Americans, why not vote third party?

[Stronk Serb]

Any time there's an election, you see about a dozen hopefuls of which only two get chosen as the candidates by the de-facto ruling parties. The main candidates in this election, all have proven to me that they are shit. So why not vote third party? I mean yeah, they will not get elected in the next election, but if they get enough popular votes, they get funds from the state. Give it a few decades of this trend and they may surely become quite a force in the long run.

Still, I think the American two-party system is flawed as it is, but I think that's a topic for another post.

[mattsmith48]

Any time there's an election, you see about a dozen hopefuls of which only two get chosen as the candidates by the de-facto ruling parties. The main candidates in this election, all have proven to me that they are shit. So why not vote third party? I mean yeah, they will not get elected in the next election, but if they get enough popular votes, they get funds from the state. Give it a few decades of this trend and they may surely become quite a force in the long run.

Still, I think the American two-party system is flawed as it is, but I think that's a topic for another post.

The two-party system is the direct result of the FPTP electoral system used by many countries, mostly by underdeveloped countries, but also used by some 1st world countries, most notably Canada and the UK. The US made FPTP worst by not having parliamentary system and with the infamous electoral college accelerating the inevitable formation of a two-party system. Now due to the extreme partisanship in the US and gerrymandering, with the exception of few small regions most of the country's elections have become a one-party system where the winner is known and decided before the campaign even started no matter who is running for that party they are sure to win and voting against them is literally wasting your vote. Voting for a third party so they get funding is fine, but it won't really change anything when even the second party doesn't even have a chance. Before thinking about a third party or even a second party they should focus on changing the system. Otherwise they will just stay in this endless cycle of useless voting and elected dictatorships.

[ShineintheDark]

Whilst nice in theory, attemtping to bring a third party to the forefront is pretty much impossible these days. The most clear example in Britain was the conflict between Labour and the Liberals/Lib Dems. For a couple hundred years, the Liberal Party was one of the two ruling parties of the UK and easily swatted Labour aside. It took a phenomenal and unique event such as the First World War to bring the Liberals down and be replaced by Labour: not by grassroots campaigning, not by steadily taking extra funding or gaining in votes, but a unique and unreproducible event. It's now been nearly 100 years since the war and they have never risen again, whether in peacetime or war.

[maddogmj77]

THIS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)

I identify closest to liberals, or social democrats. If I want to vote for that party, I must dedicate my entire one vote to that party.

But my party's candidate has a very low chance of winning. So my vote would have very little effect on the outcome of that election.

So if I want my vote to matter, my vote would be better spent voting for the Establishment-Democrats.

Because although I 'want' to vote for a Liberal or Social Democrat, I do NOT want an Establishment-Republican to win.

The only way to do that, is to vote Establishment-Democrat...

That's pretty much why almost everybody who identifies with a third-party always votes within the two-party system.

It's a very poorly thought-out voting system that entraps & forces us into voting for the two-party establishments.

[mattsmith48]

Whilst nice in theory, attemtping to bring a third party to the forefront is pretty much impossible these days. The most clear example in Britain was the conflict between Labour and the Liberals/Lib Dems. For a couple hundred years, the Liberal Party was one of the two ruling parties of the UK and easily swatted Labour aside. It took a phenomenal and unique event such as the First World War to bring the Liberals down and be replaced by Labour: not by grassroots campaigning, not by steadily taking extra funding or gaining in votes, but a unique and unreproducible event. It's now been nearly 100 years since the war and they have never risen again, whether in peacetime or war.

Something like that happen a couple times here with the exception that the third party's win was being the official opposition in a majority government and the events that brought was the two worst Prime Minister we ever had. We like to say that on the federal level we have Three major parties and while the NDP technically has a chance to form government as long they don't portrait the Liberals and Conservative as the same party they won't win. But at least we got hope thanks to a growing movement to change the electoral system boosted ironically by Justin Trudeau. That's what the US and the UK need to do not only to get more options, but most importantly to stop having so many wasted votes.

THIS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)

I identify closest to liberals, or social democrats. If I want to vote for that party, I must dedicate my entire one vote to that party.

But my party's candidate has a very low chance of winning. So my vote would have very little effect on the outcome of that election.

So if I want my vote to matter, my vote would be better spent voting for the Establishment-Democrats.

Because although I 'want' to vote for a Liberal or Social Democrat, I do NOT want an Establishment-Republican to win.

The only way to do that, is to vote Establishment-Democrat...

That's pretty much why almost everybody who identifies with a third-party always votes within the two-party system.

It's a very poorly thought-out voting system that entraps & forces us into voting for the two-party establishment.

In sports they say ''we played not to lose'' when you are to scared to lose that you are trying avoid this outcome instead trying to win. Same concept here where one of the party is so bad you vote against them instead of voting for someone, and you end up losing no matter if you voted for the winner or not.

[Stronk Serb]

Whilst nice in theory, attemtping to bring a third party to the forefront is pretty much impossible these days. The most clear example in Britain was the conflict between Labour and the Liberals/Lib Dems. For a couple hundred years, the Liberal Party was one of the two ruling parties of the UK and easily swatted Labour aside. It took a phenomenal and unique event such as the First World War to bring the Liberals down and be replaced by Labour: not by grassroots campaigning, not by steadily taking extra funding or gaining in votes, but a unique and unreproducible event. It's now been nearly 100 years since the war and they have never risen again, whether in peacetime or war.

You think so? In Serbia until 2012, the main parties were the Radicals and the Democratic Party. The Progressive party used the dissent in the Radical party, partly supported by the Democrats and wiped out both of them. They have been ruling Serbia with an absolute majority ever since. The Democratic party was first swiped under the rug of irrelevancy and fell apart shortly afterwards, and the Radicals are now a minor isolated faction in the parliament. Even other nationalist parties dislike them.

THIS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)

I identify closest to liberals, or social democrats. If I want to vote for that party, I must dedicate my entire one vote to that party.

But my party's candidate has a very low chance of winning. So my vote would have very little effect on the outcome of that election.

So if I want my vote to matter, my vote would be better spent voting for the Establishment-Democrats.

Because although I 'want' to vote for a Liberal or Social Democrat, I do NOT want an Establishment-Republican to win.

The only way to do that, is to vote Establishment-Democrat...

That's pretty much why almost everybody who identifies with a third-party always votes within the two-party system.

It's a very poorly thought-out voting system that entraps & forces us into voting for the two-party establishment.

If the US had a multi-party system, third parties would decide the winner because there would be no definite majority and coalitions will have to be formed. In Serbia for most of the time, the Socialist party decides who won. In 2008, the Democrats had less votes than the Radicals, but made a good coalition deal with the Socialists and in turn got a parliamentary majority. In Germany that is evident too. The CDU heavily depends on minor parties to get a parliamentary majority.

Something like that happen a couple times here with the exception that the third party's win was being the official opposition in a majority government and the events that brought was the two worst Prime Minister we ever had. We like to say that on the federal level we have Three major parties and while the NDP technically has a chance to form government as long they don't portrait the Liberals and Conservative as the same party they won't win. But at least we got hope thanks to a growing movement to change the electoral system boosted ironically by Justin Trudeau. That's what the US and the UK need to do not only to get more options, but most importantly to stop having so many wasted votes.



In sports they say ''we played not to lose'' when you are to scared to lose that you are trying avoid this outcome instead trying to win. Same concept here where one of the party is so bad you vote against them instead of voting for someone, and you end up losing no matter if you voted for the winner or not.

In the last twenty and so years, since there are elections in Serbia, three parties changed. The Socialists, despite ruling the country and losing it in an uprising are now a deciding factor in elections. People here say that if you want your candidate to win, vote Socialist. There is a 100% guarantee that they will be a part of the government.

[lliam]

I just had a vision ... a new generation of americans starts voting for a liberal socialist party. and after a view decades they vote for a green lesbian socialist as the new president.

[SethfromMI]

I agree with Matt that with the broken system, voting for third party seems pretty futile. I guess you could also argue voting for the two major parties isn't helping either but what really are you to do (I mean, you could absolutely still vote 3rd party, but as far as making a change, it is not really going to. Even if your individual state as a whole voted 3rd party, even that alone is not going to make a difference unless everyone else/all the other states were to do the same). I don't think it is a simple easy fix for the voting system (I certainly wish other candidates from other parties at least had a reasonable chance), but we should try to do something. I know I wasn't thrilled about either candidates in this election.

[Stronk Serb]

I agree with Matt that with the broken system, voting for third party seems pretty futile. I guess you could also argue voting for the two major parties isn't helping either but what really are you to do (I mean, you could absolutely still vote 3rd party, but as far as making a change, it is not really going to. Even if your individual state as a whole voted 3rd party, even that alone is not going to make a difference unless everyone else/all the other states were to do the same). I don't think it is a simple easy fix for the voting system (I certainly wish other candidates from other parties at least had a reasonable chance), but we should try to do something. I know I wasn't thrilled about either candidates in this election.

Well, in order to make the things fair, the whole system needs to be rebuilt from scratch. It's a far harder thing for the US than it was for the countries behind the Iron Curtain. Those countries had institutions which in theory should represent a parliament, the government, the courts and were much more centralized, so when transition came, they just made the bodies independent from the Communist Party's control. The whole system is based on the popular vote, so if you lose, you cannit say it wasn't fair, unless the elections are rigged, which in some cases, sadly, happens. What alarms me with the electoral college system is that if you stratefically campaign, you can get elected with 25% of the populae vote, if you go for lower population states etc. Like I said in my post about that, a system that allows that as a possibility, no matter the improbability of it happening, is flawed to the core.

[mattsmith48]

You think so? In Serbia until 2012, the main parties were the Radicals and the Democratic Party. The Progressive party used the dissent in the Radical party, partly supported by the Democrats and wiped out both of them. They have been ruling Serbia with an absolute majority ever since. The Democratic party was first swiped under the rug of irrelevancy and fell apart shortly afterwards, and the Radicals are now a minor isolated faction in the parliament. Even other nationalist parties dislike them.



If the US had a multi-party system, third parties would decide the winner because there would be no definite majority and coalitions will have to be formed. In Serbia for most of the time, the Socialist party decides who won. In 2008, the Democrats had less votes than the Radicals, but made a good coalition deal with the Socialists and in turn got a parliamentary majority. In Germany that is evident too. The CDU heavily depends on minor parties to get a parliamentary majority.



In the last twenty and so years, since there are elections in Serbia, three parties changed. The Socialists, despite ruling the country and losing it in an uprising are now a deciding factor in elections. People here say that if you want your candidate to win, vote Socialist. There is a 100% guarantee that they will be a part of the government.

What electoral system is Serbia using?

[Stronk Serb]

What electoral system is Serbia using?

Based on percentage, so you don't have things like in the US and the UK where it's based on the electoral college or constituencies. If an X percent of the votes are for a Y party, the Y party gets the X percent of seats in parliament, no more, no less. The only requirement for a party to enter parliament is to get at least 5% of the popular vote. Smaller and less relevant parties go around this by making coalitions before the elections with like-minded parties. There are exceptions to this however, minority parties get a guaranteed 3 seats in parliament, I think, I am not sure about the exact number plus what percentage they win on an election. It is not oerfect, but at least everyone get's their just share of seats.

[maddogmj77]

If the US had a multi-party system, third parties would decide the winner because there would be no definite majority and coalitions will have to be formed. In Serbia for most of the time, the Socialist party decides who won. In 2008, the Democrats had less votes than the Radicals, but made a good coalition deal with the Socialists and in turn got a parliamentary majority. In Germany that is evident too. The CDU heavily depends on minor parties to get a parliamentary majority.
I highly encourage you to watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo) video explaining what's wrong with our current voting system.

And then this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE) video explaining how an alternate voting system could exist which allows multiple parties to exist without any single party having more influence.

[mattsmith48]

I highly encourage you to watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo) video explaining what's wrong with our current voting system.

And then this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE) video explaining how an alternate voting system could exist which allows multiple parties to exist without any single party having more influence.

Actually this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU) would be the better system, but for a country like the US it would require to change a lot things on how the government works, as oppose to countries like Canada or the UK where the only changes would be on election day.

[PinkFloyd]

The two-party system, while majorly flawed is burnt into the brains of virtually everyone. You're either a snowflake Democrat or you're a bible-thumping Republican. It's worked so deeply into our society that I don't see it really ever coming to an end.

[mattsmith48]

The two-party system, while majorly flawed is burnt into the brains of virtually everyone. You're either a snowflake Democrat or you're a bible-thumping Republican. It's worked so deeply into our society that I don't see it really ever coming to an end.

If you look at party affiliation numbers its around 30% of the population on each side, so when you combine the two its about 60% depending on the poll, its not that big of a majority, as more people see those parties for what they really stand for, their donors, the time where a majority of the voters would want a change in the system and new parties is not as far as you may think.

[NewLeafsFan]

This is just not a good idea. If the third party was right wing it would just divide Republican and the Democrats would always win and if it was left wing it would just divide Democrats and Republicans would always win.

[Fritz]

from what ive been told, its really hard for any third party to really get a foothold at all to begin with. its just the system in place within the us

[Max the Disenchanter]

we live in a two choice society

[hesaidhesaid]

They can vote third party. But independents have had no media coverage since 1980 when John Anderson ran as the "orange" independent.
Why? I guess money, but they'll claim they know better.

[mattsmith48]

we live in a two choice society

No they are not many situation in live where they are only two choices, most of the time we restrict our self to two choices when they are more then two.

They can vote third party. But independents have had no media coverage since 1980 when John Anderson ran as the "orange" independent.
Why? I guess money, but they'll claim they know better.

Actually its the two major parties who make sure they don't get any coverage because they know as soon more options become available they'll have to stop working for them self and start working for the voters.

[Sword of the morning]

Being a Republican i really can't complain about how my party's underrepresented. I think it's manly to how reported they are. You don't see any commercials for the communist party or for the green party. QRepublicans and democrats spend tremondos amounts on ads but other party's don't. I think each party should have a set amount of money to campaign and you would see America's views better represented.

[mattsmith48]

Being a Republican i really can't complain about how my party's underrepresented. I think it's manly to how reported they are. You don't see any commercials for the communist party or for the green party. QRepublicans and democrats spend tremondos amounts on ads but other party's don't. I think each party should have a set amount of money to campaign and you would see America's views better represented.

People would still not vote for them because they would be scared or don't want one of the major party to get in.

[Sword of the morning]

People would still not vote for them because they would be scared or don't want one of the major party to get in.

What would they have to be afraid of?

[ShineintheDark]

What would they have to be afraid of?
Splitting the vote. With the example of the most recent US election, most Greens, Libertarians and Dems greatly opposed Trump as president. Therefore, many people who may have voted Green or Libertarian under normal, less divisive circumstances, would have felt that voting any other party but Democrat would have done nothing but split the anti-Trump vote. I mean, I hate Hillary with a passion but even I would have voted for her if it meant preventing Trump from power.

[Sword of the morning]

I'm not sure that joining to behind one party to crush another is really helping democracy. It means leaving behind the party you support to help one you don't tottaly agree with. Seems more likely to further push them selves close to a 2 party system. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

[Reezeee]

At this point a vote for a third party would just be a wasted vote

[mattsmith48]

ShineintheDark Sword of the morning Both parties are constantly trying to portrait the other as dangerous and crazy and this fear mongering as the effect of scaring off people from voting for a different party out of fear the crazy people will get in power.

I'm not sure that joining to behind one party to crush another is really helping democracy. It means leaving behind the party you support to help one you don't tottaly agree with. Seems more likely to further push them selves close to a 2 party system. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

This is a direct result of FPTP and why you need to change the electoral system before thinking of voting for new parties. And it is even worst for the presidential election because of the requirement that to win you need 50% plus 1 of the electoral college votes.

[Stronk Serb]

ShineintheDark Sword of the morning Both parties are constantly trying to portrait the other as dangerous and crazy and this fear mongering as the effect of scaring off people from voting for a different party out of fear the crazy people will get in power.



This is a direct result of FPTP and why you need to change the electoral system before thinking of voting for new parties. And it is even worst for the presidential election because of the requirement that to win you need 50% plus 1 of the electoral college votes.

The last part sucks majorly, that whole system is broken.

Also yeah, I totally get the idea of big bad x having a possibility to win, so you urge people to vote for big bad y because only y has a chance of stopping evil x. The same happened here in 2012. Now the opposition is fractured, while the "Progressives" strongarmed two thirds of the Parliament in their support.

[Uniquemind]

The short answer is because there is not a third party with a lot of money backing it to compete with the other two.

[Stronk Serb]

The short answer is because there is not a third party with a lot of money backing it to compete with the other two.

Not now, but if they get over some percentage of the popular vote, they get money from the state for their next election campaign.

[Jordan4557]

I would vote 3rd party for sure. Might have a chance in the years to come. I think we're getting close.