Not in tangible, legally-significant terms, and not in the short run. But if you want a long-term alternative to the Republicans and Democrats, you have to build up that alternative. You have to go through 1% and 10% and 20% before you can get to 50%, and that's not going to happen in one election.
You are, I believe making a false assumption, that repeat attempts at a presidential election will build the support from 1% to 10% and so on. I don't think this is true. What happens instead is, you get 2%, then 3%, then 2%, then 2.5%, and then maybe 1% because your party splits apart from the inside.
That's because the small third parties that we are discussing right now are made up of people who are, by definition, unwilling to compromise. If they were willing to compromise, they'd probably not be part of that party.
Given a different third party (a significant chunk of the non-insane Republicans breaking off and forming another party, for example) my opinion might be different. But that isn't something I can say will happen. And I don't think it will, simply because the Republicans are very very good at this whole "team as juggernaut" thing. It's a lesson progressives have to learn if we don't want to be reduced to sitting on the sidelines and complaining while the country turns into a de facto one party state.
Here we're talking specific examples. In the election this November I'll be voting Democrat...
Granted, but listen: Bush is not a problem because he is Bush. He's a problem because the extremist factions who had previously marginalized themselves have taken hold of a disproportionate amount of power within the Republican Party: they run the show. And like it or not, even without trying, that party has the support of 40-50% of the country. Regardless of the fact that it doesn't represent the interests of the majority of that segment of the population. Those are the facts on the ground, and they are unlikely to change in 2008, either. Or 2012. Because it's a winning strategy, and they know it.
This is why I am adamant that third-party voting in a Presidential election is, right now and in the foreseeable future, dangerous and irresponsible. Because the other guys have no compunctions about banding together to seize power and fighting to keep it.
Yes, and that's a 'safer' way to do it... but it's also a less influential way.
Less influential than what? I don't believe that voting for a marginalized party is influential at all, so I fail to see how voting for someone who actually represents my views within a larger party doesn't send a clear enough message.
Unless I've misunderstood the rules, which is entirely possible, as a nonresident US citizen I don't get to vote in local elections. Only the presidential one.
Well, that sucks, but I'm also not really talking directly to you; you're one vote, and you are also sane enough to realize that voting for Nader in this election would be detrimental. Unfortunately, not everyone is that sane, and it was to that hypothetical reader that I was speaking. Also, if you were registered to vote in CA, you were also eligible (I believe) to send in an absentee ballot for the primary election, provided you were registered under a party for that purpose. Thus, see my comment above about using the primary to influence the candidate that actually has a chance of seeing the interior of the Oval Office without having to hide under the desk.
On a semi-relevant note... do you know why, historically speaking, Australia has preferential voting?
That's interesting. I could wish for the same to happen here, but honestly? Not going to happen. I believe that the keys to reform of our electoral system are firmly in the hands of the people who don't want to see it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zvi
Re: Afterthought
Date: 2004-03-05 16:11 (UTC)You are, I believe making a false assumption, that repeat attempts at a presidential election will build the support from 1% to 10% and so on. I don't think this is true. What happens instead is, you get 2%, then 3%, then 2%, then 2.5%, and then maybe 1% because your party splits apart from the inside.
That's because the small third parties that we are discussing right now are made up of people who are, by definition, unwilling to compromise. If they were willing to compromise, they'd probably not be part of that party.
Given a different third party (a significant chunk of the non-insane Republicans breaking off and forming another party, for example) my opinion might be different. But that isn't something I can say will happen. And I don't think it will, simply because the Republicans are very very good at this whole "team as juggernaut" thing. It's a lesson progressives have to learn if we don't want to be reduced to sitting on the sidelines and complaining while the country turns into a de facto one party state.
Here we're talking specific examples. In the election this November I'll be voting Democrat...
Granted, but listen: Bush is not a problem because he is Bush. He's a problem because the extremist factions who had previously marginalized themselves have taken hold of a disproportionate amount of power within the Republican Party: they run the show. And like it or not, even without trying, that party has the support of 40-50% of the country. Regardless of the fact that it doesn't represent the interests of the majority of that segment of the population. Those are the facts on the ground, and they are unlikely to change in 2008, either. Or 2012. Because it's a winning strategy, and they know it.
This is why I am adamant that third-party voting in a Presidential election is, right now and in the foreseeable future, dangerous and irresponsible. Because the other guys have no compunctions about banding together to seize power and fighting to keep it.
Yes, and that's a 'safer' way to do it... but it's also a less influential way.
Less influential than what? I don't believe that voting for a marginalized party is influential at all, so I fail to see how voting for someone who actually represents my views within a larger party doesn't send a clear enough message.
Unless I've misunderstood the rules, which is entirely possible, as a nonresident US citizen I don't get to vote in local elections. Only the presidential one.
Well, that sucks, but I'm also not really talking directly to you; you're one vote, and you are also sane enough to realize that voting for Nader in this election would be detrimental. Unfortunately, not everyone is that sane, and it was to that hypothetical reader that I was speaking. Also, if you were registered to vote in CA, you were also eligible (I believe) to send in an absentee ballot for the primary election, provided you were registered under a party for that purpose. Thus, see my comment above about using the primary to influence the candidate that actually has a chance of seeing the interior of the Oval Office without having to hide under the desk.
On a semi-relevant note... do you know why, historically speaking, Australia has preferential voting?
That's interesting. I could wish for the same to happen here, but honestly? Not going to happen. I believe that the keys to reform of our electoral system are firmly in the hands of the people who don't want to see it.