them besides running for office. Start a PAC, join the ACLU, create political movements for UBI or ranked choice voting or whatever you believe in. That’s just for starters.
If he feels him being president is the only way to do anything, well, maybe it’s not really about the belief system after all.
Did Democratic votes really do any of that? No! They were a vote to slow down the Republicans destruction of the Earth as a habitable place for complex life, but they never made any attempt to stop it. On the rare occasion that someone does try that (Green New Deal), they work hard to stop it at all costs.
So, to answer your question, a vote for Green did as much as a vote for the Democratic Party.
I genuinely hope this works out. The two party stranglehold is an abomination all to often only providing a choice between between the “kinda sucks” candidate versus the “full on fundamentalist Christian sharia far right fascist nihilist” every damn election cycle.
I don’t see it working any better than the other non-mainstream parties that are out there, but I applaud the attempt.
By your logic, since the Green party has never done anything, ever, of any positive signficance in the US congress, they should never get a vote. Everyone involved in the Green New Deal, except Sanders, is a democrat. It has considerable support among Democrats in congress. A majority of Americans want it. Legislative gamesmanship and vote suppression on the part of the Republicans, and indifference of people not voting, has blocked it. Not voting for democrats leads to more Republican power.
I don’t see any realistic path to breaking the two-party system by running a third-party candidate for the top office in the land before they’ve built any grassroots support across the country first. It takes a HUGE organizational effort to run a successful national campaign, and few people are going to invest that kind of time and resources on an unproven candidate from a party that has no prior accomplishments.
You want to convince me a third-party candidate can be an effective President? Show me what they can do at the state and local level first, then try and carve out a caucus in the US legislature. If a Green Party candidate proved themselves to be an effective governor or a Forward Party coalition got some bills through congress then it would be a lot easier to take them seriously as a contender for the White House.
To be fair, they have been running at the state and local level for years now.
But I also think that part of the problem is the focus on the white house, often to the exclusion of all else. Local, state, and congressional elections also matter, too.
You are beginning to understand. Now just apply that to the shit sandwiches supplied by the Democrats and you might understand further. Shit sandwiches don’t become good because the alternative is a bowl of steaming hot diarrhea.
I might be biased because I tried to work within the system, and all that ended up happening was that I want to burn that system down.
