view the rest of the comments
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Evan McMullin's vote total in Minnesota in the 2016 Presidential election was larger than Hillary Clinton's margin of victory. Gary Johnson's vote total was almost 3 times McMullin's total. Johnson's vote total was larger than Clinton's margin in Colorado, too. If it weren't for third-party voters, Clinton would've had an even worse electoral college drubbing. (Perhaps this is the case in other states, too. Those are the two that I know off-hand.) Much has been made about how Jill Stein's vote total in Wisconsin in 2016 was higher than Clinton's margin of defeat, but without any 3rd party candidates, she would've lost by even more.
In 2020, Jo Jorgensen's vote total in Wisconsin was larger than Biden's margin of victory, as well as in Minnesota, Arizona, and Georgia. Her vote total in Pennsylvania was very close to Biden's margin of victory there. Without 3rd party candidates, Biden would've lost in 2020.
This article is about Rep. Tim Walberg, who blew out Democratic Party challenger Bart Goldberg in 2022. The 3rd party candidates in that race were from the Libertarian and U.S. Taxpayers parties. Without them, Walberg's margin of victory would've been greater.
It's absolutely true that voting third party is a really dumb strategy that will never achieve anything good and could conceivably allow for worse outcomes. It's also true that this potentiality is way overblown because of ineffective Democratic politicians using third parties as an excuse for their pathetic underperformance.
People freaking out about third parties having a spoiler effect are basically making the case for an alternative voting system like Ranked Choice. Oh a spoiler effect exists? Good point, let's fix it. Thanks for bringing it up! Very helpful of you to point that out for me.
I get why Republicans hate more democracy, but what is the excuse for the blue states? Maine and Alaska have done away with first past the post voting, why hasn't yours yet? The Republicans don't control every single one of the states still using FPTP.
Back in the mid -1990s, an outfit called the New Party tried to remedy the issue by a different angle, called fusion voting. That's a practice which lets more than one party nominate a candidate, and the candidate's name appears more than once on the ballot. That way, different parties can team up, eliminating the spoiler effect, and the winning candidate knows from whence their support comes.
You'd think that the Democrats would be all about that? Think again. Minnesota's state law bans fusion, and the Supreme Court held that the ban does not violate the 1st Amendment right of freedom of association, on the ground that the state has a compelling interest in preventing electoral chaos. That's patently ridiculous, as New York allows it without issue. The DFL could change the law in Minnesota, but they still have not. The New Party subsequently disbanded, and only one former affiliate (Progressive Dane) is still active.
The two major parties work along the same lines to hinder voters to protect their own power, and this is only one example. But I still think of that case when people insist that 3rd parties should build their base in state and local races. That's when I learned that, at the bottom line, the Democratic Party cares more about its power and prerogatives than what's good for the country. Just like the GOP.