Third parties: worth voting for?

[Eulogy]

At the behest of Thanas here this thread is created to discuss the feasibility and effectiveness of not voting Republican or Democrat, but rather for a third party. Can voting for a third party start to improve our lot during our lifetimes?

[Lord Zentei]

The problem is twofold:

First, there is the disincentive to vote for a party if you think it's not going to get any other support. If enough people think that way, then the third party will fail. Classic prisoner's dilemma.

Second, if you vote for a third party, then you vote against the less bad party among the Democrats and Republicans, in which case the worse party might get elected.

Both of these problems arise due to the "first past the post" system that the US uses, which is arguably one of the worst electoral systems out there. The problems would become a non-issue if and only if the two main parties become nearly equally bad, and if people get the impression that there is a groundswell of support for a particular third party.

Unfortunately, third parties tend not to have the political machinery and funding necessary to pull that off on a national level. I'd say that it would be most logical to try and win some kind of kingmaker status in the House first, beginning in strategic areas where disillusionment with the main parties is higher than elsewhere, but with a platform which might appeal to a wider audience. Then build up from there.

[darthdavid]

Local elections are also a good place to start. Gotta cut your teeth on something and if the worse choice comes out on top the scope of their potential damage is lessened.

[The Romulan Republic]

At the behest of Thanas here this thread is created to discuss the feasibility and effectiveness of not voting Republican or Democrat, but rather for a third party. Can voting for a third party start to improve our lot during our lifetimes?

Perhaps it can, but years of Republican rule first would be a hell of a price to be.

In any case, I'd suggest trying a mix of trying to build up the Left as a political force (by supporting Occupy Wall Street, perhaps) and then supporting Democratic Primary challengers who are further Left than Obama and/or have stronger principles. I do think the two party system needs to be eliminated eventually. I'm just not sure now is the right time.

[Jaepheth]

I think a third party candidate would only be viable if they have sufficient funding and celebrity to run a nation-wide campaign; like Ross Perot, but better.

For example, I think Bill Gates would have a decent shot at running on a third party ticket.

[The Romulan Republic]

Wasn't Perot an independent? If someone had that kind of credibility, I'd rather they ran as an independent, not beholden to any party.

Edit: I'd kind of like to do away with parties altogether, even if that's not very realistic.

[Akhlut]

Perot was independent on his first run, but was the candidate of the Reform Party, as he founded the group.

As for third parties: I support them wholeheartedly. I despise the idea that I should vote for the Democrats because they're the least bad of the two major parties, as it reinforces the idea for them that being Republican-lite can win them elections. Not voting doesn't send a message at all to them, whereas if they see votes being siphoned towards the assorted Socialist parties and Green Party, then they might get the idea that they should start adopting ideas from more left-wing parties than trying to beat Republicans at being Republicans. If they lose a few elections, the sky won't come tumbling down upon us; it might suck pretty hard for a little while, but political parties can only really learn by losing.

Edit: to expand a little bit, I sincerely believe that a party must earn its votes, not get them by default. As it stands, I don't think the Democrats really earn much in the way of votes, due to their consistent record of backtracking and simply trying to be Republicans.

[The Romulan Republic]

Why wouldn't primary challenges to conservative democrats send a similar message? And in the short term, at least, this is probably a less risky and more politically viable approach.

Its not change I have a problem with. I'm just trying to identify the best way to go about it.

[ZOmegaZ]

Both of these problems arise due to the "first past the post" system that the US uses, which is arguably one of the worst electoral systems out there.

BINGO. We're locked into a two-party system because plurality voting is designed to work for two-candidate elections, and fails utterly for any number greater. I mean, think about it: voting your honest preference may get you a worse outcome than if you'd lied. What kind of bullshit way to run a country is that?

There's a great book by William Poundstone called Gaming the Vote.
http://www.amazon.com/Gaming-Vote-Elect ... 0809048930
It goes over several voting systems, in a very interesting fashion. It also notes that the US constitution says nothing about voting systems. In general, states and municipalities are free to run their elections in any way that treats all voters equally. Some cities have already adopted instant-runoff.

It's a minor personal quest to see other cities adopt better voting systems. I've e-mailed every elected representative in sixteen counties, every county election commission in the state, and the entire state government, offering to buy them all copies. A few dozen interested parties so far.

To address the actual question of the thread, though, the answer is no. There is no point to voting for a third-party candidate unless you honestly believe there is no significant difference between the two major candidates. Until we get rid of this garbage voting system and implement one that actually works, your best bet is to use the system the way it is and mitigate the damage.

And I say that as a guy who ran for US Congress on a third-party ticket last year. Third place out of ten candidates, 584 votes to the next guy's 74,204.

[blahface]

In order to get over this hump, I think we need to start a non-partisan 3rd party with the primary goal being to change the voting system. We need to get the major third parties like the Greens and Libertarians to get aboard as inner parties and get them to support the eventual candidates regardless of what other political positions they hold. We could do the primary online and use the Condorcet method as our voting method.

Our strategy should be to do this state by state. Raise funds nationally and become a powerhouse in a small state. We need to stress the importance of changing our voting system. If the candidate for state legislature is a Democrat and supports changing the voting system, we all support the Democrat. If the Republican supports changing the voting system, we vote for the Republican. If none of them support changing the voting system, we run a third party candidate. After each state victory word of mouth will spread about the party and it will take less resources to get victories in other states.

I think the most pragmatic voting system to aim for is an open non-partisan primary with approval voting. The top two candidates would go onto the general election.

[defanatic]

Not with the electoral college at any Federal level. It may be worth it for local uh... People, though. My words have failed.