Why isn't there a viable third party in the US?
The Dems could be thrown under the bus, The Reps are proving to be not something yet cowards while it comprises the cost variety! Why crumple to those morons!? actual! there must be some qualified contributors of the final public, who could step into those idiots footwear at a moments be conscious!! particular! we desire a workable government, so why the Hell are not WE the folk doing something approximately it!? do not tell me, we are scared to tell those idiots the place to bypass!!! isn't THIS what the Colonials fought for all those years in the past? those adult males are taxing us to dying in basic terms like King George did! To Hell with the tea, we've sufficient toxins in our seas already! we've the hands, so enable's teach our Forefathers we've the heart to stand as much as those adult males, in basic terms like they did!!
Why not vote third party?
i'm heavily pondering it. i ask your self how many human beings do not because of the fact they think of they could be helping the different guy win. think of in the event that all of them did it besides. i assumed i could vote Bob Barr (even even with the indisputable fact that I hate his moustache) or writing in Ron Paul. ask your self whether there are various others questioning of doing a similar element? DAR: I did some checking and located this: "How can we tell human beings to not write in Ron Paul in November? In almost each state, write-in votes are actually not counted until eventually the candidate has a) registered as a write-in candidate, and/or b) the version between the 1st- and 2d-place applicants' variety of votes is under the variety of write-ins. I see maximum of people online say, "i'm nonetheless writing in Ron Paul," with out understanding (or perchance being concerned) that their write-in vote will neither rely nor pronounced to the media." right here is what Ron says: "I don’t think of that’s very efficient. Supporters can do it, of course, yet in many of the states it gained’t count variety. And in the event that they might exchange the guidelines in a typical and not count variety each and all of the votes, think of what they might do with write-in votes!" It sucks. i actual prefer to deliver the message that he's the guy i want. yet while no person would be attentive to, what's the element?
Why is a third party not viable in the U.S.?
Third parties have a really hard time in a “winner takes all” First Past the Post voting style, which is what we use in the U.S. First Past the Post is where each voter gets one choice and the candidate with the most votes wins. This sounds like a good, common sense method on the surface but it isn’t.I strongly recommend watching this videoThe main points are that, when each person gets one vote choice, it ends up:Allowing rule by a minority orOptions evolve to two main choicesCompiling the math of First Past The Post voting with voting districts and gerrymandering and it gets even more complex. A way to get more choices would be systems like Ranked Choice Voting.Ranked Choice Voting is a little hard to explain but basically, it allows people to select more than one candidate to vote for, but with an order of preference. So if you use the 2016 election as an example, you may be a voter who hates Donald Trump but also really disliked Hillary Clinton. You may have found a candidate like Jill Stein very compelling. In our current First Past the Post voting system, Jill Stein had no chance of winning, but morally, you felt you needed to vote for the candidate you believed in so you threw in your ballot of Stein.In Ranked Choice Voting, you could have voted Stein first, and Clinton second. Ideally, you’d like Stein to win but Clinton is still the ‘lesser of two evils’ for you, so you pick her as a second choice.When the votes are counted, if Stein doesn’t come out as the winner, your vote count goes to you next choice, Clinton. The net result here is that more progressives may have actually put in a vote for Stein, since their vote would no longer be ‘wasted’. Over time, a system liked RCV could increase the viability of third parties.If this is difficult to understand, I also recommend this video which provides a good example of how it works.
Why doesn't the United States have a centrist third party like Canada's Liberals?
I believe the reason for the two-party system in the US has nothing to do with “first past the post.” Elections in Canada are also conducted on a first-past-the-post system.I also think that the Democratic Party is the centrist party that performs part of the function of the Liberal Party in Canada, though it seems to be as much on the right on many issues as the Conservative Party in Canada.The difference is not the missing middle, but the missing left. There is no American equivalent of the New Democratic Party.I don’t fully know why not, but anti-Communist rhetoric and laws were surely part of the reason. Great, great Americans were firmly on the left, such as Paul Robeson and Pete Seeger. They had no mainstream party to speak for them, so they sympathized with or joined the Communist Party instead, despite McCarthyism.Imagine an alternate timeline in which a socialist government was elected in one low-population, mostly rural US State and instituted single-payer healthcare, etc., etc. That would be equivalent to the CCF (Cooperative Commonwealth Federation) which became the NDP once it allied with the union movement.Maybe, in that alternate timeline, the Wobblies could have done it. I don’t think the Democrats could or would absorb them.
Why isn't there a third major political party in the United States?
The two parties won’t allow it… they have the power now, and they have no interest in diluting it. They do this by controlling the debate boards, and their influence of the press, etc. As well as their financial strength and established funding sources. They leave little room for third parties to get in the door… get on ballots, get competitive airtime, be on national debates. They both “collude” to “dismiss” any such candidates… simply that they are not “viable” options… a pretty effective argument to most simple people… who want to vote for the winner… or feel that if they “waste” their vote (I strongly disagree that it’s a waste to vote for the best candidate) on the ‘purple party’ — that the “other guy” will win… and that’s the worst thing that can happen is that the other guy wins. With that basis, we’ll never have a major third party. People have to be willing to risk the other guy will win in the short-term. Too many people only vote along their party lines…. and are sheep.Platform: It’s not clear to me exactly what their platform would be. It’s not really compelling to say… we’re the “middle party.” One needs some compelling policy that they are promoting. The Libertarian party is close in many ways, but still falls short. While I love the concept of a smaller federal government, in favor of larger state governments - generally… the fact is… we need a government that is able to deal with some issues… that the Libertarians seem to want to say is not the governments role. The short here is, any party needs to get about at least 20–25% of the population to “identify” with them, with three major parties. It’s marketing… we need to find some effective marketing campaign … which could just be that the two parties in power are corrupt as fuck. They are both flawed, both corrupt. They are both bad. Maybe the “Transparency Party” … for those that believe the people empower the government… and they do our work, our business. Its’ not about policy specifics as much as the ideology that government needs to answer to the people… but that requires the people care enough. So that’s dead. People have enough to worry about, they don’t care enough.
Why is there no centrist party?
In the United States the reason is pretty simple. To most policy questions there are 2 answers. Either we do something or we don’t do it. Either something is legal or illegal. Either you vote for a candidate or you don’t.The system of voting we use doesn’t leave a lot of room for nuance, and the conservative party in the United States in particular has managed to weaponize this concept as a political strategy. In recent decades they have seized upon and exploited key issues to keep their base riled up and voting in their favor regardless of their other positions. That leaves the more liberal-leaning party little to do but argue against those key positions.In theory there could be a party that tried to split the middle. There doesn’t seem to be any logical reason why a party couldn’t accept legal abortion and oppose tax increases for example. What the parties in the US have largely managed to do is coalesce around their fundamental positions and demonize the opposing view. Therefore once a person agrees with one piece of the party platform they are fed a steady diet of why what everything the other party believes is not only wrong, but evil.Liberals don’t really want to allow women the right to choose, they want the tax-payer funded right to murder children!Liberals don’t really want common-sense gun laws, they want to take your guns away to let Mexican rape gangs raid your house!Liberals don’t really want to raise your taxes, they want to take all your earnings to give filthy immigrants free food and healthcare that you can’t have!Liberals don’t really want fair elections, they want to weaken voting laws to make it easier for illegal immigrants and black people to commit voter fraud and elect more Democrats!I’m sure there are conservative examples of stuff that liberals say along similar lines, but being liberal-leaning and having heard all these ridiculous things said regarding my positions I’m a bit bitter.
Why does it seem impossible for a third party to emerge in the US?
People have explained the external incentives that drive the number of parties to just two, but also consider the fact that the same factions as other countries exist here. Greens, Libertarians, Social Democrats, Fascists, Nationalists. These ideologies are still tied to narrow groups of people in every country. But rather than forming a proportionally elected government in the U.S. and then forming a ruling coalition, the two parties here have pre-formed those coalitions before the election.I really doubt you would contest the assertion that there is an environmentalist wing of the Democratic Party, a Libertarian wing of the GOP, and so on. All of the identities that you can think of for, say Germany, also exist in the U.S., already as parts of the two main parties.Factions in the Republican Party (United States) - WikipediaFactions in the Democratic Party (United States) - WikipediaThere is rarely any switching of factions or sizable demographic groups from one party to the other. These happen once every generation or two, not every election as you might see in the UK. We had a massive migration of Southern conservative Democrats who abandoned their party because of the continued support of civil rights by the Democrats. And the GOP, despite originally ending slavery, opened their arms to overt racists and took them into the party in order to get numerical superiority. This is the well known Southern strategy - Wikipedia.So, there is an internal challenge that runs along side the external incentives against voting for a third party. A group that is already part of a coalition would have to leave this big brother and become their competitor. Oh sure, there are the most extreme of the Green Party and the Libertarian Party that try this, so uncompromising in their stance that they cannot be part of the Democratic or Republican coalitions. But the idea that the Progressive wing is ready to abandon the resources they get for their candidates as part of the whole Democratic Party is not very plausible. Same for the Christian Right saying adios to the Libertarian Wing, even though they have some obvious ideological incompatibilities.So that’s the other side of why there are just two parties.
Why isn't there a popular moderate party?
When the person who gets the most votes wins (pluralistic elections), there is a political science law that states that over a large number of elections, the system tends to have two and only two parties. Why? Suppose that a partisanship score of 50 is exactly in the middle, with a standard deviation of 10 (that means that 95% of people in the country are between 30 and 70), where 0 is perfectly conservative and 100 is perfectly liberal. Party 1: 60Party 2: 40Party 3: 52In the absence of Party 3, Parties 1 and 2 constantly fight over the electorate, each trying to stay as liberal (or conservative) as possible while still appealing to at least 51% of the electorate. Suppose Party 3 pops onto the scene, in between Parties 1 and 2. Each of the three parties is jockeying for position because they each want the largest slice of the electorate. So, both parties 1 and 2 converge on the center to eat away at Party 3 support. Party 1, for example, can move all the way down to a score of 53 and still retain all voters with more liberal scores. Party 1 can move all the way up to 51 and still retain all more conservative voters. If Party 3 doesn't move, then most of its support is parsed between the other two parties, and the conservative party ultimately wins. But remember: although Party 3 was a slightly liberal party, its existence caused the conservative party to win. In other words, it didn't win the election itself. It just acted as a spoiler. AND, it spoiled in favor of the party that it liked least of the two pre-existing parties. This is simply one example, but the overall point--that your policy positions are thwarted if you split the support of the party you liked most of the two pre-existing parties, and thereby cause the party you liked least to win--is salient, and it implies that the emergence of third parties is likely to be followed swiftly by a compromise, whereby the closest party to the new third party moves its positions closer to the third party, and the third party willingly melts into the pre-existing major party. Sometimes, it happens in reverse--the new third party will absorb one of the two pre-existing parties. Still, the result is the same-- 2 parties.
Youtube Matched third party content?
when youtube says matched third party content or videos blocked in some countries and then it says but you have to do nothing, is that fine??? should i delete my videos or its really OK to keep it on My Videos for public view? I just wanna make sure coz on my old account I have some of these warnings saying its ok its just blocked in some countries or its ok there would just be some ads as your video plays, so i did not delete them and then one day my account says CLOSED. not accessible. everything's gone. so i wanna make sure.
Why are third party candidates not included in the Presidential debates?
The Commission on Presidential Debates, though officially nonpartisan, is co-run by representatives of the Democratic Party and Republican Party. Between the two of them, they have no wish to lose any votes to third parties, especially after Ross Perot in 1992.They've agreed to specifically exclude third party candidates by requiring anyone wishing to participant in the debate to get at least 15% average in polls, while at the same time most of those polls do not include third party candidates among their options.Is it fair? Arguably not. But the CPD is a private, not public organization, and can pretty much do what they want with regards to excluding people. You can sue for discrimination, as Gary Johnson and Jim Gray did in 2012, but because of the political nature of the debates and the controversy it would inevitably bring, you probably won't be able to find a judge willing to stick his neck out to rule in your favor.