Voting third parties (that probably don't have a chance)

I got in a disagreement with my father today about voting third parties. I want to start off by making this about voting third parties in general, then I'll give my specific spill to that situation at hand.

People say you shouldn't vote for third parties (or forth, if you live in a country like the UK where there are 3 establishment parties) because "they'll never win". Personally I think that's a weak argument because the only reason they don't win is because too many people have that kind of attitude to begin with.

There are people (in America for example) that would never vote for third parties except for Perot when he could have actually won, and then you have people like me that support third parties on a much more regular basis, and finally I suppose those that would never vote for them at all.

Jill Stein is who I'd vote for, as the third party thing pertains to American politics.

Why? For two reasons. First, too many democrat supports are jerkwads. Second is that the D's had a supermajority/surge after Obama won and they accomplished very little even with all that on their side. "Obamacare" has been an absolute joke, let's be honest. Now working-class people are being penalized for not having coverage and employers are forcing people to work part time so they won't have coverage. America's healthcare has been a total joke and rates are going higher than ever. Thanks, Obumer.

On the other hand you have to think of all those companies that got bailed out. Yes I suppose that saved jobs for little people and that's better than nothing. On the other hand you have to remember so many rich billionaries took the many and ran from those bailouts.

So all in all the democrats are still very much a corporate party, giving the Koch brothers a wet dream because even if the Republicans don't win, the Democrats are barely any different.

The problem is that third parties never get any media coverage whatsoever. So people are right to think that these will never win, and that changing this mentality will not change anything either. Even if all the people who think third parties would never win but would vote otherwise if they could, and are won over to vote on a third party, third parties still won't have any chance, because my guess is that 80% of the American public does not know that there is a Green or Libertarian party to begin with.

Voting for a 3rd party does matter here in Australia with preferential voting.

caketastydelish said:

People say you shouldn't vote for third parties (or forth, if you live in a country like the UK where there are 3 establishment parties) because "they'll never win". Personally I think that's a weak argument because the only reason they don't win is because too many people have that kind of attitude to begin with.

Click to expand...

A major difference between the US and UK is that the US uses a first past the post system. Over time such systems tend to lead to 2 parties.

wikipedia said:

A first-past-the-post (abbreviated FPTP or FPP) election is one that is won by the candidate receiving more votes than any other(s). It is a common, but not universal, feature of electoral systems with single-member legislative districts, and generally results over time in a two-party competition.

Click to expand...

Mind you we have first past the post here in Canada too and we have 4 major parties and 1 minor one that is trying to claw its way into becoming the 5th (and so far succeeding only in the number of votes - 5% - but not in seats - only 1 ever).. But I think our unique situation with Quebec changes things somewhat.. and mind you I have no idea if this is the reason why we haven't suffered the same fate as the U.S.

As for supporting 3rd parties, I used to vote for Canada's "5th party" - the Green party.. I used to vote for them, because each vote gets them more funding, so even though there was little chance of them winning the seat in my riding, a vote actually helped them a bit in terms of sustainability and growth. But then I found out that homeopathy and other nonsense made its way into their platform, and so I can't really vote for them any more - as they are openly supporting pseudoscience as a viable way to look at the world - which makes them idiots.

The problem with third parties is they never do the smart thing and build loyalty/organization from local elections up. They know they're never going to win the presidential election, senate, or congressional races, so why waste effort on it for a few thousand votes?

Instead, compete in local mayoral, council, or state positions. Get geographic loyalty, build a name for yourself, and then go national. Start small, rather than go big and then go home because you went too big.

Sure, it's a far slower process. But it's more effective for getting your platform into positions of power, building a solid base, and spreading your message.

warpus said:

A major difference between the US and UK is that the US uses a first past the post system. Over time such systems tend to lead to 2 parties.

Click to expand...

Mind you, the UK also uses FPTP.

It's just that the UK has a number of small parties with strong regional presence - regionalist parties like SNP and Plaid, and the Lib Dems and UKIP in certain constituencies. Somewhat like the situation Joecoolyo suggested.

Or even better yet abandon FPTP 'cause it's stupid.

caketastydelish said:

People say you shouldn't vote for third parties (or forth, if you live in a country like the UK where there are 3 establishment parties) because "they'll never win". Personally I think that's a weak argument because the only reason they don't win is because too many people have that kind of attitude to begin with.

Click to expand...

This is why my province of Alberta was ruled by the Social Credit from 1935 until 1971 and by the Conservatives from 1971 to the present day. Social Credit is basically the Conservatives but with added religion, bigotry, and intolerance, so we have a situation where there are no adult Albertans born/raised/still live here who have ever experienced any other kind of provincial government. There are people who want change, but we are far outnumbered by those who say the Conservative or Wild Rose party are the only viable choices. Some who claim they want change in the end get talked out of casting a vote to the Liberals or New Democrats "because it would be a wasted vote."

Well, duh, of course those other parties won't win if you don't give them a chance! And now I see that there are rumblings that we'll have a provincial election this year instead of next, as was originally supposed to happen. Of course, when the leader of the Opposition crosses the floor to join the ruling party, that's a sign of even more bizarre things to come and lots of people wondering just what she was promised to betray her constituents like that.

warpus said:

A major difference between the US and UK is that the US uses a first past the post system. Over time such systems tend to lead to 2 parties.



Mind you we have first past the post here in Canada too and we have 4 major parties and 1 minor one that is trying to claw its way into becoming the 5th (and so far succeeding only in the number of votes - 5% - but not in seats - only 1 ever).. But I think our unique situation with Quebec changes things somewhat.. and mind you I have no idea if this is the reason why we haven't suffered the same fate as the U.S.

As for supporting 3rd parties, I used to vote for Canada's "5th party" - the Green party.. I used to vote for them, because each vote gets them more funding, so even though there was little chance of them winning the seat in my riding, a vote actually helped them a bit in terms of sustainability and growth. But then I found out that homeopathy and other nonsense made its way into their platform, and so I can't really vote for them any more - as they are openly supporting pseudoscience as a viable way to look at the world - which makes them idiots.

Click to expand...

Warpus, have you ever signed an online petition that's addressed to all the federal party leaders? Ever emailed them? I have and what happens is this: The Conservatives (who are really still the Reform Party) ignore letters from anyone who they know didn't vote for them. The NDP might send an automated acknowledgment, first in French and then in English. Justin Trudeau never emails anyone except to ask for donations. Elizabeth May of the Green Party sends an email thanking the sender for communicating with her, answers any questions raised, provides links to additional information, mentions what the party plans to do about the issue, and there will probably be some mention of the issue in a further newsletter.

Guess which party leader has earned my respect?

To be fair, especially in America, a system in which forces parties to cooperate in coalitions is rather impossible.

Are there any times when Democrats/Republicans resorted to a coalition with a third party? Hell, is there a case of coalitions in America?

classical_hero said:

Voting for a 3rd party does matter here in Australia with preferential voting.

Click to expand...

First preferences matter for electoral funding, AFAIK. So I'll always put a third party as my first preference so the two majors don't get the funding for my vote.

Tolni said:

To be fair, especially in America, a system in which forces parties to cooperate in coalitions is rather impossible.

Are there any times when Democrats/Republicans resorted to a coalition with a third party? Hell, is there a case of coalitions in America?

Click to expand...

Essentially, the major US parties are rival coalitions containing multiple political parties. Compared to European political parties, there is rather little ideological discipline within both parties. The Democrats contain Social Liberals, Socialists and even White Nationalists. Republicans have Libertarians, Theocrats and Neocons. There is everything for everyone in every major party. One can wonder why people even bother to form Third Parties in the US.

Man, even the political parties in America are corporations.

taillesskangaru said:

Mind you, the UK also uses FPTP.

It's just that the UK has a number of small parties with strong regional presence - regionalist parties like SNP and Plaid, and the Lib Dems and UKIP in certain constituencies. Somewhat like the situation Joecoolyo suggested.

Or even better yet abandon FPTP 'cause it's stupid.

Click to expand...

Hey, you're right, I'm not sure how I missed them on the list of countries that use it.

It seems that regional parties is what get in the way of FPTP systems turning into a 2 party race? Seems to be the case for Canada and the UK.

Valka D'Ur said:

Elizabeth May of the Green Party sends an email thanking the sender for communicating with her, answers any questions raised, provides links to additional information, mentions what the party plans to do about the issue, and there will probably be some mention of the issue in a further newsletter.

Guess which party leader has earned my respect?

Click to expand...

That's one of the reasons I liked the Greens - they reach out to their constituents and potential voters. They feel like a more of a personal party.

But it doesn't change the fact that they support voodoo magic in their platform, which is something Elizabeth May is on record as saying that she supports. So I have no choice but (for now) to put them in the "these people are crazy" pile, which means that I will never vote for them until they change their ways. It doesn't seem that they will - they are pulling in all the crazy anti-vax, anti-gmo, homeopathy, hippie/whatever/crazy people types and turning into a bit of a pseudoscientific collection of idiots. I can't vote for people like that - they may say they care about the environment, which is what drew me to them initially, but you will not help the environment if you throw away science and replace it with whatever you want. That's just crazy.

warpus said:

Hey, you're right, I'm not sure how I missed them on the list of countries that use it.

It seems that regional parties is what get in the way of FPTP systems turning into a 2 party race? Seems to be the case for Canada and the UK.

Click to expand...

I think UK politics has only ever been a two-and-a-bit party system, and I'll stand by that judgement until we actually get results for the next election. In practice, the political agenda is set by the government, and the government is inevitably formed from one of two parties or (as with the current one) a compromise arrangement hugely favouring the larger.

The United States will have to change its electoral system to entertain more than two parties. Unfortunately both the existing parties are unlikely to do just that.

Canada enjoys diversification with at least three parties federally having influence (Conservative, Liberal, New Democrat) and two others with 2 and 1 seats respectively (Bloc Quebecois and Green). This is in part owed to the former per vote subsidy and regional diversification of politics. Canada should explore electoral reform nevertheless or risk the possibility (although I believe it to be more than unlikely) of a merged left.

Flying Pig said:

I think UK politics has only ever been a two-and-a-bit party system, and I'll stand by that judgement until we actually get results for the next election. In practice, the political agenda is set by the government, and the government is inevitably formed from one of two parties or (as with the current one) a compromise arrangement hugely favouring the larger.

Click to expand...

Nevertheless, Canadians should remain envious of the willingness to form coalitions in the UK parliament even if the compromise favors the party with the greater amount of seats.

I don't even vote but if I did Id vote for green.

warpus said:

Hey, you're right, I'm not sure how I missed them on the list of countries that use it.

It seems that regional parties is what get in the way of FPTP systems turning into a 2 party race? Seems to be the case for Canada and the UK.

Click to expand...

It is also the case for India and Pakistan.

In fact of the major democratic countries using FPTP (or really just democratic countries in general) the United States is kind of an odd one out with its solid two-party sytem. Not even the two-and-a-half of the UK or Australia.

I can't vote for people like that - they may say they care about the environment, which is what drew me to them initially, but you will not help the environment if you throw away science and replace it with whatever you want. That's just crazy.

Click to expand...

You guys have the NDP anyway. For the non-strawman environmentalist that's probably a better bet.

The Australian Greens seem to be quite sane by world Green Parties standards. Maybe that explains our modest electoral success? (I guess it also helps that there's really no competing socially-liberal left-wing party of any significance unless you count the socialist half of the ALP)

caketastydelish said:

People say you shouldn't vote for third parties (or forth, if you live in a country like the UK where there are 3 establishment parties) because "they'll never win". Personally I think that's a weak argument because the only reason they don't win is because too many people have that kind of attitude to begin with.

Click to expand...

On the American Left, there was a fight about whether people voting for Ralph Nader cost Al Gore or John Kerry the election. I know Democrats who are livid with Nader supporters (who I think all came from the Left), not because Nader couldn't win, but because Gore or Kerry may have won with just a little more support.

Tolni said:

To be fair, especially in America, a system in which forces parties to cooperate in coalitions is rather impossible.

Are there any times when Democrats/Republicans resorted to a coalition with a third party? Hell, is there a case of coalitions in America?

Click to expand...

In a sense, the two parties we have are coalitions that we're forced to follow, coalitions without the agility to change their alliances. The Democratic Party encompasses people who, in other countries, would be a Labor Party, a Social-Democratic Party, a Liberal Party, and a Green Party. The Republican Party could be viewed as a coalition of a Conservative Party, a Libertarian Party, a Nationalist Party, and a Traditional Values Party.

It's easy to imagine a couple of these imaginary sub-parties having common cause on certain issues, but being unable to work together because they're tied to their respective blocs. For example, Social Democrats and Libertarians on law enforcement, Labor and Nationalist on immigration, or Greens and Values on the environment.

As stated, the Democrats and Republicans in America aren't really parties in a political science point-of-view. They're coalitions composed of various groups. If you can identify yourself with one of those subgroups, you are better of voting for your group in the primary for the run-off. Afterwards, you may still vote for the third-party guy if you so desire, but if you come from the corner of "I want my vote to have some sort of influence", you'd need to look for the primaries.

Of course, representation of all groups in society would be better achieved with some sort of a proportional system. We have upcoming elections here and my district gets to vote for 10 out of 90 MP which allows me to pick and chose and not have to decide for one party as I have doubts in all of them. Granted, I do not have the time to look into everyone in detail, but I don't need to, their party, place-of-living, age, job, etc. tells me a lot already. And of course the "current MP" tag which is usually a reason not to put them on my list

Here's what I think:

I think the idea that the "only reason 3rd parties don't win is bc people think they can't win" isn't really true. American third parties face significant structural issues (some of which have been explained), have HUGE fundraising disadvantages, and most importantly, lack the talent and the organizational structure of the other two parties.

There's a lot more to winning an election than ideas and money. You need people to crunch data, to help organize voters, volunteers to make phone calls and contacts....and third parties have generally had a terrible record of producing any of that stuff. It doesn't help that the two largest in the US, the Libertarians and the Green Party, don't really have large, built-in voter constituencies like the larger ones do.

I now believe that even if you live in a non-competitive area, there is value in voting for a 3rd party candidate to show dissatisfaction with the status quo...and that can matter for a city council, mayoral or congressional seat. If you are really invested in seeing a third party succeed though, you should work to making them more competitive in as local an election as possible.