The newest political party on the ballot in three states has Democrats terrified

I don't see it. The Libertarian ticket (which I voted for) was the biggest 3rd party vote getter at 3%; that would have cost Trump. The Green Party was the next biggest with 1%. There were 9 other 3rd party choices on the 2016 ballot, who amounted to about 0.25% combined. There were more than 2 dozen 3rd party choices on the 2020 ballot, including Libertarian & Green tickets.

 

I can't speak for you, obviously, or others, but I was never going to vote for Trump. I just could not stomach voting for a Clinton and thus voted 3rd party.

I know of a few others that did the same, but that is just anecdotal.

 

Choosing Stern, as a running mate, makes this ticket, a joke.

 

Stern/Bababooey would be a better ticket...

 

~ At this point in USA it may just be the winning ticket ...

~ May as well throw in Whoppie Goldberg for good measure !

 

You would do well to check your impressions against facts because, based on this post, the corroboration is poor. IIRC, Nader received less than 2% of the vote. If that small amount leads to a candidate's loss, the blame belongs on the candidate, for having such a slim margin, that his victory is dependent upon no other, non duopoly candidates, running.

Likewise, though we agree, I think, on this: no candidate but Hillary Clinton, is to blame for her loss to Trump, by taking the middle of the country, too much for granted.


As for Arizona, however-- you have no basis for not seeing that state, as a hotly contested battleground. For background, here are Arizona's last 6 Presidential results:

2000-- GW Bush, +6.3%

2004-- GW Bush, +10.5%

2008-- John McCain, +8.48%

2012-- Mitt Romney, +9.63%

2016-- Donald Trump, +3.5%

2020-- Joe Biden, +0.3%: 49.36% to 49.06%.


Not saying, of course, that Biden couldn't win again, in a rematch, but only that, if that
state that looks "bluish" to you, it might be advisable to have your vision checked.

 

What if you want both the left and the right to lose? There's been many a elections where that has been the case for me.

 

what's undemocratic is limiting our choices to 2. What is undemocratic is having Republicans and Democrats write our election laws as a mutual protecttion act in order to ensure no viable third party ever rises.

 

~ I feel that way most of the time — especially lately ...

~ " In America we have a two party dictatorship. "

~ Ralph Nader ​

 

never happen, the 3rd party will always split one or the other

unless you have ranked voting....

 

Even with ranked voting, third party candidates will always be the losers. There’s no way any third party candidate can compete with the billions the two major parties spend. Look at 2020, Biden spending 1.6 Billion, Trump 1.1 billion. In third place in the money race, Jo Jorgensen at a bit less than 3 million. You can rank vote those, but being outspent 2.7 billion to less than 3 million, foregone conclusion, one of the two major party candidate will win.


https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race


Alaska type of jungle primary then ranked voting in the general election among the top 4 finishers in the jungle primary. That proved interesting. Although you still had a republican and democrat win. We have jungle primaries here in Georgia for special elections. We also have a law that a candidate must receive 50% plus one vote to be declared a winner or go to a runoff with the top 2 finishers. That happened between Warnock and Walker this time around. I like that also, ensuring the winner receives a majority of the vote, no plurality winner. Ranked choice is a different method with the same results. Ranked choice might be okay if one has a second choice. I didn’t between Walker and Warnock. I disliked both, so I voted for Chase Oliver the Libertarian candidate. Of course he lost as Walker and Warnock went to a runoff. I never bothered to vote in the runoff as I didn’t give a coyote’s howl who won between them. It would have been the same with ranked voting. Oliver my first choice, not second or third choice as I wanted both Walker and Warnock to lose. Same with the 2016 presidential, I wanted both Clinton and Trump to lose, I voted for Gary Johnson. no second choice there either as I didn’t give an owl’s hoot who won between them.

 

~ Adam Schiff said that Pootin can get someone elected U.S. president ... '

 

maybe, but with ranked voting at least you're not splitting the vote and getting the candidate that really fewer voters wanted

 

I voted for 3rd party, although Johnson was a hopeless candidate. Before that I supported Ron Paul who I considered 3rd party even though he was Republican. He was a conservative Republican, - who are almost extinct by now. .

 

Therein is the problem. I view ranked voting as a means of getting those who won’t vote for either of the two major party’s candidates in a normal general election to vote for one or the other major party candidate at some time during the process. If not in the first round, then in the second or third. A gimmick to get everyone to eventually vote for a major party candidate. A devise where the major parties have the last laugh on those who are against or dislike both major party’s candidates to vote for one.


Here in Georgia, I can vote third party against both major party candidates if both disgusts me. Naturally if neither major party candidate doesn’t get the 50% plus one vote as required by Georgia election law, they go to a runoff. Then if both still disgust me, I don’t want to help either one win an election, I can stay home and not vote in the runoff. I suppose I could leave my 2nd choice blank in rank voting if that’s allowed. But I think I’m more apt to stay home knowing rank voting is nothing more than a bit of covert arm twisting to get every voter to vote for one or other major party candidate. A hidden arm twisting hoping the voters won’t discover this.


Still Alaska’s method of ranked voting intrigues me. A jungle primary, all candidates listed on the ballot regardless of party, perhaps as many as 10 or 15 with the top 4 finishers going on the ballot for the general election. That I like. No Republican or Democratic primary, just one with everyone listed on the ballot, republicans, democrats, independents, third party candidates, all of them. This I think could cut down on the hardcore extremist from both major parties as they would have to attract the more moderate voters. Ranked voting during the general election on the 4 finalists? There the goal is the same, eliminate the independents, the third-party candidate and make everyone vote for one or the other major party candidates as their 2nd or 3rd choice. Still, If I read Alaska right, their method did produce more moderate winners, Murkowski and Peltola. If that’s the case, I could probably support Alaska’s method of ranked voting. Only if there’s a jungle primary, no Republican nor Democratic primaries. That would be a must for me to gain my support.

 

yes, but if people start to feel comfortable voting 3rd party, they can vote for the one they really think is best... that only happens with ranked voting

otherwise, I think we are stuck with a two party system

no party based primaries is prob a bad idea, as then one party would vote for the worst of the other and vice versa

 

I think just the opposite would happen. But that is just conjecture. I think those more moderate voters would by pass the two major party extremist candidates. This is why Alaska intrigues me so much. I love jungle primaries any way. The difference between Georgia’s jungle primaries for special elections, like we had for senator and congress is in Georgia, only the top two advances to the general election whereas in Alaska it’s the top 4. I could live with either one.

 

Interesting point.
Problem is, is how to tabulate which party these voters are peeled from. The Forward Party (Yang and Whittman) No Labels (which TBH, I had never heard from) could peel from both parties. Traditional democrats that feel that their party is veering too far left, and republicans that feel that their party has gone apeshit.
Certainly there is a history of third parties spoiling the elections (Anderson,Nader, and Perot come to mind. Jorgensen, if Trump hadn't been shellacked in 2020), but honestly I have never seen a tabulation of where these votes came from. As someone noted, Independents are now the largest party in the US, but to be honest, most of them are purely partisan and just prefer to think of themselves as independent free thinkers. In reality, I think a vast majority of them vote one party line.
Historically we think of Perot as handing the vote to Clinton, but in fact, it would seem that he took as many, if not more, Clinton voters than Bush voters. With him at least, we had a measuring stick: when he withdrew and then came back into the election.
For these tiny parties, it really is hard to tell.
One thing for sure is that Yahoo news really stinks.
Anyways. Food for thought. Thanks for posting

 

I think they would vote for the one they really wanted... then vote against the worst

the risk of the current system is if you vote for the one you really want, the worst may win by default as you split the vote

 

That's my opinion of independents too. They are not some growing third force ready for the right third party to lead the country to sanity and normality, they are partisans of one party or another that feel slighted that their party wasn't "pure" enough so they left them in name, but still will be voting for them come election time.

 

That’s true for some. Many voted for the candidate they want to lose the least although they want both to lose which is an impossibility regardless of what system is utilized as the two major parties have a monopoly on our electoral system. That isn’t about to change regardless of the method used to vote. In 2016 for example, 54% of all independents disliked and didn’t want neither Trump nor Clinton to become the next president. Most out of that 54% voted for either Clinton or Trump. They voted for as you stated, the least worse candidate of the two, the lesser of two evils in their mind. But 12% of all independents stuck to their convictions and voted third party against both major party candidates.


What would have happened if they had to make a choice? CNN asked that question if third party voters in 2016 since there was 8 million of them in their exit polling. Given the choice of only Clinton or Trump, no third party or independent, who would you have voted for. 19% answered Trump, 15% Clinton, 65% said they’d stayed home and not voted. Voting against both Clinton and Trump was so important to those 8 million third party voters, that it drove them to the polls to vote for a candidate they knew had no chance of winning. Perhaps, like me, it was so important that my vote be officially registered against both Clinton and Trump. It didn’t matter which type of voting scheme was utilized, I would have never voted for either one. If CNN exit poll is correct, neither would have 65% of those who voted third party. I’d have stayed home whether than be forced to choose between Clinton and Trump. So too would those 65% who said they’d stay home whether than choose between the two major party candidates. Just like the runoff between Warnock and Walker last year, I didn’t want neither one to be a senator from Georgia. When forced to choose between them in the runoff being I voted for Chase Oliver in the general election, I opted out by staying home for the runoff. I wanted no part, no way was I going to help either one become the senator from Georgia. If one was to become a senator from Georgia, that was on other people’s bloody hands.

Neither in 2016 general election nor in 2020 did I split the vote between the major party's candidates. If the two major parties want my vote, then give me decent candidates. If not, I will continue to vote against both or not vote at all. I'll not help evil candidates or vote for the least worse or the candidate I want to lose the least if both are considered evil in my mind.

 

agree, but if they had ranked voting they would not have to vote against the person they wanted to lose... that is the point

 

The newest political party on the ballot in three states has Democrats terrified
​

 

The best chance I can for a third party to affect the presidential race will be of Trump somehow does not get the Republican nomination. I could see him storming off in a temper tantrum running as an “Independent.” In that case, the Republican nominee would have no chance of winning. The only wild card result could be the first presidential race that ended up in the House of Representatives since 1824. Either way the Democrat nominee would probably win.

The only path for Republicans would be if they controlled a majority of states in the House. In the case of a House determined presidential election, each state gets one vote regardless of its size.

 

I think if DeSantis keeps doing stuff like pulling the liquor license from the Hyatt for allowing children to be groomed in preparation to be perverted and maybe raped, he really has a shot