Choosing Not to Choose
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In the spring of 2012, I found myself alone for several minutes in a network green room with Ben Bradlee, the legendary editor of the Washington Post, who was at the helm of the paper during its glory days of the Pentagon Papers and Watergate.
It being an election year, our conversation turned to politics and Bradlee told me something that was utterly surprising coming from a veteran Washington editor: that he didn’t vote in elections. Why? He didn’t want to compromise his judgment as a journalist and editor by forming an attachment to candidates he’d voted for and would later have to publish stories about.
Though outwardly I nodded my head politely, I remember inwardly scoffing. “Come on,” I was thinking. “You’re famously liberal, and the paper you ran for years has been a reliable organ of the center-left in this country, with documented bias in its news pages, let alone its editorial voice.” But I didn’t say any of that, and shortly afterward others were in the room. Bradlee, who was already over 90 at the time, died a few years later. It was the only time our paths crossed.
’m not sure Bradlee was honest about not voting, but I now think there is something true about his stated rationale. We do form attachments to the candidates we vote for—especially if they win and wield power. We feel instinctively that we should defend what they do, even—or especially—when defending them is hard. When the president, or the senator or governor, is “my guy” because I voted for him, I feel something of my own integrity at stake. I’m inclined to rise in his defense. He has enemies? Of course he does—he’s in politics. They will be my enemies too.
As I said, I don’t know whether Bradlee was putting me on. He had a close personal friendship with John F. Kennedy from the time JFK was a senator, and he even wrote a book about it a dozen years after the president’s death. Did he really not vote for him in 1960? Maybe Bradlee settled on his habit of nonvoting in later years. But if he did at any time give up voting, then it freed him, as a journalist, to report on liberals as well as conservatives when the story wouldn’t be flattering to them. Liberal he might be, but perhaps not personally invested in any particular politician’s success.
For at the end of the day, that is what voting is: a kind of investment. Not of our money, but of ourselves—our will, our intention, our passion, and our conscience. Of course, our investment can be a light matter to us, if we cast our vote in a throwaway mood, thinking “better this guy than the other guy.” Then we might cut our emotional losses when he disappoints us. “Live and learn.” Yet paradoxically, if it took a great effort to “screw your courage to the sticking place,” as Lady Macbeth put it—if, that is, you had to swallow hard to vote for a candidate, and he won—you may find your investment in him very heavy, and your felt need to defend him equally so.
“Vote as if your ballot determines nothing whatsoever—except the shape of your own character,” the piece concluded. “Vote as if the public consequences of your action weigh nothing next to the private consequences. The country will go whither it will go, when all the votes are counted. What should matter the most to you is whither you will go, on and after this November’s election day.”
There is nothing in what I said then that I would now retract. I rejected the idea that I, as one individual, must treat my choice as confined to the binary of Clinton versus Trump, as though the weight of the outcome were on me alone. It is frequently the case that we vote for one major-party presidential candidate principally because we are against the other one—usually because we find “our guy” a less than optimal choice but “the other guy” strongly repellent. But when we conclude that both of them are wholly unfit for office, our habitual partisan commitments, and our fond hope that the one representing “our side” will be normal, or guided by normal people, do not compel us to cast a vote in that direction. What we must consider, I argued, is not our role in the outcome of the election (which is negligible, and unknown to us when voting), but the effect on our conscience and character of joining our will to a bad cause.
Tags
Who is online
400 visitors
No one should feel pressured to vote for a clown.
This is no longer about either man. It is about the future of the country.
How do we want our kids & grandkids to live?
They'll figure it out and probably do a far better job than we have.
mine won't be living under the thumb of a bunch of christo-fascist thumpers ...
I’d like them to live without fear of dying from an ill fated pregnancy that can’t be terminated, even if it is threatening to terminate them.
That’s an irrational fear. No hospital in this union would intentionally allow the death of the mother in such a case.
Nope, not one. Not without the mother making the decision.
Nothing is irrational about fearing the mortal risk of childbirth...
Nothing rational fearing for the mortality of the mother in childbirth in this country. Not specifically related to the abortion debate that is.
Nope.
You should change the channel once in a while.
Right back at ya!
I should change to a channel that purposely omits actual real news that conflicts with their preferred narrative? What you said above is absolutely false. You would know that if you just took a break from fake news. Or, you know, there’s always google.
I have to wonder when he started doing her - probably way before puberty.
How long have you been wondering that?
That's why I'm voting AGAIN for President Biden.
Why would anyone vote for a ranting raving deluded demented freakshow clown psycho/sociopath traitor convicted felon like #34?
Ike isn't running.
He's dead.
It would be nice if typo-warriors followed suit.
Did I say convicted felon? 34 times convicted felon? Therefore, #34
[Deleted][✘]
"What we must consider, I argued, is not our role in the outcome of the election (which is negligible, and unknown to us when voting), but the effect on our conscience and character of joining our will to a bad cause."
Very simple concept that so many just can't seem to grasp.
I think that to a large degree that might be attributed to the fact that different people define "a bad cause" differently!
“Vote as if your ballot determines nothing whatsoever—except the shape of your own character,” the piece concluded. “Vote as if the public consequences of your action weigh nothing next to the private consequences. The country will go whither it will go, when all the votes are counted. What should matter the most to you is whither you will go, on and after this November’s election day.”
Well if that's the case-- why bother voting at all?
Some folks say if you vote for anyone other than the two leading candidates, you are sitting the election out and letting the really smart people decide for you.
Never been quite explained how voting for the one who loses isn't a wasted vote, though.
if you want your vote to matter, mathematically, there is no point in voting in a presidential election. Even in Florida, in 2000, no one individual vote actually mattered.
I wasted my vote once. Never again.
I never waste my vote, my conscience is clean. As there are over 160 million registered voters in the US, a single vote doesn't carry all that much weight on the national stage so I vote as my heart wants me to. I really don't care what other people say about who or what I should vote for, my vote is mine alone.
Listening to people telling me how to vote reminds me of fans of some NFL teams, who during mini-camps loudly proclaim that this is the year their team wins the Superbowl when the betting line out of Vegas has their team finishing with a four win season.
Vote or don’t vote as your conscience dictates. After all, you are the one who has to live with it,
I bet you have, if you’re being honest with yourself that is. Few politicians are what they say are. One of the reasons so many like Trump. What you see is mostly what you get. More than most politicians. Certainly unlike the LOTUS in office right now.
A quote from a man that many of us respect for varied reasons
Barack Obama
"There's no such thing as a vote that doesn't matter."
Certainly not a belief adhered to by some on NT.
Obama’s opinion doesn’t slay me but rhetorically speaking, in this case, I agree with him.
Some say if you don't vote for a major party candidate, you wasted your vote.
I voted 3rd party in the last two elections and I'll do it again if I choose to. Cannot in good conscience vote for the two current front runners.
It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you are trying to build a viable third party and all you do is cast a vote on election day, then you are wasting your vote. A viable third party will not magically appear because a minority of people cast votes to the handful of disparate non-viable third parties in the USA. That is far too little, too late.
See @7.2 for details.
If, however, you are like Ed (and I suspect Robert too) and will not vote for someone he considers unfit on principle, then, as I have stated many times, that is certainly an understandable position. But that is not what you have argued. You have argued that you are trying to create a viable third party. Your approach is not going to work ... look at that past 150 years for mountains of evidence. Too little, too late. To create a viable third party requires substantial effort and merely sprinkling votes around on election day is not going to cut it.
so my post was accurate.
Could have simply said that instead of a couple paragraphs.
I suspect others will actually read what I wrote and note that you have yet again got it wrong.
I suspect strongly that Ed, for example, understands from my post that I would not claim that he wasted his vote.
But one would have to read and understand what I wrote to appreciate this.
I got nothing wrong, and no amount of spin will change that fact.
In this day and age, where the Democrat and Republican parties are no longer the voice of Main Street, but the puppets of Wall Street, it is natural that a Third Party should appear to champion the traditionally conservative proposition that the Constitution is the blueprint for the operation of the government of the United States.
Some will say that a 3rd party isn't viable and we shouldn't waste our votes on them.
I feel we can get better candidates than what we have now.
Of course, if we never vote for anyone else, how does a 3rd party ever become viable?
Too many sheep for voters today.
Too many people willing to vote AGAINST someone instead of FOR someone.
What I find amazing is some feel they have the moral high ground because they are voting for a senile old pedophile over a convicted felon who they have elevated into a bigger threat than he actually is. It’s like saying being shot in the heart is better than shot in the head because your face is still pretty.
You are spot on there.
I liked the shooting in heart or face thingy!
To me, it is almost like folks solely committed to voting against someone have played right into the parties' hands.
One can agree with you in concept but it practice it doesn’t work that way. I bought into it hook line and sinker once and it’s going to take a hellava lot of convincing to do it again.
Perot got nearly 20% of the popular vote and zero electoral college votes. Zero. Nope never again. Not until I feel confident, very confident, that a majority of people feel the same way.
In practice, if nothing changes, nothing changes.
Are you really happy about the candidates this year?
Happy enough to keep going along, voting exactly how a party wants you to no matter how bad the candidate?
Of course something must be done. But it is important to take actions that are not futile. Merely reactively voting is demonstrably futile. For the past 150 years, people have reactively voted third party and nothing has come of it.
Sure, it is easy to vote for a third party on election day. But you get what you pay for and 'easy' does not result in the formation of a viable third party.
It would take a major league, well-managed effort to break through the USA two-party system. I outlined what I believe is necessary @7.2
Just keep voting for a D or an R.
You get what you vote FOR.
I am serious about change, put my vote where my mouth is, and realize that doing nothing because it is just too hard results in nothing.
If you vote for Biden and he loses, will your vote have been wasted since others decided who would be President?
You are dodging (yet again).
What is the practical, realistic method that you propose that will produce a viable third party given that merely voting reactively (as you propose) has done nothing in the past 150 years?
You are asking the wrong question. Do you really think voting for a third party will give you the change you are looking for this year?
No, I don't, but can not in good conscience vote for one of the asshats leading.
I just don't have it in me to vote against someone, I want my vote to be for someone.
The next PotUS (barring something extraordinary) will be Biden or Trump. Do you prefer Biden over Trump or Trump over Biden? They are not equivalent (by any stretch of the imagination) so every voter should be able to determine which of the two is better for the nation.
Do you prefer Biden over Trump or Trump over Biden?
I hear ya.
Don’t agree with ya but respect your opinion.
BTDT
Something not in dispute, so why bring it up yet again?
I really can't believe you asked that. I have been CONSISTENTLY CLEAR I PREFER NEITHER!
If my multitude of comments saying I want neither and will vote for neither wasn't crystal clear, it sure should be by now.
Yet again, not something I have ever argued. In FACT, I have said they are not equally bad.
Not sure how to put it any more clearly. Personally, this just looks like badgering at this point or you haven't been paying any attention to my posts.
Asked and answered ad nauseum.
Now, will your Biden vote be wasted if he loses?
Then you see no difference between the two. Trump and Biden are 100% equivalent to you. Bullshit! I doubt anyone believes that you cannot conceive of any significant difference between Biden and Trump and that you do not care if Biden is elected or Trump is elected.
Your comment history clearly shows that you find Biden substantially worse than Trump. So why would someone who is clearly wholly against Biden and only mildly against Trump (based on comments) not use their vote to get the better of the two?
Why am I challenging you? Because you are repeatedly mocking those of us who plan to cast our vote for the candidate (of the two) who is best for the nation. Your gratuitous and irrational mocking will continue to be met with the logical challenge of your claim to not have a preference over which of the two wins. The argument is based on your wholly lop-sided comment history which is entirely negative on Biden and on rare occasion negative on Trump but only on minor points (e.g. he makes fun of people) while ignoring the major points (he is a traitor who is the only PotUS who attempted to steal a presidential election).
Utterly false and kind of presumptuous.
Utterly false, again, and a ridiculous claim.
Indeed. All bullshit thus far into your post.
And I'll bet that most can see you are arguing against things you connivingly assigned to me but can never quite manage to quote me on.
please stop harassing me and claiming what I think.
Will your Biden vote be wasted if he loses?
There are basic logical truths. One of them is that two things are equivalent or they are not equivalent. If they are not equivalent then there is difference upon which one can make a decision as to which is preferred.
There are, indeed, but your post doesn't contain it.
I don't understand why you persist when you won't even acknowledge when I post something directly contradictory to your false claims.
Once again, equivalency is your invention, not mine. please read my entire post 6.1.12
will your Biden vote be wasted if he loses?
No. A vote by an individual does not guarantee a win. If you think that a vote is wasted unless the candidate wins they you have a profound misunderstanding of the concept of voting.
Then if you believe they are not equally bad you have the opportunity to use your vote to help elect the better of the two. You choose (you say) to not do so. Fine. But you should not then mock those of us who are acting on the differences we see and using our right to vote in exactly the manner in which it was intended to be used.
I don't think that, which is why I have never told someone their vote was wasted.
the mocking isn't coming from me.
You refer to people voting for Trump or Biden as "unpatriotic fools".
and you refer to some as unpatriotic, irrational, etc.
Point?
you have also said directly to me that I was sitting it out and letting others decide if I didn't vote for Trump or Biden.
thus my question to you about a wasted vote.
You are mocking people for deciding between Trump and Biden.
My comments are consistently that voting for Trump (the act, not the actor) is irrational, irresponsible, and unpatriotic. And I back that up with facts and logic (e.g. Trump is the only PotUS to attempt to steal a presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement).
You are mocking the voters themselves — stating that people who vote for one of the two candidates are unpatriotic fools.
I don't imagine you can quote me doing what you claim, again.
[✘]
No need to imagine:
according to you, voting for a traitor is unpatriotic, irresponsible, and irrational, but when I say it, you call it mocking. what is it when you do it?
How was that mocking? He was simply making an opinionated observation
Yes, Texan, the act of voting for Trump is demonstrably irresponsible, irrational, and unpatriotic. I have made that argument numerous times. You are repeating what I just stated.
The key difference is that I distinguish between an act and the individual. My best friend is likely to vote for Trump. I consider his vote to be irrational, irresponsible, and unpatriotic. But he has been and will forever be my best friend because I do not attribute my criticism of his voting act to him personally. I do not consider him to be an irrational, irresponsible, or unpatriotic person ... he is just (IMO) making a great mistake.
You deem all who vote for either Trump or Biden to be "unpatriotic fools". Big difference.
you can spin it any old which way but you are saying the same thing, but calling me out fir mocking when you're doing the same thing.
that is irrational and hypocritical.
its always different when I do it
Or you can make a decision that neither one of the frontrunners deserve your vote.
oh, no, then you are wasting your vote, sitting it out, and letting others decide.
Of course you miss the point.
I have stated repeatedly that choosing to not vote for either is a legitimate course of action. So you are simply repeating what I have already established many times now in this forum.
My point has been that it is logically wrong to mock people who choose to use their vote to help determine the better candidate for the presidency. And those who do that mocking are on shaky logical grounds if they think that merely voting for a non-viable candidate (or not at all) is somehow a more effective, smarter, ethical way to use one's vote. It is not. And I have explained why @7.2, @6.2 and beyond.
you have mocked me for months merely for me refusing to vote how you think I should.
If all you do is reactively vote for a non-viable candidate who happens to be on the ballot (or write-in) thinking that this is going to help build a viable third party then yes, Texan, you are wasting your vote. We have over 150 years of history showing that merely voting on election day is an act of futility. See @7.2.
In the meantime, for those who do see a difference between the two main candidates —one of whom will be PotUS— then not using one's vote to choose the better of the two (even if both choices suck) is wasting one's vote.
See, you still are telling me I'm wasting my vote because I vote differently than you!
From the article:
"What we must consider, I argued, is not our role in the outcome of the election (which is negligible, and unknown to us when voting), but the effect on our conscience and character of joining our will to a bad cause."
“Vote as if your ballot determines nothing whatsoever—except the shape of your own character,” the piece concluded. “Vote as if the public consequences of your action weigh nothing next to the private consequences. The country will go whither it will go, when all the votes are counted. What should matter the most to you is whither you will go, on and after this November’s election day.”
Be true to yourself, not so hard to understand, even if you don't agree with it.
oh, I definitely get it!
No, Texan, that is not at all what I am saying. Do better than invent strawman arguments.
I am arguing that you are wasting your vote IF you think that merely voting for a non-viable candidate is going to somehow cause a viable third-party to emerge. See @7.2
Mock? No! All TiG has done was to merely challenge you to make your rational choice, stand by your decision and quit pussyfooting!
[✘]
you trying to tell me about strawman arguments is really rich.
Tell you what, you vote however you want and I will do the same.
End of discussion!
How many times does he need to say he will not be voting for either one?
I wholeheartedly support the reelection of President Biden and will proudly vote for Biden/ Harris on November 5th...
I do so as he is a better candidate, by order of magnitude!
For whom will you cast your vote November 5th, and why?
Who are you voting for Nov 5th? Is "MAGA" an insult to you?
proudly vote for whoever you want.
as far as who I am voting for. I have said it enough and continually asking is just trolling now.
he has mocked me. I have been saying all along i won't vote for Trump or Biden, and will vote for Haley. it is like you don't even read the answers!!
that is one hell of a lot more consistent than saying "well, it depends" when asked the same question.
that would be a far better example of pussyfooting around. don't accuse me of such an inane thing
As you concede our only viable choices are not equal, it seems ineffectual to still be unable to make a simple principled choice!
A flat out lie. You asked me if I would vote for Biden if Trump were no longer the GOP nominee. I stated that I need to know who would replace Trump before I could answer. I then gave you examples. If MTG, for example, replaced Trump then I would vote for Biden. If someone like Romney replaced Trump, I would be voting for Romney.
It is absolutely slimy to ask if I would vote for Biden in a scenario where his opponent is unknown. But this recent misrepresentation of what was asked and answered is flat out dishonest.
You may nail jello to the wall before you'll get a straight reply...
I made my choice, how many times must it be repeated?
do you read the answers to the questions you ask?
No, it isn't. You just told me recently that you couldn't say if you would vote for Biden if Trump drops out because it depended on who else ran. are you walking that back now?
he and you have gotten straight replies but rarely accept them.
No, if you really know who you will vote for you'd just say so...
You told us who you won't vote for, not who you will vote for!
You claimed that I was "pussyfooting around" rather than giving you a direct answer. That is a flat out lie.
Pointing out the open-ended flaw in your question and then providing examples of how I might decide based on the replacement is not "pussyfooting around", it is giving you a much better answer than the bullshit question you asked.
Texan has, on occasion, claimed that he will vote for Nikki Haley. I presume he intends to write-in her name.
But maybe he has given this more thought and has a new name. For all that matters.
Except Haley dropped out and is supporting Trump now!
Indeed.
Oh, wow, old newsflash!
[✘]
Yes, a monumental waste of time, but I really hate it when people lie and say I haven't been clear.
[✘]
[✘]
I am thinking by now the number must be astronomical--perhaps 100,000 times MIGHT do the trick, but I have legitimate doubts based on past experience.
That would be none of your business. Did you not read my answer the last time you asked? MAGA is just the latest iteration of juvenile name calling by the left. It's predecessors being racist, nazi and fascist. What name is next to describe anyone that doesn't drink the dem kool-aid?
You have more patience than I do.
[deleted][✘]
I would love to see a viable third party. The closest we have come in modern times (briefly) was Perot's independent run in 1992 (which later caused the formation of his Reform party which went nowhere). In the meantime, we have had third parties for very long times such as the Green and Libertarian parties (and even older ones such as Prohibition, Socialist, etc.) which in their long runs have come nowhere near the presidency. In the past 150 years, the two-party system has dominated and shrugged off all third party attempts to become viable.
Seems like we need to keep trying or the stranglehold on America by the GOP and the Deems will never be lessened and it will be politics rather than public service that drives their actions.
Spot on!
And if we continue to do what we collectively have done, we will collectively get the same results.
Maybe some are content with two shitty candidates as long as they aren't exactly equally shitty.
Keep trying what, exactly?
If all that 'keep trying' means is to sprinkle votes among minor parties then how many more decades will it take before people realize that this is a practice of futility?
I have stated a method that goes far beyond the reactive voting. It involves proactive, serious work. It is a very tough gig, no doubt, but continuing to merely vote on election day (expecting some magical result) is clearly futile.
Yeah, keep trying WHAT?
Makes no sense
Read the post, it makes perfect sense, does no good at all to pretend it doesn't.
Robert's post did not specify what 'keep trying' means.
So explain what 'keep trying' means; and if it only means to keep voting for third parties then explain how, after 150 years of trying, you think this alone is magically going to work.
[✘]
T Lo
It seemed very clear but here you go - we need to dislodge the stranglehold on the American way of life exercised by the political professionals (not public servants) of the Democrat and Republican parties by introducing more choices.
How do we do that, Robert?
You have stated an objective (dislodge the stranglehold). Your abstract method is to introduce more choices. So how is that done? Merely creating a third party is futile. A real choice would be a viable third party. How do we create a viable third party? We have been unable to do that for over 150 years. We have several extant third parties but none of them are viable.
Not clear at all.
[✘]
It is the middle of June. Baring an act of God Donald Trump and President Biden are going to be the nominees. Considering those are the only viable options, it is cowardly not to pick sides...
I do not deem this cowardice. I can see how some could be so disgusted with the choices that they basically say 'fuck it'. (Typically less than 2/3 of eligible voters do not show up to vote; often it is less than 1/2 of eligible voters.)
Personally, I do not believe it possible in 2024 to not see a profound difference between the two presidential nominees (to be). They are vastly different in almost every dimension (presidential behavior, personality, integrity, policy, experience, demeanor, ...). It is inconceivable to me that any functioning mind could not determine which of the two is better for the nation and cast their vote accordingly. In particular, Trump is so bad in so many dimensions, it is amazing to me that anyone would consider voting for him.
But, then again, try to imagine being a lifelong highly partisan R who only votes R. When faced with the choice of voting for Trump or not voting for Trump (since highly partisan Rs will typically never vote for any D), it does make sense for them to choose to not vote for Trump. It is a sad situation to have such a miserable nominee that a loyal GOP voter would choose to not vote rather than vote for the nominee of their party. But I would expect individuals thinking this way to essentially try to put the presidential race on a back burner rather than engage in heated political debates attacking Biden.
But, as I noted, I can appreciate the disgust and the subsequent apathy.
However, those who think that they are accomplishing anything by merely voting for someone other than Trump or Biden are kidding themselves. Merely voting for a non-viable candidate has not worked for at least 150 years. So those who wait until election night and then make their one act ... voting for a non-viable candidate ... are pursuing futility.
cowardly? bullshit!
I meant what I said. I said what I meant. Do you understand?
Those who will not stand for anything will fall for nothings...
Either one has the courage of conviction or one is ashamed!
Too lilly-livered to make a principled choice and stand firmly.
if you don't like who I vote for, that is a YOU problem.
How could I not like your choice when you won't reveal it?
Given the thousands of comments you have made attacking Biden and defending Trump, it strains all credulity that you cannot make your decision. Or, that you really do not care how any others vote!
Apparently you care very much or else you wouldn't bother us so.
After reading that, I strongly suggest you actually start to READ the answers instead of pretending they weren't supplied to you.
What really strains ALL credibility is the fact that you typed it despite me being IMMENSELY CLEAR.
By making it simpler for as many candidates as possible to be on the presidential ballot
Both parties know their candidates aren't good, so they can't afford to lose any votes to good candidates
Would that not simply diffuse the votes going to candidates other that R and D?
What I envision from your comment is a ballot with:
Okay, this list goes on for a while. And your idea is to make it easier for even more to pile on.
Seems to me that this will further diffuse the non-D / non-R vote. Those who are voting D or R are unlikely to vote for yet another non-viable third party so those who are willing to do so will have more choices and thus more diffusion.
I suppose we could just throw our hands up and declare there is nothing that can be done, we are forever doomed to whoever the GOP or Democratic nominees are as President.
Sounds cool.
You are free to give up if you wish. I think that is irresponsible, but that is your choice.
My point, since you missed it, is that the actions we take must be realistic — must have a good chance to succeed. Merely voting third party on election day has demonstrated (over and over) to be an act of futility. It is too little too late.
Instead of that, I suggested what I think needs to happen @7.2
I never miss your "point".
Awfully presumptuous to assume so.
of course, doing nothing because an R or a D is going to win this time works miracles.
Demonstrably a false claim.
And, yet again, you demonstrate missing my point.
Read @7.2 and if you can muster a thoughtful response, considering penning it.
Is a thoughtful response forthcoming or is "meh" the best you have?
I felt it appropriate.
Those that want a 3rd party to work must put in the work years before an election. They need signatures, candidates, full press canvasing and marketing which takes fundraising to get the names and positions in front of those who don't spend all their waking time on social media bitching about politics.
Who's going to put in that work?
The system [in U.S.] is designed for a two-party system. And those two parties have an interest in keeping third parties out. There's too much of the structure that works in the two-party way. They will keep the third party out.
And many voters perpetuate this through their voting patterns.
Seems to me the critical factor for a viable third party is a charismatic candidate with a killer platform. That is a very high bar, but without it I see no hope for a third party.
Then, given this stellar candidate, the third party needs to be extremely well-funded to attract the talent to build the infrastructure and staff same to produce a highly effective, multi-dimensional force that could rival that of the D and R parties. And this all needs to be in place years before the votes start.
Merely voting for various third party candidates sprinkles a tiny minority of votes around ½ dozen feckless third parties and, as we have observed for at least 150 years now, accomplishes nothing.
How can that even be? Most of the country is divided into two camps. I won't bother to describe those in each camp.
Do you know anyone that favors a third party? I do. He never watches the news and advises others not to watch it. He longs for it all to go away. He has a very comfortable profession, and he is basically insulated from the economy and a lot of what else is plaguing the country. He is the one who was first to tell me about the No-Labels Party.
So exactly what kind of candidate would this person be looking for? Can there be a charismatic candidate with a killer platform, who is devoid of any extreme ideology, who offends nobody and is a throwback to Dwight D Eisenhower?
Sorry, I don't see it.
In today's highly partisan world, I do not see how it is possible. (That is part of my point.)
Read the comments on this article, Vic.
I do not either. Looks like we agree on something.
That said, I truly wish we had three or four equally viable parties in the USA.
that will never happen without strict campaign cash/finance reform.
Among other things. The sad part is that those who would effect campaign finance reform are those who least want it.
I suppose far too few people know about "be the change you want to see" and are content to vote for who the party tells you to. One can always justify their votes with "My guy isn't as bad..."
Man, that will certainly get us better candidates, right--like Trump and Biden?
If we continue to choose from only the two sets of Clowns (Democrats and Republicans) then we will forever have the circus that we have today instead of the public servants we deserve in place of the professional politicians in it only for the money.
It is getting harder to smile when we say "Not my Circus, not my Monkeys"
Yes, some of us are getting weary if being saddled with clowns.
unfortunately, they have been inflicted upon us.
Perhaps I've grown more pessimistic, but I don't think four sets of clowns to choose from would cure anything at this point. It's become more about those that don't embrace the extremism of either side standing up.
Ahh, but Congress, which is where most of the dysfunction in government emanates from is......
Correct.
The question though is how to break free of the two party system. We have a two-party infrastructure, a two-party culture, and a very strong two-party historical tradition. What is the event that will cause predictable R or D voters to NOT just vote for their nominee and instead vote for a SINGLE candidate outside of their party. The SINGLE candidate is key since diffusing the non-R | D votes across several candidates will favor the dominance of the D and R parties.
Maybe all it will take is one or two more elections with such shitty candidates and more folks willing to at least look at someone else.
The number of registered party members is declining, for obvious reasons.
That would be nice since we have definitely produced a string of shitty candidates.
I think you are engaging in wishful thinking. This is not going to just happen. This election should encourage people to try to build a viable third party around a dynamic, charismatic candidate, pursue major league funding, staff with senior, experienced political players, build a strong ground game, etc. Will this happen? Probably not in the short term. I say that because the electorate is in such a screwed up state that it might put Trump in the presidency. If that many people think that scoundrel is fit to be PotUS, that suggests a fundamental problem that will not be easily solved.
Wishful thinking to want better candidates, well, consider me guilty as charged.
maybe enough voters will become engaged enough and disgusted with the status quo enough to effect change instead of complaining how hard it is and voting for the lesser of two evils.
Again you miss the point. It is wishful thinking that better candidates will simply emerge from an unchanged system.
Yeah, and maybe Putin or Sinwar will have a change of heart.
In life, fundamental changes do not simply happen by magic. Such change often requires a very focused, well-managed effort, enormously hard work, major league resources, and a boatload of luck.
Nothing is accomplished by dreaming; effecting change is hard work. The change we are talking about is not going to come about by people like you merely waiting until election day and then casting a protest vote. Been there, tried that. It has not worked for 150 years.
That tired old canon yet again?
Just because I (or others) don't agree with your "point" doesn't mean I don't get it.
Some are always looking as to why something can't be done or is difficult to do, while others work to improve things and affect changes.
The first of those two never accomplish anything.
And you again demonstrate that you missed my point.
I am not looking for why something cannot be done. I want a viable third party. I am stating why your approach of merely waiting until election day to cast a protest vote is NOT going to accomplish anything. It will not, in itself, cause a viable third party to magically emerge.
I have now many times referred you to my post @7.2 where I stated what I believe we need to do.
I put forth an approach that, albeit is difficult, is based on well-established principles of change management. You suggest we vote and cross your fingers.
Do better than post a constant trickle of feeble bullshit.
[✘]
[✘]
[✘]
A 3rd party would have to build the same sustained infrastructure to make an impact.
Exactly!