We don’t need to have major-party presidential nominees to have a conversation about a third-party spoiler candidate affecting the 2024 presidential election. F…
They don’t. That’s why the word “might” is in the headline.
The simple math is that if you vote third party, it always helps the remaining candidate you like the least. This is because it reduces the number of votes needed to win.
If you live in a gerrymandered district (house), or a state (senate, president) with winner takes all then your vote doesn’t count anyway unless the vote s normally close. Voting 3rd party in that situation (most people) is actually less of a waste. If the third party gets starts getting close to being included in debates the two electable parties will strive to do better. Right now the bar is so low because there is no competition.
Well, I lived in Canada over 3 election cycles, and I saw the riding I lived in go to the conservatives with 40% of the vote in 2 of them. If the incumbant MP didn’t go to jail, it probably would have been all 3.
Again, it isn’t politics, it is simple math. In a plurality voting system, voting for a 3rd party (by definition, the candidate with the least support) always increases your chances of getting what you perceive as the worst outcome.
I don’t think everyone assumes this, always. Ross Perot is an old, but good example of the opposite.
But the current state of US politics shows that Republicans are a more loyal and secure voting base then democrats. And there are several examples of the right promoting third party candidates to “spoil” for democrats. Look at the legalize marijuana party in MN, where it was run and funded by Republicans. The “no labels” party that just cropped up also has a lot of Republcan backing.
Why does everyone assume that if the third party candidate weren’t there the votes would go to the Democrat?
They don’t. That’s why the word “might” is in the headline.
The simple math is that if you vote third party, it always helps the remaining candidate you like the least. This is because it reduces the number of votes needed to win.
If you live in a gerrymandered district (house), or a state (senate, president) with winner takes all then your vote doesn’t count anyway unless the vote s normally close. Voting 3rd party in that situation (most people) is actually less of a waste. If the third party gets starts getting close to being included in debates the two electable parties will strive to do better. Right now the bar is so low because there is no competition.
Being a lifelong third party voter, I’ve heard the “spoiler” line probably a thousand times, and always from Democrats.
Anecdotal, sure… but that “might” is a hedge and we both know it.
Well, I lived in Canada over 3 election cycles, and I saw the riding I lived in go to the conservatives with 40% of the vote in 2 of them. If the incumbant MP didn’t go to jail, it probably would have been all 3.
Again, it isn’t politics, it is simple math. In a plurality voting system, voting for a 3rd party (by definition, the candidate with the least support) always increases your chances of getting what you perceive as the worst outcome.
I don’t think everyone assumes this, always. Ross Perot is an old, but good example of the opposite.
But the current state of US politics shows that Republicans are a more loyal and secure voting base then democrats. And there are several examples of the right promoting third party candidates to “spoil” for democrats. Look at the legalize marijuana party in MN, where it was run and funded by Republicans. The “no labels” party that just cropped up also has a lot of Republcan backing.