Does the US need a third party to take control

[Friend of Mara]

There is too much money in our elections, and it seems most goes to the most popular, not the best. As we see the most popular republicans are the most vile humans.

I'd like to see time limits on the election cycle. Limits on total money, including for pacs. And money sharing among candidates so the small fry have a chance to be heard. I don't care about Citizens United, our election system needs structure and rules.

I agree jus a few tweaks really aren't going to make our current system "fair". Though citizens united is a cornerstone as to why there is so much money in politics.

 

[Ponder This]

Like several here I don't like the left or right.

1. Do we need a third party to form and grow

2. You want to stick with the left as your party

3. You want to stick with the right as your party.

4. You...... Speak your own peace

I don't think a third party is necessary.
When two parties disagree a lot, a third party is just adding noise. And unless a third party offers a substantially different point of view from the other existing parties, it really hurts the popular opinion. In fact, it is a known method to misdirect a poll to offer choices that closely resemble each other. It splits the vote between closely resembling opinions and can lead to the victory of the less popular option.
For example, if I ask:
What is your favorite color?

1. Red
2. Cyan
3. Cobalt

In this case, Options 2 and 3 closely resemble each other but Option 1 is very distinct. Thus Option 1 can collect many votes (there being no other closer options) but Options 2 and 3 may lose votes (as they closely resemble each other).
Moreover, creating more options creates an adverse burden on voters. Voters have a limited amount of time to decide what they want. More options means they have less time to spend considering each option. Voters can get more easily confused by the options. This leads to voters voting with less information overall and making less informed, worse decisions.
Additionally, when presenting more candidates from many parties, the parties will be smaller and tend to present candidates that appeal less to all the voters (each candidate will tend to be less appealing overall). When there are fewer parties, they will be bigger and tend to present candidates that are more appealing overall to voters. And with fewer parties the parties, the parties themselves are forced to do more of the information work, which causes voters with limited time resources to be more informed overall on their options.

All in all, there are many reasons why whenever you have an election or present a poll, there should be a concentrated effort to reduce the number of available choices to the most pertinent and distinct in order to achieve the best results.
For example, if I ask what is your favorite color?

1. Red
2. Blue

The options have been condensed to something very clear and the result will be more accurate.
When do you need a third party?
Well, when the parties get too similar and you start to get something like

1. Purple
2. Violet

Then you know it's the ideal time for a third party and you can get something like:

1. Purple
2. Violet
3. Yellow

If it's a poll, then something like

1. Red
2. Blue
3. Yellow

would be good, but if it's an election, then it's bad. What should've happened is that two of the three parties should've blended, giving something like:

1. Orange
2. Blue

Or

1. Red
2. Green

Or

1. Orange
2. Green

I hope I've given you something to reflect on. In particular, the strength of a two party system over a three party system or other multi-party system. While there is a time and place for third parties, third parties ought to substantially offer something not in the existing parties. Third parties should never be just a variation on an existing party. Like

1. Red
2. Blue
3. Purple

Or

1. Red
2. Blue
3. Orange

Or

1. Red
2. Blue
3. Green

Because those will tend to corrupt the election results. Ideally, there should never be third parties for very long either. Ideally, one of the three will get absorbed into the other two.
This discussion assumed a single result winner takes all scenario, such as a Presidency.

If you are electing a large body of representives like a Congress, third parties are much less harmful because the Congress still has to compromise to pass legislation. In that situation, a distinct third party like:

1. Red
2. Blue
3. Yellow

could become highly desireable (just as it would for a poll). A Third Party in a Congress will mediate and regulate the effects of the other two parties, if the third party is a distinct party standing on its own. A Third Party that is something of a duplicate of an existing party doesn't add as much to Congress.

TL;DR? A Third Party needs to really add something that the other parties don't have in order to become a meaningful option to voters that contributes in a beneficial way to politics. Third parties are actually bad when they are just a pale reflection of one or more of the other existing parties.

 

[Valjean]

Their platform is linked above.

Ah -- I see now. So the Greens are uber-leftist
Left-of-center perhaps, but "uber?"

 

[Valjean]

We need to support them, ourselves.

We need public funding of elections, and ranked choice voting would help, too.

 

[Valjean]

Are there any documented Republicans yelling , "Fascism wins"?

"By their fruits shall ye know them."

 

[Left Coast]

Ah -- I see now. So the Greens are uber-leftist
Left-of-center perhaps, but "uber?"

Instead of picking the nits of my words, why don't you make an argument for the Green Party if you want to see them gain more political power?

Among other things, they want to: prohibit all US sales of weapons to any foreign country, put a moratorium on all freeway widening, decommission all nuclear power, and socialize all utilities and all radio, TV, and internet.

Go on.

 

[Valjean]

Instead of picking the nits of my words, why don't you make an argument for the Green Party if you want to see them gain more political power?

Among other things, they want to: prohibit all US sales of weapons to any foreign country, put a moratorium on all freeway widening, decommission all nuclear power, and socialize all utilities and all radio, TV, and internet.

Go on.

Not all Greens agree with all "official" party positions, any more than all Republicans agree with all the GOP talking points.

Full disclosure: I'm registered Green, on my state voting registry, but I'd happily support the policies of half a dozen other parties should they present themselves as choices.
I'm more interested in policies than labels.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Not all Greens agree with all "official" party positions, any more than all Republicans agree with all the GOP talking points.

Full disclosure: I'm registered Green, on my state voting registry, but I'd happily support the policies of half a dozen other parties should they present themselves as choices.
I'm more interested in policies than labels.

As I recall, the Greens originally said, "Neither Left nor Right. We are In Front."

 

[lukethethird]

Does the US need a third party to take control​

No, the existing parties are doing a fine job of dividing and conquering the country from within.

 

[Copernicus]

DUVERGER'S LAW

This name should come up every time you come across a thread where someone thinks we should have more than two parties to choose from in US elections. We don't really have a choice about that as long as we have elections in which we have first-past-the-post winners, who don't necessarily have to be chosen by the majority of voters.

It's not that a third party has never won an election in the US. It is that a third party has almost never won an election. They almost always seem to skew the results by acting as a spoiler in an election. So voters for Green Party candidates in the US almost always help Republican candidates to win, and voters for the Libertarian Party almost always help Democratic candidates to win (unless the Libertarian voters are primarily social rather than free market libertarians).

Sometimes Green Party voters think that their vote will cause Democrats to be more radical on supporting measures to fight AGW, but that never happens. All it does is help elect Republican candidates, who usually oppose any efforts to fight pollution control and mitigate the effects of global warming. It makes things worse.

 

[Left Coast]

Not all Greens agree with all "official" party positions, any more than all Republicans agree with all the GOP talking points.

Sure, I get that. Those were just examples.

Full disclosure: I'm registered Green, on my state voting registry, but I'd happily support the policies of half a dozen other parties should they present themselves as choices.
I'm more interested in policies than labels.

I understand. I'm a Dem but not a party loyalist.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Instead of picking the nits of my words, why don't you make an argument for the Green Party if you want to see them gain more political power?

Among other things, they want to: prohibit all US sales of weapons to any foreign country, put a moratorium on all freeway widening, decommission all nuclear power, and socialize all utilities and all radio, TV, and internet.

Go on.

I disagree with all of those policies but would say that socializing utilities isn't necessarily an uber-leftist position, since public ownership of at least some major utilities (e.g., energy production) has precedent in some of the world's most developed countries and doesn't even require that one abandon capitalism.

Socializing all utilities seems to me unrealistic for the US except perhaps in the very long term (I'm talking two decades or longer, if even then), almost certainly unnecessary, and very likely to cause more harm than good if done abruptly or too quickly, though.

 

[Left Coast]

I disagree with all of those policies but would say that socializing utilities isn't necessarily an uber-leftist position, since public ownership of at least some major utilities (e.g., energy production) has precedent in some of the world's most developed countries and doesn't even require that one abandon capitalism.

Socializing all utilities seems to me unrealistic for the US except perhaps in the very long term (I'm talking two decades or longer, if even then) and likely to cause more harm than good if done abruptly or too quickly, though.

So the Greens' position goes too far for the resident Marxist. Mkay.

Do we really need to continue picking the nit of one word?

 

[Debater Slayer]

So the Greens' position goes too far for the resident Marxist. Mkay.

Well, I think any policy needs to consider practical ramifications and not just how a change may sound on paper. The policies you listed seem too impractical to me, and a couple are downright harmful (e.g., the opposition to nuclear energy when it's one of the most realistic alternatives to burning fossil fuels).

Do we really need to continue picking the nit of one word?

I didn't mean to do so; apologies if my post came across that way. I just wanted to add more thoughts on the topic is all.

 

[Left Coast]

Well, I think any policy needs to consider practical ramifications and not just how a change may sound on paper. The policies you listed seem too impractical to me, and a couple are downright harmful (e.g., the opposition to nuclear energy when it's one of the most realistic alternatives to burning fossil fuels).



I didn't mean to do so; apologies if my post came across that way. I just wanted to add more thoughts on the topic is all.

It's okay, I still like you.