Andrew Yang to launch a third party

[lewisnotmiller]

Our voting system is entirely structured to have more than two parties, but it's this mentality that is spread like Covid that keeps us back. Notions like the Democrats this past election, shaming people not to vote Third Party because "this isn't the time for that", "it's not the time to be selfish". There will never be an apt time for people like that. There will always be a Great Evil to politically defeat, and a reason to shame people into the nightmarishly ineffective Two Party system.

It's not structured to transition from current state (two parties) to a future state of multiple parties though. That would require people to consciously invest in a third/fourth/fifth party over multiple elections as they built credibility, at the expense of whatever party they have stopped voting for.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sure, sure...Dems & Pubs do their best to exclude
competition. But if voters really want something
different, options are there. But do they really
want different when they keep voting as they do?

Do you mean voting options? Sure.
But if your choice is between a libertarian candidate and a Democrat (as an example) you are basically forced to choose between a vote for the libertarians, or an anti-Republican vote for the Democrats. You can't vote libertarian AND use your vote to promote a non-Republican outcome.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

It's not structured to transition from current state (two parties) to a future state of multiple parties though. That would require people to consciously invest in a third/fourth/fifth party over multiple elections as they built credibility, at the expense of whatever party they have stopped voting for.

Is that a fault of the system or voter mentality and the Media? I argue it's the latter. There would be no fundamental change to the system itself if a majority of voters decided to vote for the Green Party rather than Democrat or Republican.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Is that a fault of the system or voter mentality and the Media? I argue it's the latter. There would be no fundamental change to the system itself if a majority of voters decided to vote for the Green Party rather than Democrat or Republican.

I don't see why it can't be both.
FPTP voting systems make voting for a minority candidate risky.

Let's say the Dem vote splits between the Democrats and the greens overnight. Congratulations, you have a three party system.

And the Republicans win in an absolute landslide, despite that not being an accurate representation of what the people...as a whole...actually want.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you mean voting options? Sure.
But if your choice is between a libertarian candidate and a Democrat (as an example) you are basically forced to choose between a vote for the libertarians, or an anti-Republican vote for the Democrats. You can't vote libertarian AND use your vote to promote a non-Republican outcome.

It can get complicated.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I don't see why it can't be both.
FPTP voting systems make voting for a minority candidate risky.

Risky, but not impossible. It wouldn't break our system if people were to vote for who they actually support, rather than who the RNC and DNC pressure them to vote for. We're told that voting Third Party is a pointless effort and would break the system, but look at who's telling us that. It wouldn't break The System, it would break theirs.

 

[ecco]

Former presidential and New York mayoral candidate Andrew Yang is set to launch a third party next month,

Great! Another candidate to pull votes away from the Democratic candidates and give elections to the Republicans. Nader killed Gore and we ended up with 9-11 and Afghanistan and Iraq. Spiteful Sanders supporters stayed away from Clinton and we got Trump and failed Covid policies and a Jan 6th insurrection.

Notions like the Democrats this past election, shaming people not to vote Third Party because "this isn't the time for that", "it's not the time to be selfish".

Notions like "Follow one leader and defeat the Republican at all costs". I'm for that.

It wouldn't break our system if people were to vote for who they actually support, rather than who the RNC and DNC pressure them to vote for.

The people actually supported Ralph Nader and elected Bush. That's the factual, historical reality. Anything else is a utopian fairy tale.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Great! Another candidate to pull votes away from the Democratic candidates and give elections to the Republicans.

Thank you (not really) for perpetuating the Great Lie as referenced prior. Can't wait to hear all about the next Great Evil that we must fervently vote Democrat to save the nation from, or else we're giving it away to those evil, moustache-twirling Republicans...

 

[ecco]

Thank you (not really) for perpetuating the Great Lie as referenced prior. Can't wait to hear all about the next Great Evil that we must fervently vote Democrat to save the nation from, or else we're giving it away to those evil, moustache-twirling Republicans...

If you don't remember the effect Ralph Nader had on the 2000 Bush/Gore election, then I suggest you read up on it.

If you think it is a lie that Ralph Nader cost Gore the election, then no amount of research is going to change your mind.



Sanders voters had much more in common with Clinton's policies than with Trump's policies. Yet many of them thought like you and wanted to defy the Great Evil of the DNC. Trump became their president for the next four years and took away many of the things they favored (eg. Paris Accord) and gave them things they abhorred (eg. expanded oil leases, expanded logging).

You cannot show support for a candidate by helping to elect someone who stands in opposition to your candidate's policies.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Yet many of them thought like you and wanted to defy the Great Evil of the DNC.

Interesting misrepresentation of what I've said.

 

[Stevicus]

The people actually supported Ralph Nader and elected Bush. That's the factual, historical reality. Anything else is a utopian fairy tale.

How many Democrats refused to vote for Nader? They are the ones to blame for electing Bush, not those who voted for Nader. Democrats should have voted their conscience, and if they didn't, that's on them, and no one should try to deflect the blame on those who did.

 

[We Never Know]

If you don't remember the effect Ralph Nader had on the 2000 Bush/Gore election, then I suggest you read up on it.

If you think it is a lie that Ralph Nader cost Gore the election, then no amount of research is going to change your mind.



Sanders voters had much more in common with Clinton's policies than with Trump's policies. Yet many of them thought like you and wanted to defy the Great Evil of the DNC. Trump became their president for the next four years and took away many of the things they favored (eg. Paris Accord) and gave them things they abhorred (eg. expanded oil leases, expanded logging).

You cannot show support for a candidate by helping to elect someone who stands in opposition to your candidate's policies.

Gore won the popular vote.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Risky, but not impossible. It wouldn't break our system if people were to vote for who they actually support, rather than who the RNC and DNC pressure them to vote for. We're told that voting Third Party is a pointless effort and would break the system, but look at who's telling us that. It wouldn't break The System, it would break theirs.

My point isn't that you shouldn't vote for the party or candidate that best represents your views. It's just that a FPTP system doesn't value this approach equally.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

How many Democrats refused to vote for Nader? They are the ones to blame for electing Bush, not those who voted for Nader. Democrats should have voted their conscience, and if they didn't, that's on them, and no one should try to deflect the blame on those who did.

I don't see why this precludes consideration of the impact of the voting system though.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't see why this precludes consideration of the impact of the voting system though.

My point was that there are two ways of looking at it. People say that Nader spoiled the election for Gore, but in my opinion, Nader was the far better candidate. Why blame Nader and those who voted for him, when it could just as easily be turned around and blame Gore and his supporters for Nader not being elected?

That would not preclude consideration of the impact of the voting system. But in the end, the system is only as good as the voters.

However, I would agree that some changes to the system could improve things a bit.

One idea that's been floated around in the past is requiring all state party primaries to occur on the same day. No more of this "New Hampshire Primary" deciding the candidates for the whole country. Have it all on the same day, and eliminate the conventions, too. They're pointless anyway.

Or another possibility would be to eliminate political parties altogether. Every candidate would be an independent. If they have a certain number of petition signatures, they can get on the ballot. (The same process is used in recall elections.) No party primaries at all.

Also, one thing that's problematic with our political system is that it's so toxic and media-driven - and media are generally thirsty for scandal and drama. This isn't an atmosphere conducive to the best and the brightest stepping up and running for office.

There's an excellent movie with Robert Redford called The Candidate. It's from 1972 and a bit dated, but it's still a rather interesting portrayal of a political candidate and what it's like to be on the campaign trail. Many of the issues are still the same as they were back then.

 

[ecco]

Interesting misrepresentation of what I've said.

I don't see where I misrepresented anything.

Did you not say...

Thank you (not really) for perpetuating the Great Lie as referenced prior. Can't wait to hear all about the next Great Evil that we must fervently vote Democrat to save the nation from, or else we're giving it away to those evil, moustache-twirling Republicans...

What did I misrepresent by commenting...

Yet many of them thought like you and wanted to defy the Great Evil of the DNC.

 

[ecco]

Gore won the popular vote.

Please try to keep up with the context. Gore did not win the popular vote in Florida. Too many people voted for Nader instead of Gore and Gore lost Florida and therefore the electoral college.

 

[ecco]

How many Democrats refused to vote for Nader? They are the ones to blame for electing Bush, not those who voted for Nader. Democrats should have voted their conscience, and if they didn't, that's on them, and no one should try to deflect the blame on those who did.

The vast majority of Democrats did vote their conscience and voted for Gore. Gore was the primary opponent to Bush. You seem to be under the impression that the majority of Democrats actually favored Nader over Gore. That's nonsensical. You have nothing to substantiate that assertion.

Nader was for the Clean Water Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act. One can assume these were important to the people who voted for him. One can also be certain that Gore's policies on these issues were much more closely aligned with Nader's than Bush's policies. The people who voted for Nader, especially those in Florida, prevented Gore from beating Bush. The Nader supporters cut off their own noses and got Bush.




ETA:

My point was that there are two ways of looking at it. People say that Nader spoiled the election for Gore, but in my opinion, Nader was the far better candidate.

The key words being "in your opinion". Again, you have nothing to support that opinion.

To me, and I'll assume many democrats, Nader was a publicity hound who really hadn't done much of anything other than writing a book years before.

 

[Stevicus]

The vast majority of Democrats did vote their conscience and voted for Gore. Gore was the primary opponent to Bush. You seem to be under the impression that the majority of Democrats actually favored Nader over Gore. That's nonsensical. You have nothing to substantiate that assertion.

You have a bad habit of projecting what you think other people are saying, without actually reading what they're saying.

I'm saying the Democrats should have voted for Nader. It was a mistake for them to vote for Gore. If they preferred a political hack like Gore over Nader, then that's on them. I have no sympathy for them.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I don't see where I misrepresented anything.

Well, namely in that I didn't call the DNC a "Great Evil". Try reading that quote a bit closer.