I know. But my point is that there are MORE than two ways of looking at it.
I actually don't disagree with anything you're saying, except that in a FPTP system,behaving multiple candidates representing similar views against a single candidate representing opposing views, the single candidate almost invariably wins.
That is absolutely not the case with a preferential voting system...regardless of whether candidates are independent or party-backed.
I think a preferential system would help improve some of the weaknesses in the current system, which reinforces binary voting habits, imo.
It could work. I'm not sure if many people would go for it, though. That's part of the problem. There's too much political inertia in this regard, and people are pretty set in their ways. Nobody really wants to change the system or rock the boat.
A lot of the problem has to do with the fact that many things are decided at the state level, so unless a party has a viable apparatus in every state, they're going to be at a disadvantage.
Surely you can see that having two progressive candidates reduced the chance of either being elected against a single conservative alternative though?
Of course, but I wouldn't consider Gore to be progressive. There's been an ongoing rift between progressives and moderates within the Democratic Party. In a lot of ways, I think the Reagan-Bush era may have thrown a lot of Democrats for a loop. In fact, Reagan got a lot of crossover support from Democrats. I think the Democrats got tired of losing elections and had to find someone who was more pleasing towards big business, and that's when they found Clinton.
Teddy Roosevelt ran in 1912 under the Progressive Party ticket (aka "Bull Moose"), against the incumbent Republican Taft and the Democrat Wilson. Roosevelt was a former Republican himself, and ostensibly split the Republican vote, leading to Wilson's victory. On the other hand, Roosevelt was still fairly popular, so it's possible that he could have won if more Taft voters voted for him.
My point is, I'm not inclined to accept any criticism of those who vote third party as "spoilers," and I also think it's unfair to blame them if the candidate one hates is elected in the process.
The deeper part of the problem at hand here is that America overall seems to be more conservative and provincial in how they view politics. The Democrats might be taking a more pragmatic and expedient approach by appearing more conservative (at least in terms of economic and foreign policies). That's why their tendency is to select the safe candidate, even if they're mediocre and questionable.
On the other hand, young progressives like AOC could probably shake things up and put a new face to the party. I'm not saying that the Democrats have completely sold out, but they need to get back to basics.
