• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Our current electoral system is inherently biased against 3rd parties.

    That’s true until it isn’t. Year-over-year, the nation can only support two parties nationally and one dominant party state-by-state. But which party (and which coalition of leaders) hold power can change in wave years, particularly when strong third party campaigns force rival parties to cater to the independent vote to get over the 50% hump.

    There’s a podcast called Hell of Presidents that does a great job of documenting the rise and fall of state party organs and their impact on the national scene. The rapid collapse of the Federalists, the rise of the Jacksonian Democrats, the collapse of the Whigs and emergence of the Republicans, the rise and fall of democratic socialists, and the emergence of liberal progressives, movement conservatives, libertarians, and neoliberal democrats all begin with third party bids in small states.

    While we don’t have more than two distinct parties in the US, we absolutely do have factions within the main two parties that have regionalized and polarized constituencies that are fighting for control of the national party apparatuses. Even setting aside guys like Trump and Sanders, just check out Nebraska’s Indie dark horse contender Dan Osborn, whose union organizing is putting him ahead of both party candidates.

    • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      when strong third party campaigns force rival parties to cater to the independent vote to get over the 50% hump.

      I’m not saying 3rd parties have zero influence, but they just don’t succeed frequently enough for it to be called fair. The spoiler effect is far too strong for that to happen.

      we absolutely do have factions within the main two parties that have regionalized and polarized constituencies that are fighting for control of the national party apparatuses.

      Absolutely. But because of the spoiler effect, the two parties are held together with glue. Reforming our electoral system would weaken that glue, and hopefully fracture them enough to make a difference.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        they just don’t succeed frequently enough for it to be called fair

        Statistically speaking, the majority of campaigns are going to fail. There’s one seat and, unless it is uncontested, a minimum of one losing candidate. But politics isn’t a one-and-done game. Its a game of coalition building and expanding name recognition. Starting off as a third party candidate, establishing a message and a political brand, and then canvasing your neighborhood to build up your appeal is fundamental to most successful politicians.

        But because of the spoiler effect

        The spoiler effect only matters to losers. If you’re the guy with the plurality of support, you’re in the best position to win.

        Sometimes, the winning move is simply to carry the banner of the dominant political party (which is why you’ll have a dozen people compete for the Texas GOP gubernatorial nomination while only two or three bother trying to run as Dems). But other times, it really is about issues-based politics and name recognition.

        Schwarzenegger was able to win in California by being a famous popular guy. Sanders won in Vermont by being a high profile well-respected mayor of the state’s biggest city. Joe Lieberman lost his primary but held onto his Senatorial seat back in 2006 by rallying the Democratic Party leadership around him even after he’d lost the state party nomination.

        Bush beat Gore in 2000 not because of a Green Party spoiler effect (Nader actually pulled more Republicans than Democrats in the state) but because he had die-hard conservative activists willing to risk jail to shut down the recount with the Brooks Brothers’ Riot, while Al Gore’s party just kinda shrugged and gave up as soon as the Republican-leaning SCOTUS sided with the Republican candidate. Hell, the 2000s were awash with caging, disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, and outright election stealing from the top of the ballot to the bottom. Third parties didn’t have anything to do with that.

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Statistically speaking, the majority of campaigns are going to fail.

          That wasn’t quite what I was getting at. Roughly half of all positions are democrat held, the other half republican held. 3rd parties make up such a small percentage of the existing seats, hence the “they don’t succeed frequently enough for it to be called fair” statement.

          The spoiler effect only matters to losers.

          Not really. Take the green party for instance. They definitely don’t align with the democrats, but they can at least agree on some things, where as them agreeing with republicans is far, far more rare. So it is in the interest of green voters that green politicians get voted in most, followed by democrat politicians, then republican.

          But when they split the vote due to the spoiler effect, it ends up meaning the worst of the worst options gets voted in, a republican. And that should matter to the 3rd party losers.

          Third parties didn’t have anything to do with that.

          They don’t have to. The threat of splitting the vote is more than enough for everyone to vote strategically, which means 3rd parties don’t get any votes.

    • 🐱TheCat@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s true until it isn’t.

      The way you change that is election reform. Not thoughts and prayers and spoiler votes when one of the 2 big parties is running a wannabe-dictator.

      Think, if fools in Florida didn’t vote 3rd party in 2000 you’d never have bush or the war in iraq, and we might have given a shit about global warming.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        The way you change that is election reform.

        Can’t even get DC statehood with a Dem majority and Presidency. Couldn’t do it when we had a 60 vote supermajority in 2008. We’re certainly not going to get it through the courts, given how the SCOTUS is stacked.

        Think, if fools in Florida didn’t vote 3rd party in 2000 you’d never have bush or the war in iraq

        The majority of green party votes came from registered Republicans. 2000 was decided by mass deregistering, disenfranchisement, and intimidation of the state’s black voter population, combined with the Brooks Brothers Riot that halted the ballot counting long enough for the conservative SCOTUS majority to certify the election in Bush’s favor.