Politics 3rd party candidates

[HailBlazers]

this election of 2020 is so divisive, so visceral for so many that i can't help but believe the that either party isn't rubbing there hands together in glee. republicans' bemoaning the state of their chances, democrats fueling funding with every word out of the president's lips, they both will be fundraising enormous volumes of cash regardless of the winner...... it is crazy that this has become such a binary, diametrical choice. there is true hate being spewed by both sides and being considered acceptable because, you know, the other guys are doing it. personally i find neither party truly representative of my own value systems on many issues of consequence, but am forced to choose the lesser of two perceived evils. that the divisiveness needs to end and respect for considered opinions of others seems tantamount IMHO.

i disagree with so many of the policy positions of both parties', yet in order to impact the national election one would be forced rank the party policies', then to"hold one's nose" making the choice, hoping that the policy disagreements won't have as much of an impact as feared. in a pew research poll of september 20-22nd 2020, fully 42% of registered voters are either independent or non affiliated. why is our choice of potential candidates held hostage by by the 2 parties, neither of which has a share greater than 28% in the coming election? better question is how does this change? why is a purity test on policy allowed to so greatly influence monies for potential candidates and is this likely to change going forward? the fate of our democratic process moving forward seems to hang in the balance. without complete control by one party or the other, solutions to issues of great consequence grind to a halt but the corollary to that being that controlling party polling representing these and other issues dilutes down those issues acceptance by the total electorate. this system has lead to the need of the two parties to incorporate the views of the extreme right and the extreme left in order to control the government, imho.

it is my hope that some of the realizations concerning the present systems failures to be truly representative of the electorate, to disproportionately represent the interest of corporate monies, to cause conflict and to outsize the need to cater to extremism may be discussed and addressed during the next election cycle. hopefully we can move beyond the discussion to taking concrete reforms in the near future. i favor not only third party but fourth, fifth etc., etc. here is from a 3rd party platform that i personally agree with and that they may reflect opportunities to better represent us in the future.

• The House of Representatives and the lower houses of state legislatures should be elected by a system of proportional representation.
• All elections should be held using either a ranked choice system or approval voting.
• Voter registration should be easy, and laws attempting to restrict voter registration deserve opposition.
• Access to impartial information on candidates and ballot initiatives should be easily available in public print and broadcast media.
• Independent and minor-party candidates for public office shall have fair and equal access to ballots. This right shall not be infringed by burdens such as exorbitant voter signatures and filing fees.

While I agree. I've been told this line of thinking is useless because nothing will ever change and we have to accept it or be labeled juvenile.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

While I agree. I've been told this line of thinking is useless because nothing will ever change and we have to accept it or be labeled juvenile.

I WANT TO BE LABELED JUVENILE!

 

[lawai'a]

While I agree. I've been told this line of thinking is useless because nothing will ever change and we have to accept it or be labeled juvenile.

haters gonna hate. by the pew research groups findings neither party has even close to a majority, and represent barely a quarter of the registered voters. this is one of the reasons i advocated for the importance of the local elections in this cycle. voting

 

[lawai'a]

I WANT TO BE LABELED JUVENILE!

done, YOU ARE A PUP!

 

[ehizzy3]

I WANT TO BE LABELED JUVENILE!

you a fine muthafucking dog when you back dat ass up

 

[lawai'a]

https://www.fairvote.org/where_is_ranked_choice_voting_used

Using RCV now:


Basalt, Colorado: Adopted in 2002 for mayoral races with three or more candidates and was first used in April 2020.

• Berkeley, California: Adopted in 2004 and has been used since 2010 to elect the mayor, city council and city auditor.
• Cambridge, Massachusetts: In use since the 1940s in multi-winner form. Used for the nine-seat city council and the six-seat school board, both elected citywide.
• Carbondale, Colorado: Adopted in 2002 for mayoral races with three or more candidates.
• Eastpointe, Michigan: Adopted to resolve a federal Voting Rights Act lawsuit and used for two city council seats (at-large, proportional) in November 2019.
• Las Cruces, New Mexico: Adopted by the city council in 2018 and used since 2019 for all municipal elections.
• Maine: Adopted in 2016 and first used in 2018 for all state and federal primary elections, and all general elections for Congress. Extended to apply to the general election for president beginning in 2020 and presidential primary elections beginning in 2024.
• Minneapolis, Minnesota: Adopted in 2006 and used since 2009, in elections for 22 city offices, including mayor and city council in single-winner elections, and some multi-winner park board seats.
• Oakland, California: Adopted in 2006 and used since 2010 for a total of 18 city offices, including mayor and city council.
• Payson, Utah: A local options bill was passed in 2018, and the city opted-in for city council seats in November 2019 (at-large, winner take-all).
• Portland, Maine: Adopted in 2010 and used since 2011 for electing mayor.
• San Francisco, California: Adopted in 2002 and used since 2004 to elect the mayor, city attorney, Board of Supervisors and five additional citywide offices.
• San Leandro, California: Adopted as option in 2000 charter amendment and used since 2010 to elect the mayor and city council.
• Santa Fe, New Mexico: Adopted in 2008 and used since March 2018 for mayor, city council, and municipal judge.
• St. Louis Park, Minnesota: Adopted in 2018 and used since 2019 for mayor and city council races.
• St. Paul, Minnesota: Adopted in 2009 and used since 2011 to elect the mayor and city council.
• Takoma Park, Maryland: Adopted in 2006 and used since 2007 in all elections for mayor and city council.
• Telluride, Colorado: Adopted in 2008 for mayoral elections with at least three candidates. Used in 2011, 2015 and 2019.
• Vineyard, Utah: A local options bill was passed in 2018, and the city opted-in for city council seats in November 2019 (at-large, winner take-all).

Upcoming implementations:

• Amherst, Massachusetts: Adopted charter in 2018 with ranked choice voting and passing implementation statute before projected first use in 2021.
• Benton County, Oregon: Adopted by voters in 2016 for general elections for county offices of sheriff and commissioner. It will be used in November 2020.
• Easthampton, MA: Adopted in 2019 and to be used in mayoral and all single-seat city council elections starting in 2021
• New York City: Adopted in 2019 and to be used in all city primary and special elections starting in 2021.
• Palm Desert, California: Adopted January 2020 to be used for city council elections in November 2022 as part of a California Voting Rights Act settlement. One district elected in single winner elections, with the rest of the city electing in staggered two-winner multi winner elections (proportional).

Presidential Nominations (major party primaries and caucuses*):

• Alaska: All voters in Democratic primary in April 2020
• Nevada: Early voters in Democratic caucuses in Feb. 2020
• Hawaii: All voters in Democratic primary in April 2020
• Kansas: All voters in Democratic primary in May 2020
• Wyoming: All voters in Democratic primary in April 2020

* Parties conducted an RCV tally until all candidates exceeded 15% of the vote, after which delegates were allocated proportionally. Party decisions about 2024 will be made closer to that date.

While I agree. I've been told this line of thinking is useless because nothing will ever change and we have to accept it or be labeled juvenile.

 

[e_blazer]

I WANT TO BE LABELED JUVENILE!

There’s an entire book on that:

 

[lawai'a]

https://www.fairvote.org/rcv_2020_ballot_measures
Ranked Choice Voting 2020 Ballot Measures
The following two states and five cities have ballot measures to enact ranked choice voting (RCV) on the ballot in November 2020. Earlier in the year, Maine's largest city of Portland approved a ballot measure with 81% of the vote to amend its charter to extend use of RCV for all city elections. Collectively, these eight ballot measures represent the most jurisdictions voting on RCV in one year in American history.

Alaska
Alaskans for Better Elections collected enough signatures to put Ballot Measure 2 to a vote this November. If passed, this ballot measure would implement several statutory changes, including: 1) "Top four" blanket primaries for state and congressional offices, where all candidates would appear on the same primary ballot and the top-four vote getters would advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation; 2) Ranked choice voting in the choice among four candidates on the November ballot, with write-in candidates permitted; 3) Ranked choice voting in the presidential election among all candidates who have qualified for the ballot and any write-in candidates.

If you live in Alaska, vote YES on Ballot Measure 2.

Read a quick take post from our blog.

Albany, California
The city council of Albany, California voted unanimously on June 15 in favor of charter amendment for voters to approve the adoption of the proportional form of ranked choice voting for elections to the city council and school board, which are elected citywide in staggered elections. The ranked choice voting Ballot Measure BB will be decided in November 2020. Albany would be the fifth city in California with ranked choice voting and the fourth city in the country using its proportional, "single transferable vote" form. Voter Choice Albany heads the campaign, and backers include the local East Bay Times in this thoughtful editorial.

If you live in Albany, vote YES on Ballot Measure BB.

Read a quick take from our blog.

Bloomington, Minnesota
The city council of Bloomington, Minnesota voted 6-1 in favor of a charter amendment to go on the November ballot adopting ranked choice voting in elections for mayor and council. If voters approve City Question 3, Bloomington would join three Minnesota cities that already use RCV. For more on the campaign, visit Ranked Choice Voting Bloomington.

https://www.fairvote.org/rcv_2020_ballot_measures

If you live in Bloomington, vote YES on City Question 3.

Read a quick take post from our blog.

Boulder, Colorado
In August, the Boulder, Colorado city council approved 7-2 to place a charter amendment on the ballot to allow voters to elect their mayor directly with ranked choice voting; currently, the city council selects the mayor. On September 1, the council held a final vote that put Ballot Measure 2E before voters. The campaign in support of the measure is led by Our Mayor, Our Choice. Endorsers include the Boulder Daily Camera in this editorial.

If you live in Boulder, vote YES on Ballot Measure 2E.

Read a quick take post from our blog.

Eureka, California
The city council of Eureka, California voted unanimously (5-0) to place a charter amendment on the November ballot to adopt ranked choice voting for electing the mayor and city council. Measure C would replace the current plurality voting system and make Eureka the 5th city in California with ranked choice voting. Yes on C! Ranked Choice Voting for Eureka has a website and Facebook page.

If you live in Eureka, vote YES on Measure C.

Read a quick take post from our blog.

Massachusetts
After a multi-year educational campaign led by Voter Choice Massachusetts, an initiative will appear on the ballot as Question 2 that, if passed, would enact a statute to implement ranked choice voting for Massachusetts’ U.S. Senate and U.S House general and primary elections, state primary and general elections, and county offices, beginning in 2022. The initiative is supported by Yes on 2 for Ranked Choice Voting. Supporters include the Boston Globe in this editorial.

If you live in Massachusetts, vote YES on Question 2.

Read a quick take post from our blog.

Minnetonka, Minnesota
The city council of Minnetonka, Minnesota voted unanimously to place a charter amendment on the November ballot to fold the city's nonpartisan primary elections into a single general election held with ranked choice voting for mayor and city council. If the city ballot question is passed, Minnetonka would join three Minnesota cities that already use RCV. The campaign to pass City Question is led by Ranked Choice Voting Minnetonka.

If you live in Minnetonka, vote YES on City Question.

Read a quick take post from our blog.


Additional notes:

(1) North Dakota Voter’s First, a grassroots coalition, submitted 36,000 signatures for a ballot initiative that would have enacted several changes, including a "Top Four Primary" with ranked choice voting. It was approved by the Secretary of State, but the North Dakota Supreme Court on August 25th removed it from the ballot because it ruled that petitions should have included the full text of the ballot measure.

(2) Open Primaries Arkansas, a grassroots coalition that gathered sufficient signatures to earn a place on the November ballot, also was deeply disappointed to have its "Top Four Primary" with ranked choice voting struck from the ballot by the Arkansas Supreme Court on procedural grounds involving signature collection.

(3) Several additional cities seriously considered placing ranked choice voting on the ballot and are likely to take action in 2021-22. Other cities are expected to establish RCV for their 2021 elections by an act of the city council.

 

[Hoopguru]

George Washington’s farewell address is often remembered for its warning against hyper-partisanship: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” John Adams, Washington’s successor, similarly worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.

America has now become that dreaded divided republic. The existential menace is as foretold, and it is breaking the system of government the Founders put in place with the Constitution.

Though America’s two-party system goes back centuries, the threat today is new and different because the two parties are now truly distinct, a development that I date to the 2010 midterms. Until then, the two parties contained enough overlapping multitudes within them that the sort of bargaining and coalition-building natural to multiparty democracy could work inside the two-party system. No more. America now has just two parties, and that’s it.

The theory that guided Washington and Adams was simple, and widespread at the time. If a consistent partisan majority ever united to take control of the government, it would use its power to oppress the minority. The fragile consent of the governed would break down, and violence and authoritarianism would follow. This was how previous republics had fallen into civil wars, and the Framers were intent on learning from history, not repeating its mistakes.

There needs to be more than two prominent parties but until major media, wall street billionaires and both prominent parties, open it for fairness it will always be controlled by power propaganda and money.

 

[barfo]

i disagree with so many of the policy positions of both parties', yet in order to impact the national election one would be forced rank the party policies', then to"hold one's nose" making the choice, hoping that the policy disagreements won't have as much of an impact as feared.

Wouldn't that be the case even if we somehow got rid of parties altogether, and every candidate was truly independent? You'd still have to pick the candidate which you agreed with most - you likely wouldn't get someone you agreed with 100%.

in a pew research poll of september 20-22nd 2020, fully 42% of registered voters are either independent or non affiliated. why is our choice of potential candidates held hostage by by the 2 parties, neither of which has a share greater than 28% in the coming election?

Because organizing has benefits. Teamwork gets the job done easier than everyone working by themselves.
Also the 42% overstates the number of independents. There are a lot of people who claim to be independent because they think it makes them look more thoughtful or because their social circle/community skews opposite from them, but vote straight-ticket D or R every election.

better question is how does this change? why is a purity test on policy allowed to so greatly influence monies for potential candidates and is this likely to change going forward?

As long as you have single-issue voters/donors, you can't avoid this. Short of requiring a civics exam as a requirement for participation in the political process, I don't know that it can be fixed.

it is my hope that some of the realizations concerning the present systems failures to be truly representative of the electorate, to disproportionately represent the interest of corporate monies, to cause conflict and to outsize the need to cater to extremism may be discussed and addressed during the next election cycle. hopefully we can move beyond the discussion to taking concrete reforms in the near future.

That would be great! Not holding my breath though.

i favor not only third party but fourth, fifth etc., etc. here is from a 3rd party platform that i personally agree with and that they may reflect opportunities to better represent us in the future.

• The House of Representatives and the lower houses of state legislatures should be elected by a system of proportional representation.

I'm ok with that one, although it would reduce the rep's connection to a particular district.

• All elections should be held using either a ranked choice system or approval voting.

I'm in favor of that.

• Voter registration should be easy, and laws attempting to restrict voter registration deserve opposition.

Better yet, why have registration at all? Why not just let every citizen over 18 vote?

• Access to impartial information on candidates and ballot initiatives should be easily available in public print and broadcast media.

  
  Good idea, but hard to deliver on. Who decides what is impartial information and what isn't?
  

• Independent and minor-party candidates for public office shall have fair and equal access to ballots. This right shall not be infringed by burdens such as exorbitant voter signatures and filing fees.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that's mostly a barrier. If you've seen a ballot with 30 candidates for the same office, then you've seen why there should be some minimal hoops to jump through to get on the ballot.

barfo

 

[lawai'a]

I could be wrong, but I don't think that's mostly a barrier. If you've seen a ballot with 30 candidates for the same office, then you've seen why there should be some minimal hoops to jump through to get on the ballot.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates

for the office of president the required signatures are vastly different, for example,
california requires a major party candidate to only get 26,500 signatures for the democratic primary
47,938 for republicans and the winner of the primary is applied to the california general election ballot.
but 196,964 for an independent to get on the general election ballot.
even oregon if a party candidate is not automatically submitted the requirement is 5,000, the standard for the independent is 17,893.
it is similarly weighted in nearly all of the states in precluding independet ballot access.
in oklahoma the filing fee for either major party is $5,000 the independent needs to cough up $35,000

 

[barfo]

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates

for the office of president the required signatures are vastly different, for example,
california requires a major party candidate to only get 26,500 signatures for the democratic primary
47,938 for republicans and the winner of the primary is applied to the california general election ballot.
but 196,964 for an independent to get on the general election ballot.
even oregon if a party candidate is not automatically submitted the requirement is 5,000, the standard for the independent is 17,893.
it is similarly weighted in nearly all of the states in precluding independet ballot access.
in oklahoma the filing fee for either major party is $5,000 the independent needs to cough up $35,000

That does sound unfair. But I'd argue that it isn't something that would keep a serious presidential candidate off the ballot.

barfo

 

[lawai'a]

That does sound unfair. But I'd argue that it isn't something that would keep a serious presidential candidate off the ballot.

barfo

but you left out ranked choice voting where ballot access is the most important criteria to equal access to the entirety of the potential electorate

 

[stampedehero]

Trump has a solid cult following of about 36% of the population (you know who you are).

There are another 0-8% that might vote for him, depending on which way the wind blows on election day. There's no indication at present that he could possibly get near 50%.

In a real two-person race, that would mean defeat. But if significant numbers of people vote for a 3rd party candidate, then it's plenty enough to win (see, e.g., 2016).

So I believe Trump will do everything he can to encourage third party candidates, up to and including financing their campaigns (or having some of his friends overseas finance them) with or without their knowledge, and/or bribing them with job offers, cash, girls, drugs, if that's what it takes. Or alternatively, blackmailing them.

So who is it going to be? There are already several possibilities:
Justin Amash - he'd peel some anti-Trump voters away from the Democrat
Andrew Yang - he seems to be aiming at independents more than democrats. I don't have any reason to believe he'd go independent if he doesn't get the D nomination, but he's well positioned to if that's his desire
Tulsi Gabbard - She seems to appeal to conservatives quite a bit, as evidenced here on S2. She has already shown some interest in being on team Trump. If she chose to, she'd take some votes from the D nominee.
Howard Shultz - entirely possible he gets back into it again, he really believes he should be president.
Someone from Green Party - will get a percentage of votes no matter who it is
Someone from Libertarian Party - same comment as Green

Others?

barfo

Lets explore a different route: Blackmailing The CEO of Costco. Pirates understand.

 

[lawai'a]

Also the 42% overstates the number of independents. There are a lot of people who claim to be independent because they think it makes them look more thoughtful or because their social circle/community skews opposite from them, but vote straight-ticket D or R every election.

link? i don't question many will do as you predict but truly how significant is that number especially with the influx of younger voters not tied to the old folks major party commitment.

 

[lawai'a]

As long as you have single-issue voters/donors, you can't avoid this. Short of requiring a civics exam as a requirement for participation in the political process, I don't know that it can be fixed.

ranked choice voting again.
remember when the social justice/union catholic voting block was one of the most significant demographics of the democratic party? pro choice/abortion is a litimus test now alienating those potential candidates and voters. Why insist on this issue being a pillar of the party? what happened to legal yet rare? i personally don't want to force pro life on other voters, but catholic candidates for social justice and pro union are out the door in this version of the party. roe vs wade is established law. the last 8 legal challenges in defense of religious freedoms have overwhelmingly won, the last by an 8-1 margin. significantly neither kavanaugh nor gorsuch joined judge thomas in opinion challenging the underpinnings of roe vs. wade. again a false dichotomy through fear mongering.
more candidates outside the litmus test, not the abortion test but all litmus tests that major party candidate must espouse, will offer opportunity for more candidates that more closely conform to individual voters. think how many republicans feel about the trumpian loyalty test.

ps. i am voting joe, the catholic candidate but this has cost the party significat votes. in pennsylvania it was the rural catholic working man/woman vote that was the difference in 2016 in wisconsin and michigan too. they used to be reliable democrats.

 

[Hoopguru]

link? i don't question many will do as you predict but truly how significant is that number especially with the influx of younger voters not tied to the old folks major party commitment.

I think many are independents so they don't feel like they have to vote a straight ticket as they may have not line up completely with one party or the other.

 

[lawai'a]

I think many are independents so they don't feel like they have to vote a straight ticket as they may have not line up completely with one party or the other.

because neither straight ticket is fully representative of their own positions on the issues.

 

[Hoopguru]

because neither straight ticket is fully representative of their own positions on the issues.

Thats why Im an independent. Ive voted Dem, Repub & libertarian for President in the past.

 

[riverman]

I WANT TO BE LABELED JUVENILE!

you want it stapled on the right ear or left ear?

 

[lawai'a]

Because organizing has benefits. Teamwork gets the job done easier than everyone working by themselves.

i would challenge the notion that it can we can only be divided into the two parties if ranked choice voting is allowed to flourish. i might posit that the 2 party system mostly allows for the channeling of monies and thus influence by the rich and corporate america. to me an adjunct to rank choice voting is necessarily the requirement to restrict/reign in the legal construct of the "personhood"of orginizations and corporations.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Thats why Im an independent. Ive voted Dem, Repub & libertarian for President in the past.

I voted for the libertarian candidate in 2012, which was the first presidential election I could vote in. Didn't vote in 2016.

To be honest, I didn't really align with many libertarian values, I just hated the two party system. Still do.

Edit: just remembered why I chose the libertarian, Gary Johnson. It was cause one of the main things he talked about was legalizing weed and I was a huge stoner at the time. That, and the two party hate.

 

[lawai'a]

George Washington’s farewell address is often remembered for its warning against hyper-partisanship: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” John Adams, Washington’s successor, similarly worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.

America has now become that dreaded divided republic. The existential menace is as foretold, and it is breaking the system of government the Founders put in place with the Constitution.

Though America’s two-party system goes back centuries, the threat today is new and different because the two parties are now truly distinct, a development that I date to the 2010 midterms. Until then, the two parties contained enough overlapping multitudes within them that the sort of bargaining and coalition-building natural to multiparty democracy could work inside the two-party system. No more. America now has just two parties, and that’s it.

The theory that guided Washington and Adams was simple, and widespread at the time. If a consistent partisan majority ever united to take control of the government, it would use its power to oppress the minority. The fragile consent of the governed would break down, and violence and authoritarianism would follow. This was how previous republics had fallen into civil wars, and the Framers were intent on learning from history, not repeating its mistakes.

There needs to be more than two prominent parties but until major media, wall street billionaires and both prominent parties, open it for fairness it will always be controlled by power propaganda and money.

#realcampaignfinancereforms

 

[lawai'a]

you want it stapled on the right ear or left ear?

 

[barfo]

but you left out ranked choice voting where ballot access is the most important criteria to equal access to the entirety of the potential electorate

Well, I didn't really leave it out:

• All elections should be held using either a ranked choice system or approval voting.

I'm in favor of that.

barfo

 

[barfo]

i would challenge the notion that it can we can only be divided into the two parties if ranked choice voting is allowed to flourish. i might posit that the 2 party system mostly allows for the channeling of monies and thus influence by the rich and corporate america. to me an adjunct to rank choice voting is necessarily the requirement to restrict/reign in the legal construct of the "personhood"of orginizations and corporations.

It's not clear to me whether it would or would not create more viable third parties. It might, but it could result in one of the two parties simply becoming even more of a monopoly party in areas where they dominate now.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Trump has a solid cult following of about 36% of the population (you know who you are).

There are another 0-8% that might vote for him, depending on which way the wind blows on election day. There's no indication at present that he could possibly get near 50%.

In a real two-person race, that would mean defeat. But if significant numbers of people vote for a 3rd party candidate, then it's plenty enough to win (see, e.g., 2016).

So I believe Trump will do everything he can to encourage third party candidates, up to and including financing their campaigns (or having some of his friends overseas finance them) with or without their knowledge, and/or bribing them with job offers, cash, girls, drugs, if that's what it takes. Or alternatively, blackmailing them.

So who is it going to be? There are already several possibilities:

Justin Amash - he'd peel some anti-Trump voters away from the Democrat
Andrew Yang - he seems to be aiming at independents more than democrats. I don't have any reason to believe he'd go independent if he doesn't get the D nomination, but he's well positioned to if that's his desire
Tulsi Gabbard - She seems to appeal to conservatives quite a bit, as evidenced here on S2. She has already shown some interest in being on team Trump. If she chose to, she'd take some votes from the D nominee.
Howard Shultz - entirely possible he gets back into it again, he really believes he should be president.
Someone from Green Party - will get a percentage of votes no matter who it is
Someone from Libertarian Party - same comment as Green

Others?

barfo

So rereading this, I obviously failed to foresee Trump's masterstroke choice of a 3rd party candidate: Kanye West!

That's what happens when Jared is your campaign strategist, I guess.

barfo

 

[lawai'a]

Well, I didn't really leave it out:




barfo

Sorry I missed it in your quotes

 

[lawai'a]

It's not clear to me whether it would or would not create more viable third parties. It might, but it could result in one of the two parties simply becoming even more of a monopoly party in areas where they dominate now.

barfo

I would predict the factions within the 2 parties to coalesce around separate centrist and a more extreme version of each. IMHO the centrist versions of each would see an exchange of members to include formally opposition party membership. Isolationist/ nationalist far right and socialistic farther left balancing remaining voters. Smaller blocks of true libertarian and green parties would likely remain. Coalitions to promote compromise and ending gridlock are two of the goals. Rank choice would allow for a more diverse house and senate with an executive branch that might balance them better. The electoral college is a difficulty for the presidency.Any suggestions? Improvements or points you doubt?
What we have now is turning nonfunctional and it fails the public imho. It has been this way since 2010, or 2008 from a republican perspective.

 

[Lanny]

THE HCP to get the Polish vote.

Will the Poles allow that?