Voting Third Party in 2024

A viable third party is more than a name and a charter; it is necessarily a strong, cohesive, well-funded organization wrapped around a dynamic, charismatic candidate.  

IMO a third party is probably the only solution to reducing the amount of legislative gridlock in congress, but without bipartisan campaign finance reform and the elimination of dark money to level the playing field now, I don't see it becoming a reality anytime soon. corrupt leadership selling influence is the second oldest profession.

IMO a third party is probably the only solution to reducing the amount of legislative gridlock in congress,

In my opinion, its kinda hard to change Congress when you're not a member-- especially when you just lost your attempt at get elected-- by a YUGE landslide for both your opponents!

Obviously, I disagree with your characterizations of the choice the voters have between Biden and Trump. If anyone is a traitor, it is Biden. He is the one that took money from China and Ukraine. As far as Biden's age or Trump's crudeness are concerned, both are irrelevant. Somebody ran this country for the past 3 years and whoever it was subjected the country to open borders, energy madness, unsafe streets and mischief with the national defense and foreign affairs. Trump had a secure border, fair trade deals, a Constitutional Court along with peace & prosperity. We can disagree on how they performed, but based on their presidencies there is a clear choice for voters.

Now to the substance of your article which you have summarized in Post 1. Basically, if I am reading it right, what you are saying is that the No Labels Party does not fit your qualifications for a legitimate political party, at least not at this time.

I have good news for you:

Democratic alarm over third-party challengers spoiling President Biden’s reelection has been growing in recent weeks, prompting a new push both inside the party and among allied outside groups to step up their efforts fighting back.

The Democratic National Committee hired a new communications adviser last month to counter the third-party candidates, while outside groups working for Biden’s election have been having discussions about a new organization that could coordinate about the wide range of threats.

Democrats sound alarm, take action against Biden’s third-party threats (msn.com)

If you read that article, you will see they are going all out to crush minor third-party candidates. Right after Super Tuesday, Joe Manchin will make his decision on whether to run as a third-party candidate. I consider him to be a major league candidate and I fully expect the democrat party and the media to come after him with a vengeance.

So much for the people looking for an alternative.

If anyone is a traitor, it is Biden.

Right? Remember when he tried to overthrow the US Government? Oh wait, that was trump. Well.......remember when Biden called people who served in the military, "suckers and losers"? 

Wait, that was trump too...

... what you are saying is that the No Labels Party does not fit your qualifications for a legitimate political party, at least not at this time.

Where do you see the word 'legitimate' anywhere in my article or my comments?

The word, repeated many times, highlighted in blue, is viable.   An entirely different meaning.

A viable third party is more than a name and a charter; it is necessarily a strong, cohesive, well-funded organization wrapped around a dynamic, charismatic candidate.  

No labels has indeed been working to be a viable party.   I am a fan of the party.   They started early and they are focused, but they are miles away from being viable.  Maybe 2028.

Joe Manchin is NOT a dynamic, charismatic candidate.   Being 73 years old is not helping him either.

So, no, Vic, No Labels has potential but they clearly do not have what I described in my article.

I consider him to be a major league candidate and I fully expect the democrat party and the media to come after him with a vengeance.

Of course the D and R parties will go after any third party they see as a threat.   That is a key difficulty in developing a third party.   That is why this needs to be a well-planned, well-orchestrated initiative rather than a Hail Mary late in the game.

Propping up Joe Manchin with the hopes that people are going to flock to him and deliver a presidential win is naive wishful thinking. 

If anyone is a traitor, it is Biden. 

Of course, Vic, Biden is the only PotUS in our history who has attempted to steal a presidential election through coercion, lying, fraud, and incitement.   It is Biden who attempted to circumvent the CotUS (in direct violation of his oath of office) and who sought to violate the foundation of democracy — the vote of the electorate.

The level of absurdity some will stoop to in order to defend having to vote for Trump as their nominee is breathtaking.   Too bad the GOP could not get its act together and detach from Trump on Jan 20, 2021.   Now GOP loyalists see that they are stuck with Trump as their nominee and must somehow defend voting to give this abysmal character the powers of the presidency.

must somehow defend voting to give this abysmal character the powers of the presidency.

Do you feel you should have to defend voting for Biden?

Absolutely.   If the GOP were to nominate Haley, there would be an extraordinary difference between the GOP and D nominees.   In that case, I am voting for Haley.   But if I were voting for Biden —even when a fit GOP candidate is available— I would expect to be challenged.

But that is not our reality.   As bad as Biden is, Trump is an order of magnitude worse.

The reality is that the GOP will nominate a traitor.   One who is unique in US history in his unconstitutional and outrageous attempt to steal a presidential election.   This was unheard of until Trump.   Handing the presidency to someone who has so clearly demonstrated that he is willing to violate his oath of office and engage in unconstitutional and arguably criminal activity, to the point of violating the foundation of democracy (the vote of the electorate) simply because his ego cannot take being a loser is a profound failure of the electorate.

Yeah, I would say that anyone voting for Trump will be driven to somehow defend voting to give this abysmal character the powers of the presidency.

Thus far, the defenses have been pathetic.

Yeah, I would say that anyone voting for Trump will be driven to somehow defend voting to give this abysmal character the powers of the presidency.

Interesting.

Obvious

How so?

Thus far, I would agree that most of the defenses given for voting for either one are pathetic. 

Remember when he tried to overthrow the US Government?

No, I don't. Please show me where he was charged or convicted of that.


Wait, that was trump too..

I demand proof of that as well.

Do you acknowledge that Trump attempted to circumvent the CotUS by fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement?

Do you acknowledge that Trump attempted to violate the foundation of Democracy — the vote of the electorate?

Do you acknowledge that the charges brought against Trump in the Jan 6th case are WITH merit?

do you acknowledge that the DOJ conviction rate on federal indictments is +90%?

For a reason, they make sure their cases are rock solid.

clearly demonstrated by the amount of right wing desperation being exhibited...

Suddenly you want me to acknowledge facts.

Here is what I know. The democrat strategy is to stop Trump with 4 well-coordinated prosecutions. All 4 prosecutors are either registered Democrats or radical leftists. There are clear ethics violations that range from prosecutors running for office on promises to get Trump, to coordinating their suits with the White House counsel or the January 6th committee. Bragg, James, Smith, and Willis are all in a mad dash to a rush to judgement that keeps Trump in a courtroom all spring and summer, convict him, and put him in jail before the November election. Fortunately, all 4 cases are starting to unravel. In the meantime, the American people saw right through it.

Without a conviction of Trump, Biden and his record as president can only win if Trump destroys himself.

Is that why the DOJ never charged Trump with insurrection?

You have shown more times than anyone would care to count that you don't give a damn about the facts in any of these cases.To youTrump is a victim. He is being persecuted and that is all there is to it. His actions, his words, his intentions mean nothing to you. That's not the way it's going to go down.

We all have to agree to certain facts in order to have a real discussion. You have a long way to go. There is the Russia hoax, the Clinton sham investigation and what those 4 prosecutors have done. Just for openers.

John may be too smart to ask about the 4 prosecutors. So, I will educate:

Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis will be taken off her case, if not disbarred or indicted herself. The inflated indictment in that case is unlikely to be taken up by others.

Jack Smith’s federal suit had been damaged by his obsessions with accelerating the trial for obvious political purposes. It will proceed much slower now.

Letitia James’s case was the most obnoxious, given no other person has ever been so charged in New York for supposedly overstating real estate assets where there was no injured party.  No bank ever came forward to complain about the collateral Trump put up to secure loans—given he paid the loans back, in timely fashion and with profitable interests to the banks.

Alvin Bragg dragged up a 2005 tryst and a 2016 nondisclosure agreement to charge Trump with a campaign finance violation, in a way that would be totally unimaginable for any candidate other than Trump.


It doesn't look so good now, does it John?

Suddenly you want me to acknowledge facts.

Why 'suddenly'?   It would always be good if people would acknowledge facts.   This is not a new 'sudden' thing.

The democrat strategy is to stop Trump with 4 well-coordinated prosecutions. 

At this point, that may be the only thing that can stop Trump.   But I doubt it.   You, for example, will vote for Trump (please correct if I got this wrong) even if he is a convicted felon.   How many people think like you in the GOP?   I bet most.

But I reject your conspiracy theory that the Ds are prosecuting Trump merely for partisan gain.   First, it does not seem to be a smart strategy.  But more importantly, the Trump indictments have merit.   Trump brought this on himself.   He should be indicted by the USA for his Big Lie con job.   He is indicted for cause.

All 4 prosecutors are either registered Democrats or radical leftists.

Your posts seem to deem everyone to your left as a 'radical leftist'.   That phrase from you has no meaning.

There are clear ethics violations that range from prosecutors running for office on promises to get Trump, to coordinating their suits with the White House counsel or the January 6th committee. Bragg, James, Smith, and Willis are all in a mad dash to a rush to judgement that keeps Trump in a courtroom all spring and summer, convict him, and put him in jail before the November election. Fortunately, all 4 cases are starting to unravel. In the meantime, the American people saw right through it.

Ultimately this boils down to merits.   I have read the indictments in detail.   I have reviews the cited laws.   I have considered this given the evidence to which we are all privy.   My conclusion is that these indictments have clear merit.    I expect that the trials will be conducted as any trial by professionals who do not want to make any mistakes that would enable an appeal.   

You can float your conspiracy theories all day, but it is only the merits of the case and a fair trial that matter.

Without a conviction of Trump, Biden and his record as president can only win if Trump destroys himself.

I am convinced that Trump could win the presidency.   It is tragic that the electorate might elect a traitor but it seems true.   I am not, however, convinced that Trump WILL win the presidency if his opponent is Biden.

Finally, you did NOT acknowledge any of the facts I cited:

• Do you acknowledge that Trump attempted to circumvent the CotUS by fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement?
• Do you acknowledge that Trump attempted to violate the foundation of Democracy — the vote of the electorate?
• Do you acknowledge that the charges brought against Trump in the Jan 6th case are WITH merit?

Letitia James’s case was the most obnoxious, given no other person has ever been so charged in New York for supposedly overstating real estate assets where there was no injured party.  No bank ever came forward to complain about the collateral Trump put up to secure loans—given he paid the loans back, in timely fashion and with profitable interests to the banks.

The judge in the case has already found Trump liable for fraud, why are you blaming the prosecutor?

Is that why the DOJ never charged Trump with insurrection?

My hypothesis is that the DoJ saw insurrection charges to be too vague.   Since the CotUS and case law do not define the word 'insurrection', that poses a legal liability.

In result, they focused on charges that are directly related to Trump's actions and are clear in terms of the law.

How many people think like you in the GOP?

Not many. The Times used to cite a poll showing that enough Republicans would abandon Trump if he were convicted. That kind of let the cat out of the bag.


Your posts seem to deem everyone to your left as a 'radical leftist'.   That phrase from you has no meaning.

Actually, it has tremendous meaning. Everyone who has investigated Trump or Biden has been either one of those things.


Ultimately this boils down to merits.

No, it does not work that way. If cases were only about merit Bill Ayers and Daniel Ellsberg would have been convicted and imprisoned.


Finally, you did NOT acknowledge any of the facts I cited:

Sorry, you couldn't admit to the facts that I asked JR, so I guess we have no agreed upon facts.

They would have been in the same position as Colorado: that of trying to interpret Trump’s behavior.

And I want to thank you for writing this article.

Have a good night.

They both get blame. The verdict is in: Trump 1 NY 0. The people have chosen.

The Times used to cite a poll showing that enough Republicans would abandon Trump if he were convicted.

One would hope so.   I would like to believe that the US electorate would not vote a convicted felon into the presidency.   But given all that Trump has done and seeing him dominate the GOP nomination, I do wonder.

Everyone who has investigated Trump or Biden has been either one of those things.

The radical leftists need to be a fringe minority.   You clearly have expanded that greatly.   Your use of that phrase has no meaning to me.

No, it does not work that way. If cases were only about merit Bill Ayers and Daniel Ellsberg would have been convicted and imprisoned.

Our system is imperfect.   But that does not change the fact that the Trump indictments were clearly for cause.   You can read the indictments, compare to what we know, compare to the cited laws, and see a very strong case against Trump.   These are NOT frivolous cases by any stretch of the imagination.   

Sorry, you couldn't admit to the facts that I asked JR, so I guess we have no agreed upon facts.

That is a pathetic dodge.    And that answers my questions.   Clearly you:

• Do NOT acknowledge that Trump attempted to circumvent the CotUS by fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement.
• Do NOT acknowledge that Trump attempted to violate the foundation of Democracy — the vote of the electorate.
• Do NOT acknowledge that the charges brought against Trump in the Jan 6th case are WITH merit.

And this is not surprising given you have acknowledged that you will vote for Trump even if he is a convicted felon.

They would have been in the same position as Colorado: that of trying to interpret Trump’s behavior

I think it is more accurately stated that they would have to show that Trump's behavior was inciting an insurrection.  

It is a smart strategy to go for charges that have less ambiguity in terms of the evidence and especially in terms of the law.

So am I to believe, that DOJ wouldn't bring charges because of a word, that any elementary school student can look up in a dictionary , and that any competent lawyer could also look up in any law dictionary , to see if the actions fit the definition?

To me someone would need their job performance re evaluated and not in a good way.

So am I to believe, that DOJ wouldn't bring charges because of a word, that any elementary school student can look up in a dictionary , and that any competent lawyer could also look up in any law dictionary , to see if the actions fit the definition?

Do you think 'insurrection' is well-defined in the CotUS?   It is not.   In the law?   It is not.

Consider this legal definition of 'insurrection':

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

When one defines a word in terms of itself, one has failed to define the word.

I think Smith was strategic and careful in his charges with the intent of stating the strongest possible case against Trump.

Do you think every word in ConUs needs to be defined? Or is common everyday definitions suitable for words the document contains.

If I am correct ,treason is the only crime defined in the document, and I believe that was so a charge of treason could not be abused for political differences.

Is it like, it depends on what the definition of is, is.

I think the burden of proof of charges had more to do with not bringing them than a definition.

Do you think every word in ConUs needs to be defined?

No, but if one is bringing a case against a former PotUS who is the likely nominee (dominating the field), then it makes good sense that one consider ambiguities in the law and the liability they pose towards a verdict of guilty.

The meaning of  INSURRECTION  is   an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.   merriam -webster

Insurrection is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as   a rebellion or rising of citizens or subjects in resistance to their government

 there are 2 definitions , one from a school kids dictionary that can be accessed by google , and the other from as it says blacks law dictionary used by lawyers .

both define the act of insurrection ,  the only liability i see on the prosecutors part is which standard  of burden of proof is required , under civil standard preponderance of the evidence , under criminal , its beyond a reasonable doubt .

under one , a prosecutor may get a win with the other , they may not . DOJ didnt want to risk it is my view.

I do believe any court in the country would accept either of those definitions as valid , and more likely the one from Blacks law dictionary.

  less than 5 mins work on something they are licd to do,

As I stated, there is no definition of insurrection in the CotUS.    Thus we are already dealing with constitutional interpretation.   Logically, we would then turn to US law.   There we find a circular definition.   No help.

Of course the word is defined in dictionaries; I never disputed that fact.   That was taken as a given.

But the fact that the word is defined in dictionaries does not obviate the constitutional / legal ambiguity and the liability thereof.

The lack of a definition in the CotUS and the law opens the door to constitutional interpretation.   Just consider what took place on the 14th § 3 question.   Trump's attorneys led with the idea that Trump is not an officer of the United States due to ambiguities in the CotUS for the word 'officer'.   Later they simply declared that Jan 6 was a riot and that it was NOT an insurrection.  

The lack of well-defined terms (in the law itself, with context and precedent) is a liability.

2words to that.

Bull shit

I doubt ANY presiding judge on any bench would accept the argument your presenting , since they likely have a dictionary handy themselves.

And if it's a smart ass no nonsense judge , they would flip it out ,open to the definition and have that individual read it out loud , and declare that is the definition the bench accepts.

If constitutional interpretation worked as you suggest (just go to a dictionary) then the question of Trump being an officer would be moot.   Just go to the dictionary and you will find (among other variants):   merriam-webster

one who holds an  office  of trust, authority, or command

Clearly, per the dictionary, Trump is an officer of the United States.   Absolutely no doubt based on the dictionary since Trump held the office of the President of the United States.   You and I have agreed in the past that the President is obviously an officer of the USA.

... yet ...

Enter the legal domain.  Trump's attorney began his argument with the claim that Trump was not an officer of the United States.   This is how they opened in their appeal to the SCotUS:

The Colorado Supreme Court held that President Donald J. Trump is constitutionally disqualified from serving as president under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Colorado Supreme Court's decision is wrong and should be reversed for numerous independent reasons.

The first reason is that President Trump is not covered by Section 3 because the President is not "an officer of the United States" as that term is used throughout the Constitution. "Officer of the United States" refers only to appointed officials, and it does not encompass elected individuals, such as the President or members of Congress. This is clear from the Commissions Clause, the Impeachment Clause, and the Appointments Clause, each of which uses "officer of the United States" to refer only to appointed and not elected officials. 

The second reason is ...

supremecourt

This was not some bullshit argument to a lower court; this was how Trump's team lead with the SCotUS!   They argued based on ambiguity in the CotUS that Trump was not an officer. 

The splitting of semantic hairs in a legal situation is common.   

I find it quite believable that Jack Smith knows this and considered the legal liabilities of semantic ambiguity in the law when carefully choosing how he would charge Trump.

onstitutional interpretation worked as you suggest

That is how it works.  The job of a judge is to figure out what the common meaning of the word at issue was at the time it was written. So dictionaries are often employed as a tool, and the  public meaning of  "insurrection" or what the framers met by office "under the  United States"  in 1866 would be determinative of whether the Presidency is covered by the 14th Amendment. That's what KJB was focused on her questioning. Dictionaries are invaluable to Judges. 

We discussed the issue of the president being an officer or not and we both agreed that he was, I believe I said I'm not buying that line  and never had. So no point rehashing that.

SCOTUS will make their rulings soon enough, I am waiting to see just how far they take the Co case ,it has elements to not only ballot access, or who has to enact sec 3, but also elements as to if the charge of insurrection can be tried in civil court as Co tried with a lesser burden of proof, or needs to be tried in criminal court with a higher burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt.

I know SCOTUS likes to be minimalist in most rulings , but they also hate lose ends they have to go back and fix, the last thing I am pretty convinced about this SCOTUS, just when you think you have them figured out,they do something different.

I have come to expect the unexpected from the current  high court.

As I said I will wait and see, what the ruling is. As we all will.

I have never suggested that dictionaries will not be used by judges.   That makes absolutely no sense ... why would you even presume someone would argue such nonsense?

I have argued that in constitutional interpretation, the lack of a constitutional definition and then the lack of a legal definition is a liability.

Yes, of course, when there is no constitutional or legal definition, the colloquial (including historical ... the etymology) definition will be used as a baseline.   Clearly I am not suggesting that the judges would ignore the codified English meaning of a word and just make up whatever they want.

You totally missed the point.

So no point rehashing that.

I was not rehashing it.   I was reminding you that we agree that based on the dictionary, Trump is clearly an officer of the USA.

That said, I noted that the first reason presented to the SCotUS was an argument based on ambiguity of the word officer as used in the CotUS and the law.   Trump's attorneys evidently believed that the SCotUS was not going to simply pick up Merriam-Websters and dismiss their opening argument.   They knew that ambiguity opens avenues for arguments.   

Even on something that you and I agree is blatantly obvious.   Such is the legal world.

As I said I will wait and see, what the ruling is. As we all will.

Same here.

My point was about the Jan 6th case.   There I find it perfectly reasonable that Jack Smith would recognize that the word 'insurrection' shares the same type of problem as the word 'officer' on these constitutional questions.

I do not think it is bullshit in the slightest that Smith would charge Trump with crimes that he believes are winnable and to shy away from charges that he believes are weaker (based on legal ambiguity) and thus be a legal liability for him.

Does the American democratic system or Constitution allow for a coalition government?  I assume that the Electoral College system uses majority of votes, even though neither major party amasses 51%.  Sorry, but we did not study American Constitutional Law or the Electoral System in Canada.

No, we would go to a contingent election if a majority is not reached.   Congress would choose the president and vice-president.

Congress would choose the president and vice-president.

the current motivation for dark money interests in promoting a third party candidate, since POTUS by SCOTUS has already been done...

Does the American democratic system of Constitution allow for a coalition government?  I assume that the Electoral College system uses majority of votes, even though neither major party amasses 51%.  Sorry, but we did not study American Constitutional Law or the Electoral System in Canada.

The Senate and House (Congress) already forms a coalition type of government by creating caucuses.. The President can not be part of the coalition because of the Constitutional separation of the branches of government.  The President is prohibited from being directly involved in creating laws, appropriations, or other business conducted by Congress. 

The Federal government is made up of three branches of government; the executive, the legislative, and the judicial.  The executive consists of the President/Vice President who are elected by the electoral college.  The legislative consists of Senators and Representatives who are elected by a plurality of votes.  The judicial consists of justices and judges who are appointed by the President and Senate; they are not elected.

While admittedly over simplified, Congress determines what government is supposed to do, the President actually does what Congress has instructed, and the judicial acts as umpire.  Another way to describe the functioning of government is that Congress makes the law, the President enforces the law, and the Supreme Court interprets the law.  

Amazing that after a couple of centuries that isn't understood. 

Thanks for the info.  I think I prefer the relative simplicity of the British Parliamentary system we use in Canada and most Commonwealth nations   You said "...Congress makes the law, the President enforces the law, and the Supreme Court interprets the law."  And the Senate?

The Senate is part of Congress.  Think of the House of Representatives as analogous to the House of Commons, and the Senate as analogous to the House of Lords.  A bicameral Congress, with upper and lower houses.

Thanks Sandy.  My bad - I had thought Congress was the House of Reps and Senate was a different body. 

We tend to be a bit lazy about distinguishing between them, calling members of the House of Representatives Congressmen and Congresswomen, even though I suppose it could technically apply to members of either house.

Ours is a bi Carmel Congress, the house of reps represents the people, the Senate represents the individual states. One for one groups interests and the other for the other group , people and state.

Way it was explained to me is this way, what is good for the people is not always good for the state sometimes , the people can bankrupt the state.

 And what is good for the state isn't always good for the people , they may not get the help from the state needed. 

Each chamber of Congress, is a check on the other, supposinly making sure legislation passed is good for both, which is why legislation has to be passed by both chambers, if it fails to pas both, it is start all over again.

Mark, I feel like I'm in a Civics class.

A bicameral Congress, with upper and lower houses.

The 17th Amendment did scrape a bit of skin off of bicameralism by having Senators be voted in by the electorate (like the representatives in the House) rather than being appointed by the State Legislatures as they were prior by design of the framers.  But the houses still have distinctly separate duties so the basic function and responsibilities of the two bodies remains intact.

The other factor is that the framers were dealing with independent states who were unwilling to lose their influence in national matters.   Without a certain level of state control, the CotUS would not have been ratified.

That is entirely debatable really , the important thing to make sure  is known and understood is the difference of what a house reps job is , represent people's interest , and what a senators job is to represent the interests and what's good for the state, not the people. I have heard people say senators work for the people since the people vote them into office, not true.

One I don't think is taught very well anymore sometimes.

I agree, along with many other subjects.

I have heard people say senators work for the people since the people vote them into office, not true.

Understood, and that is the skin I was referring to that has been scraped from bicameralism by the 17th Amendment.  Because they are now voted into office by the people, there is the expectation that they will do the will of those people who assisted the most in getting them elected, in much the same way as the House Representatives are expected to.  When Senators were appointed by the State legislatures the whole idea was that they would act in the best interest of that State legislature, not the special interests who helped them get votes like the Reps do. 

Additionally, the Constitution requires that both Senators and Representatives live in the State in which they are elected.  Even that requirement has been corrupted or worked around in recent times. 

We could say that the Senators now (ostensibly) work for the people of their state as a whole rather than work for the political bodies of their state.

We could say that the Senators now (ostensibly) work for the people of their state as a whole rather than work for the political bodies of their state

Well we could say that, but we all know that those same "political bodies" work with the special interests from all over the country who can shovel in the most campaign funds in order to court the vote of "the people" of that State.  The end result might be the same, but it won't be the people's interest as a whole toward which the Senators will work for at least 6 years, it will be the special interests who got them there, same as the Representatives with whom we are stuck for only 2 years.   As long as the political bodies and those with the most money to give them pull all the strings, I seriously doubt that any of the Senators/Representatives will ever really work for the "people of their State as a whole".

Indeed.   Exactly why I used the word 'ostensibly'.

Well first, to have any chance at all of success, any third party will need to moderate away from the kooks on the far left and right and learn to embrace compromise.    That alone removes many of the folks here as supporters.

Moderation these days is just a word.    Not reality.

The extremes will likely stay with the D and R parties.

A viable third party would naturally address the desires of those who are looking for that not offered by the extant parties.   Seems to me, that would be a platform that is more fiscally conservative, willing to act on illegal immigration, environmentally responsible, and socially liberal (i.e. tolerant of human diversity but not to the point of catering to it).

Both D and R have substantial poison pills (e.g. fiscal irresponsibility, immigration failure, environmental irresponsibility, etc.) in their platforms.   A third party that avoided just those poison pills would likely appeal to a majority of the electorate.    And maybe, throw in a philosophy of not abusing the CotUS with acts such as punitive, partisan impeachments.

And maybe, throw in a philosophy of not abusing the CotUS with acts such as punitive, partisan impeachments.

Both of Trump's impeachments were not only justified, he should have been convicted both times. 

Debating the realities involved with saying you are fiscally conservative AND socially liberal are complex indeed.    Look no further than the border today.    The social liberal would welcome the huddled masses with open arms.    The fiscal conservative would be concerned about the costs.

It’s a unicorn.    Fiscal conservative and social liberal has a tough time existing in the same space.

That said, last time I voted third party the candidate got nearly 20% of the popular vote but zero electoral college votes.    It’s great to dream but it’s a bridge too far in my time without something very serious happening.

It’s great to dream but it’s a bridge too far in my time without something very serious happening.

That pretty much is the point of this article.

The social liberal would welcome the huddled masses with open arms.  

You are going to the extreme of liberalism.   Instead, imagine those who are not against same-sex marriage, not against women having the right to an abortion, tolerant of diversity, but not willing to allow trans males to compete in female sports, not willing to allow people with penises to freely use a women's-only restroom, etc.   There are many social liberals who are far from the extreme of kumbaya liberals.

he should have been convicted both times. 

"Should" . . . 

Shoulds, coulda, woulda . . . 

Close,..

Shoulda, woulda, coulda 

Keep wishing upon stars- Democrats turned impeachment into a political stunt. Nothing more.

Then bitch about Republicans holding to them to the same standards.

Voting third party won't accomplish anything.  The unbiased liberal press will only report on the contest between Democrats and Republicans.  The system is so rigged that there's absolutely no way to change anything.  

It's the down ballot races that will suffer.  If there's no one to vote for at the top of the ticket then why bother voting at all?  By putting the shittiest of shitty candidates at the top of the ticket, it's possible to sneak shitty candidates through the process down ballot.  Shitty down ballot candidates would appeal to anyone voting for the shitty Presidential candidates.

The problem is the primaries.  It's not possible to change anything until the primaries are reformed.  If this is democracy then it's the shittiest of shitty democracies.

Voting third party won't accomplish anything. 

I agree.   We need a viable third party that is organized, well-funded, and supporting a charismatic candidate before voting third party can make a difference.   We have never had any third party that is even remotely close to this.

I agree.   We need a viable third party that is organized, well-funded, and supporting a charismatic candidate before voting third party can make a difference.   We have never had any third party that is even remotely close to this.

Of course we have had viable third parties.  The viable third party was the Republican Party.  But the Republican Party replaced the Whig Party instead of transforming the system into three parties.  So, a new third party won't really change anything.  

The way the political system has been structured results in a two party system.  A third party would eventually replace either the Democrat Party (less likely) or the Republican Party (more likely).  We'll still end up with a two party system and the problems won't be solved.

The problem is that voters are disenfranchised during the primaries.  Voters are only allowed to influence one party.  The primaries create an adversarial political environment that won't be influenced by a third party once the general election campaigns begin.  The damage is done during the primaries and no amount of election reform that ignores the primaries will address that damage.

Of course we have had viable third parties

Not in any of our lifetimes, not in any of the lifetimes of our great grandparents.   Viable third parties have not existed in our reality and are unlikely to extemporaneously emerge.

A third party would eventually replace either the Democrat Party (less likely) or the Republican Party (more likely).  

I disagree.   There is nothing that deems that to be the eventuality.   If the D party and R parties were to continue in their current trajectories, they leave a very wide gap for a third party to coexist and satisfy the needs of tens of millions of voters.

Not in any of our lifetimes, not in any of the lifetimes of our great grandparents.   Viable third parties have not existed in our reality and are unlikely to extemporaneously emerge.

Adding qualifiers won't alter the facts or lessons of history.  If the 14th amendment is relevant today then the history of the political parties of that time period is also relevant.  The 14th amendment was an artifact of a viable third power obtaining political power.

The question raised by that example of history is how did the Democrat Party survive the national trauma it's political insurrection created?  (That's why there is a 14th amendment created by a Republican Congress.)  Not only did the Democrat party survive the Civil War, the Democrat Party continued the same politics after the Civil War.  The Democrats' KKK became a national institution after the Civil War.

If a third party could not challenge the Democrat Party following the Civil War then what chance does a third party have today?  

And we have had a number of grassroots movements during our lifetimes.  A grassroots movement forced Lyndon Johnson to abandon reelection.  But that recent history suggests that our political system has been rigged to favor two parties.  Grassroots movements (the incubator for a third party) have been forced to attempt taking control of the two parties.  I contend the reason for that necessity is because the primaries deliberately disenfranchises grass roots movements.  We're only allowed to participate in politics as either Democrats or Republicans if we hope for success.  The party primaries sucks all the money and attention out of the political environment long before the election campaigns actually start.

I disagree.   There is nothing that deems that to be the eventuality.   If the D party and R parties were to continue in their current trajectories, they leave a very wide gap for a third party to coexist and satisfy the needs of tens of millions of voters.

The first Constitutional Congress convened in New York during 1789.  In 235 years, how many times has the United States been governed by more than two parties?  

What happens if none of the Presidential candidates win 270 electoral votes?  The reason its necessary to research the answer is because the situation only arose twice in our history.  How could that circumstance be so rare if our election process wasn't rigged to favor narrow control of political power?

We have never had any third party that is even remotely close to this

In the 1992 election, Ross Perot running for president on the "Independent Party" ticket got close to 20% of the vote.

But the Republican Party replaced the Whig Party

The Whig Party should be revived.

In fact, I am thinking of running for president on The Whig Party ticket in the near future. 

(later today I will look in the attic for the suitcase of my old wigs, get it down and powder them!

As several people have stated the only thing that can change our corrupt system is a Third party!

(I am hereby asking for people on this site to make your dreams a reality and vote for me and the re-vitalized Whig Party in future presidential elections!)

The Whig Party should be revived.

True Whig Party (Australia)

As several people have stated the only thing that can change our corrupt system is a Third party! (I am hereby asking for people on this site to make your dreams a reality and vote for me and the re-vitalized Whig Party in future presidential elections!)

Youth International Party

Yippie!

What happens if none of the Presidential candidates win 270 electoral votes? 

Then it goes to the House of Representatives. 

Unless they are not a D or an R, will any of them vote for a third-party candidate?  If not, then we are back to the status quo D or R POTUS.

You do that and trump will just powder his toupee and say he was a Whig all along.....

Then it goes to the House of Representatives.  Unless they are not a D or an R, will any of them vote for a third-party candidate?  If not, then we are back to the status quo D or R POTUS.

Yep, that's the point of the question.  Even a third party that splits to vote won't change anything. 

Of course, there's always the fallback excuse of blaming the electoral college.  But what's the point of party primaries if the Presidential election is decided by the popular vote?  A popular vote election means state campaigns would be worthless for Presidential candidates.  IMO those advocation for eliminating the electoral college have not considered the consequences.

Adding qualifiers won't alter the facts or lessons of history. 

Arguing for the sake of argument again?   You made a nit-picky comment that we have had viable third parties in the 19th century.   I told you that I was talking about today's reality (you know, starting in the 20th century at least).   

You claim that any third party will simply eat one of the two parties.   The fact that this happened in the past does not mean it is impossible to build a viable third party.   

If a third party could not challenge the Democrat Party following the Civil War then what chance does a third party have today?  

A textbook defeatist attitude.

In 235 years, how many times has the United States been governed by more than two parties?  

Again, pure defeatist.

In the 1992 election, Ross Perot running for president on the "Independent Party" ticket got close to 20% of the vote.

Note that he was a dynamic, charismatic candidate.   That should indicate how critical that element is.   Now add to that a party that is organized, well-funded, and focused on developing a sound base.    Creating a viable third party is not impossible, it is, however, very hard work.   Given the continued failure of the two major parties, that should help inspire people to work towards establishing a viable third party.

But just voting third party and hoping for the best is not going to cut it.

Arguing for the sake of argument again?   You made a nit-picky comment that we have had viable third parties in the 19th century.   I told you that I was talking about today's reality (you know, starting in the 20th century at least). 

The fact that a third party challenged established political parties, elected a President from that third party, and replaced an existing established political party is not trivial or arguing for the sake of argument.  The Republican Party is still competitive in national politics.

I realize the history of the major parties isn't of interest to some, for obvious partisan reasons.  But the 14th amendment from the 19th century has become important in this election.  And Joe Biden's date of birth is closer to Abraham Lincoln's Presidency than his own Presidency.  So, the 19th century is more relevant than what is being argued.

You claim that any third party will simply eat one of the two parties.   The fact that this happened in the past does not mean it is impossible to build a viable third party.   

I've already addressed that.  Grass roots movements are the incubator for new political parties.  But in today's political environment, those grass roots movements exert effort to control the two major parties instead of competing with the major parties.  Why? 

Here's a list of political parties in the United States:  List of political parties in the United States   The United States does not lack alternative parties.  The Libertarian Party and Green Party have gotten their candidates elected to state and local offices.  Other parties on the list may have done that, too.  But these parties are not competitive at the national level.  Our political system has been rigged by the major parties to benefit themselves and prevent any of those existing parties to succeed at the national level.  

The United States does not lack alternative parties. 

What we lack is a viable third party.   That is the key point I have made here.   We can vote for extant third parties endlessly and nothing will come of it.   The only way we will make a difference is to have an organized, well-funded, well-managed third party that is seriously engaged in getting mindshare from the electorate and having a dynamic, charismatic candidate that people will flock to.

Short of that, voting third party is an act of futility.

How many electoral votes did he win?

The answer is 0.

Which is what any third party candidate will get. The most any third party can hope to do is play spoiler for one of the main candidate- like Perot did to Bush Sr.

I remember when the Tea Party came out and Democrats were rejoicing that it would fracture the Republican Party into two separate parties. Instead the Tea Party was absorbed into the Republican Party- to the point it no longer exists.

The only way we will make a difference is to have an organized, well-funded, well-managed third party that is seriously engaged in getting mindshare from the electorate and having a dynamic, charismatic candidate that people will flock to.

Well, that sounds appealing but would it really fix anything?  What you are describing would require introducing more money into the political environment; that's what a well funded third party would require.  An organized, well managed third party would also need some sort of broad ideological or philosophical platform and institutional rules to establish a coordinated, disciplined political effort by a number of people.  A third party that focuses its effort on a single office, such as President, is really nothing more than an organization to support a charismatic demagogue with similarities to a cult.  (Hasn't that been an allegation directed toward MAGA?)

The ramifications and consequences of creating a third party that is just additive to the two party system could exacerbate the existing problems.  Creating more of what we already have doesn't seem like a way to improve the political system.

The danger of unintended consequences should indicate that course of action could make our politics worse instead of better.  IMO the advocacy for the third party needs more consideration and refinement before it's ready for prime time.  

There are all sorts of challenges to bringing forth a viable third party.   I think it is quite correct to see the task as daunting.   I think it would significantly improve our system, but I do not expect to see one and you raise decent points as to why.

Clearly, if an organized, well-funded, directed effort to build a third party around a dynamic, charismatic candidate will not be enough to achieve viability, then what can be accomplished by people casting protest votes to extant, non-viable, third parties?    What does this accomplish other than making one feel that they are in some way noble or good for not making the hard choice between bad and worse?

There are all sorts of challenges to bringing forth a viable third party.   I think it is quite correct to see the task as daunting.   I think it would significantly improve our system, but I do not expect to see one and you raise decent points as to why.

And consequences.  The risk with using the existing parties as a model is that the existing problems are multiplied while the desired result is further out of reach.  Wouldn't more of the same likely result in more of the same problems?

Clearly, if an organized, well-funded, directed effort to build a third party around a dynamic, charismatic candidate will not be enough to achieve viability, then what can be accomplished by people casting protest votes to extant, non-viable, third parties?    What does this accomplish other than making one feel that they are in some way noble or good for not making the hard choice between bad and worse?

If the objective is to allow voters more choice then, to me, the best way to achieve that is to include more choice into the existing political process.  The two political parties have used primary elections to disenfranchise voters and limit choice.  The primaries are used to distribute money to political operations, perform less than honest marketing, divert public attention onto rather false priorities, and a host of other political ills the voters complain about.  The primaries of the two political parties has become a major obstacle to establishing viable political challenges to the existing power structure. 

I contend the primaries are why a viable third party has not emerged.  I contend that reforming the primaries to allow more voter choice would naturally result in viability of third party challenges.  The alternative would be to prohibit state governments participating in and sponsoring party primaries.  

I contend that reforming the primaries to allow more voter choice would naturally result in viability of third party challenges.

What, specifically, do you propose?

For example, look at what took place in the GOP today.   There were plenty of candidates in the primaries.   But because of a strong minority of cohesive Trump supporters, Trump dominated early on.   The polls then reflect this and encourage the herd-mentality voters ... thus snowballing.  

The voter choice was there, but the GOP electorate wasted / is wasting their votes.

What, specifically, do you propose?

All voters must be allowed to vote in all primaries.  That doesn't require any new infrastructure or additional resources.  The only thing that's required is to prohibit political parties disenfranchising voter participation in state sponsored and state run elections.  

Voters could choose a Democrat candidate and a Republican candidate.  That means voters would have more influence over both parties.

Even better would be eliminating primaries altogether.  Party super delegates can choose candidates at their respective convention to represent the party; voters don't even need to be involved in the selection of party candidates.  That would end the practice of campaigning to become a party candidate.  That would also mean all the candidates would begin their public campaigns for votes on a more equal footing.

For example, look at what took place in the GOP today.   There were plenty of candidates in the primaries.   But because of a strong minority of cohesive Trump supporters, Trump dominated early on.   The polls then reflect this and encourage the herd-mentality voters ... thus snowballing.   The voter choice was there, but the GOP electorate wasted / is wasting their votes.

What does a primary candidate win?  The winners of the primaries haven't been elected to any office.  So, what do the primary candidates get out of the deal?

Why would someone who lost a primary be prohibited from running for office?  Why can't they remain on the ballot if they choose?  Losing a primary is not the same thing as losing an election.  The primary outcome doesn't change anything about the viability of a candidate.  The primary loser just doesn't represent a political party.  But we both know that the political parties use the primaries to freeze out other candidates that don't represent the two parties.  Doesn't that indicate that a major problem with our political system is the party primaries?   

A viable third party must utilize a highly visible primary process that receives attention from the press and state sponsorship.  Otherwise that third party won't be viable.  That's why the long list of alternative parties has not resulted in a viable third party.  The two parties have rigged our political system and elections using the primary process.

All voters must be allowed to vote in all primaries. 

Okay.   Not sure how much of an effect that would have, but I am not against it.

Party super delegates can choose candidates at their respective convention to represent the party; voters don't even need to be involved in the selection of party candidates. 

That takes the initial selection of candidates completely out of the hands of the electorate.   That is making things worse, not better.

What does a primary candidate win? 

They eliminate the other contenders within their party.   It is like winning the NFC or AFC and being the designee to play in the Super Bowl.

Why would someone who lost a primary be prohibited from running for office? 

They could, but if we have 10 or more candidates, can you imagine the difficulty of having all these names on the ballots when 90% have no chance?   Winnowing the field makes sense.

That takes the initial selection of candidates completely out of the hands of the electorate.   That is making things worse, not better.

Aren't voters supposed to be choosing a candidate to perform the duties of an elected office?   

Primary voters are choosing who will represent a political party.  That is based upon different criteria than performing the duties of an elected office.  BTW, a third party must adopt the same process to become viable which would risk multiplying the problems we already experience.

They could, but if we have 10 or more candidates, can you imagine the difficulty of having all these names on the ballots when 90% have no chance?   Winnowing the field makes sense.

You've missed the point.  The two parties use their primaries to winnow the field before anyone begins running for office and competing for votes.  That's why we end up with two of the shittiest of shitty party candidates and it is impossible for any other candidate to challenge them.  Adding a third party that functions like the current two parties risks forcing voters to choose between three of the shittiest of shitty candidates.  Not an improvement IMO.

Aren't voters supposed to be choosing a candidate to perform the duties of an elected office?   

Yes.   So give them as much choice as possible right off the bat.

You've missed the point. 

Okay, then actually explain the point you wanted to make.    There must be a mechanism to winnow the field.   This is just basic practical thinking.

Yes.   So give them as much choice as possible right off the bat.

But the party primaries are deliberately intended to reduce choice by disenfranchising voters.  

Okay, then actually explain the point you wanted to make.    There must be a mechanism to winnow the field.   This is just basic practical thinking.

I've already explained the point I wanted to make. 

The current mechanism winnows the field to two.  The winnowing mechanism of the two party primaries has become an obstacle to a viable third party.  Don't argue against yourself unless your intent is to argue for the sake of arguing.

What, specifically, do you propose?

Personally if I were inclined to vote for the lesser of two evils (I am not) for president I would take careful consideration to who I thought would win the house and/or the senate.  The last thing we need is a shitty president whose party also controls the house and/or Senate.  One would be enough, both would be better.  We need someone to keep the brakes on.

I would take careful consideration to who I thought would win the house and/or the senate.

Exactly!

I've already explained the point I wanted to make. 

Then I have already weighed in and there is no point going in circles.   Given your closing sentence, I have no interest continuing with you.

Even discussing a third party , right now, as a desirable goal, will help Trump. 

I rest my case.

Even discussing a third party , right now, as a desirable goal, will help Trump. 

Heck-- even thinking about it is certain to get him re-elected!

(By a landslide, yet!!! )

There are numerous Trump supporters on this very forum who have in recent weeks become converts to the idea of "they are both unfit, we need another choice". These are trojan horse comments, when push comes to shove they are all voting for Trump and we all know it. 

What they want is for OTHER PEOPLE to feel they have no choice. 

People who irrationally think Biden is destroying our country are not going to vote for a third party candidate with no hope to win.

This country is either going to dismiss this sort of charade or we are going to have Trump in the White House again. 

These are trojan horse comments, when push comes to shove they are all voting for Trump and we all know it. 

I agree.   The claims are obvious bullshit.

But, regardless, the point of this article is that third party voting in 2024 is an act of futility.   That a third party is needed but requires hard work ... not merely votes diverted from D and R.   A third party will not magically form simply because a minority voted their conscience.

There are numerous Trump supporters on this very forum who have in recent weeks become converts to the idea of "they are both unfit, we need another choice". These are trojan horse comments, when push comes to shove they are all voting for Trump and we all know it. 

And there are numerous people who don't support Trump who say the same thing.  Biden is too old for this job.  Trump is unfit because he's criminal and fairly stupid, and mostly wants to be POTUS to avoid being accountable for being a criminal.  We do need another choice.  And no, I won't be voting for Trump when push comes to shove.

I think both parties need to consider the message they're sending to younger voters, and I don't mean Gen Z, or whatever the hell generation it is that we refer to as "kids" but who have kids of their own.  I'm about to turn 50, and I feel like neither party trusts people my age to run the country, so they keep offering up old men, instead, and it's starting to get insulting.  In 15 years, we went from having a young, fit, sharp, eloquent man as POTUS to now being limited to voting for one of two old men who are both clearly in physical and mental decline, because apparently, they can't find a 50-to-60 year-old who can do as well.  Somehow or other, even though people my age are parents, sometimes grandparents, and will be increasingly in charge of, well, everything, as the Boomers retire, we're still not trusted to hold political office at higher levels of government.

That's alienating.  Start appealing to younger voters, or lose them.  And yeah, a lot of folks my age do not find that either party speaks for them.  We tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

And no, John, I'm not equating the two parties or the two candidates.  I'll vote for Biden, but it's because I'll be voting against Trump.

When the only two mainstream candidates are unfit, the only honorable  choices are to vote for a third party or leave the line blank.  

the only honorable  choices

I couldnt care less about my honor when the necessity is to keep a traitor out of the White House. 

Considering you helped to put a traitor in the White House that is rich.

the only honorable  choices are to vote for a third party or leave the line blank.  

All depends on what you are trying to accomplish.   If you are simply trying to feel better about yourself, then voting third party will accomplish that.   If, however, you care about the nation, you would not pretend that a 2024 third party vote is going to make a difference and instead start working on a viable third party for the future.

In the meantime, some of us will do what we can to keep Trump away from the presidency.   Voting third party in 2024 does not accomplish that.

hat.   If, however, you care about the nation, you would not pretend that a third part vote is going to make a difference

It's the opposite actually. Continuously voting for candidates who are not fit to be President reinforces the system that resulted in those choices and ensures it continue to happen. Voting for an unfit candidate is the worst thing anyone who cares about the nation can do. 

Democrats and Democratic leaning independents will always rationalize a reason to vote for Biden. And they'll always claim to be willing to vote for a third party, but it's just not viable yet and, of course, this election is the most important ever (which has been claimed every election this century). It never, ever changes and never ever will.  It's such a tired excuse that even the Simpsons mocked  this mindset in  the 1996 election with the choice when the choice was  between the two space aliens dressed as Clinton and Dole whose rebuttal when their identify  and  plan to enslave voters and conquer the world, successfully  rebutted the outrage with the line " What are you going to do, vote third party?"

ome of us will do what we can to keep Trump away from the presidency. 

Cool.  Enable a senile old man who is already incapable of performing the job to keep it until he's 86 years old.  It's not like President is the most powerful person in the world. If there's one thing we all know, senile old men never act irrationally. 

Continuously voting for candidates who are not fit to be President reinforces the system that resulted in those choices and ensures it continue to happen.

Nope.  The political parties do not care how many votes they get, they only care about winning.   It is naive to think that third party votes make a difference.   The polls clearly show that the electorate wants a choice other than Biden or Trump yet that is ignored by the parties.

As noted in the article, the only way to break the stranglehold by the D and R is to do the heavy lifting to produce a viable third party.   That means doing more than voting and hoping.   It means engaging in a focused, organized initiative to produce a well-funded party supporting a dynamic, charismatic nominee.   A very difficult challenge, but one that could work.

Voting with wishful thinking is futile.   But if one only cares about one's feelings, it might make one feel better.

Enable a senile old man who is already incapable of performing the job to keep it until he's 86 years old.

Here you are pretending that there is a better option.   Yeah, Sean, Biden is unfit; Trump is an order of magnitude worse.   So who do you suggest we vote for?   

e political parties do not care how many votes they get, they only care about winning.

and they get those votes from people who claim to be disgusted by the choices but "want their voices heard" or some  similar pablum and vote for one of the two

  The polls clearly show that the electorate wants a choice other than Biden or Trump yet that is ignored by the parties.

And dutifully pulling the lever for Biden or Trump  will surely change that mindset!

Voting with wishful thinking is futile.

Lol. Imagine how futile gullibly  voting for the same system year over year is. It's Einstein's definition of insanity. "I'll show them they have to change by doing exactly what they want me to do."  A sheep couldn't be more docile.  And then spend the next four years bitching and moaning about how bad the choices are. Rinse, repeat.

o who do you suggest we vote for?   

Vote Green. Vote Libertarian. Write in a candidate. Don't vote.  All are better options. 

Vote Green. Vote Libertarian. Write in a candidate. Don't vote.  All are better options.

No third party candidate has ever won a national election , and in terms of electoral votes none of them have come close. I know why the people who want Trump to win are talking up third parties in 2024, but I dont know why people who want Biden to win would. 

Enable a senile old man who is already incapable of performing the job

bullshit

you just dont like what he has done

There isnt a shred of evidence that Biden's alleged "confusion" has effected policy. 

Netanyahu was interviewed on tv this morning. He said he has seen no sign whatever of Biden being "diminished" or confused. 

ullshit

I know he's not up to the job. You know he's not up to the job. His staff knows he's not up to the job (even refusing a Super Bowl interview from a friendly network to minimize his exposure).   But you are so invested in your party that you'll say anything to protect it. 

He said he has seen no sign whatever of Biden being "diminished" or confused. 

Lol. What possible motive could he have to say nice things about Biden?  It's not like he wants billions of dollars from him. 

It's not like he wants billions of dollars from him. 

He needs Trump votes in the Senate to get the money. 

I don't think those are the votes he's courting...

I know why the people who want Trump to win are talking up third parties in 2024

Obviously not.  If people want trump to win they are voting for Trump.  It is people that don't want either to win that are looking for a third party candidate

And dutifully pulling the lever for Biden or Trump  will surely change that mindset!

No it will not.   And merely voting for a non-viable third party will not change that mindset either.

What will change the mindset is a winning third party.   That can only come by actually building a viable third party.   That means organization, funding, marketing, etc. and, importantly, a dynamic, charismatic candidate.    Until we have a viable third party, merely voting third party and expecting this will magically produce a viable third party is naive wishful thinking.

It's Einstein's definition of insanity.

Which is my point.   Voting for non-viable third parties —and doing nothing else— and expecting different results is naive.

Vote Green. Vote Libertarian. Write in a candidate. Don't vote.  All are better options. 

You have yet to address the point that I continue to make:

What will change the mindset is a winning third party.   That can only come by actually building a viable third party.   That means organization, funding, marketing, etc. and, importantly, a dynamic, charismatic candidate.    Until we have a viable third party, merely voting third party and expecting this will magically produce a viable third party is naive wishful thinking.

Simple put we must do this:

1. Build a viable third party with a candidate who will draw votes
2. Vote for that candidate as a third party vote.

Not this:

1. Vote for third party candidates
2. Hope and pray

TiG, a most excellent and well balanced article. Thank you for sharing this.

Good article and interesting read 

Both the article and in the comments

I'm not convinced that a third party is the best hope. There is also switching to a parliamentary system to consider as well. That would put paid to the two party system as well. In some ways, we already see a sort of parliamentary system of a sort within the D and R camps since representatives and congressmen form interest groups within those parties in order to steer the parties in the direction they want it to go, or at least get concessions. Even so, it still fosters too much "all of my side and none of yours" between the parties. 

As for the third party system, I don't think that will ever be viable, desirable as it may be, for the following reasons. 

1. Money. Most of the really big money comes from interests that are concerned with their own goals rather than creating the best, most fair, most prosperous nation for its citizens that can be attained. A fair and just nation will not favor the rich on either side of the isle. You can bet that they will pour their considerable resources into doing all  they can to thwart it, either fair or foul. 
2. The mainstream media is politically entrenched with the political parties we have. So, also, is the entertainment media. Those are nearly or even more important than the parties, as we only can know what they tell us. And neutral reporting of facts left the building long ago. They are not going to report on a third party, unless negatively. For a third party to have a chance, some major, credible, news outlet would have to emerge that could gain the trust of those of a more centrist mind. Without that, a third party doesn't stand a chance. 
3. The direction that the Left and the Right want to take the country in is now so drastically different that people probably haven't been this polarized since the Civil War. I think there may too many who see even a good compromise in the middle (if they would even recognize one) would be seen by them as giving the other side an inch so they could take a mile later. It may be there simply isn't enough trust out there to make a third party work. 
4. It is a common practice to infiltrate a movement with your own people, helping them in their careers, in order to have inside information or, better yet, move the person into a position of power within the movement to change its course or simply be a chaotic element within the movement. 

This is why I think a parliamentary system would be better, but is probably more futile, as the enemy (the legislative branch of government) would be the ones who'd have to promote it. That's not gonna happen, either.  

There is no doubt in my mind that getting to a viable third party would be a major undertaking — a staggeringly difficult initiative.    Not nearly as difficult as changing the CotUS to move to a new paradigm with a Parliamentary system, but difficult enough for people to argue that it is very unlikely.

I think a third party is the most likely way to break free of our R then D then R ... ad nauseum cycle.   But I do not expect to ever see it.

So, what value is it for people to vote for a third party in 2024?   Obviously the candidate will not win.   And one can make a sound argument that minority votes are not going to magically cause a third party to become viable.

The R and D candidates are both poor but are also profoundly different.   One of them will be PotUS.   Seems to me a sensible use of one's vote would be to pick the candidate that is best for the nation.   In 2024 we have no good candidate so that translates into picking the least worst.   That is at least using one's vote in an effective manner.

Voting 3rd party will make one feel good, but it is a placebo.   One might as well abstain because voting third party in 2024 means that one is letting others decide which poor choice will be PotUS.

So, what value is it for people to vote for a third party in 2024?

Very little. I do not find fault with your argument. To my mind, about the only possible positive outcome for voting third party for this election cycle would be as a gauge towards viability of a third party. That is, although there would be no success in this cycle, if the vote were surprisingly significant it could have a positive effect concerning future chances of a third party vote. If it were large enough, people might take the idea more seriously. 

It might also have an effect on the R and D's but I would expect little to come of that. If the vote were high enough to catch the attention of the current parties I would expect they'd simply adjust promises (lies) in the next cycle to try and attract third party votes to their side but otherwise ignore their concerns. 

Seems to me a sensible use of one's vote would be to pick the candidate that is best for the nation.

I'll comment on this later.  

Seems to me a sensible use of one's vote would be to pick the candidate that is best for the nation.

I would agree, as I think most would. The problem, however, is that I think people don't realize that it has less to do with the candidate than the voters ideas of where they think the country should be going. A lot of people are going to vote for Biden because he's not Trump and, even if some other Republican were a candidate, because Biden isn't a Republican. Likewise, a lot of people aren't going to care about Trump personally. They may even detest him personally, but will vote for him because he's not a Democrat. That is, they aren't voting FOR either one, they're voting AGAINST the other side. At least, that is how I see it. 

At this point, considering the division over various issues in this country, I don't think it would matter if both candidates were really stellar people. Just because a stellar Democratic candidate is a really great person doesn't correlate to their vision for the country being great. I really think that, at this point, this really isn't about either candidate at its roots. It is about the radically different ideas about which way the country should be going. 

That is, they aren't voting FOR either one, they're voting AGAINST the other side. At least, that is how I see it. 

I think that is usually the case.   Most people vote based on party more so than candidate.   I think the growth of independents might be shifting that dynamic a bit.   At least I hope so.

At this point, considering the division over various issues in this country, I don't think it would matter if both candidates were really stellar people.

To me, the PotUS is the face of the nation.   He or she has great influence in world politics and clearly in the USA.   To wit, the PotUS is a highly significant office and we should be quite careful about who we grant such power.

2024 is a frustrating situation since by all rights Biden should step down.   He was too old four years ago and there is bipartisan concern about an 82 year old starting a new term.   Under normal circumstances, Biden would lose the election to almost any decent GOP candidate.

But in 2024 we are likely to see the GOP inexplicably nominate Trump.   The GOP has managed to rally behind a nominee who is not only worse for the nation than Biden (by an order of magnitude) but is a traitor who is the only PotUS who has attempted to steal a US election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement.  The GOP is ignoring all of this and the likelihood that by inauguration time, Trump could very well be a convicted felon.

This is surreal.  Never would I have expected both parties to fail so miserably.   And never did I expect any political party to seek to nominate someone as bad as Trump.

But here we are.

I don't think it would matter if both candidates were really stellar people. 

Consider a president Haley.   I can see Haley bringing substantial comfort to our allies, helping to tone down the rancor in the nation, and giving people confidence that the PotUS is mentally competent, energized, and engaged.

That will NOT happen with Trump or Biden.   And with Trump, the negative effects are an order of magnitude worse than Biden.

One more note regarding the nominees.

There are myriad mechanisms that serve to restrict what a PotUS can do.   This is especially true for a PotUS who is not a loose cannon who will push the envelope (and break it at times).

Biden is more likely to abide by the rules.   As such, the harm to the nation is moderated by our system.

Trump, in direct contrast, would almost certainly build an Executive branch of sycophants designed to do his bidding.   As we have seen play out in public, there are quite a few people who will (and I do not understand why) fall on their swords to prove their loyalty to Trump.  This is dangerous.   The more high-ranking individuals who do Trump's bidding, the fewer checks are in place to moderate a rogue PotUS.

To wit, it is much better to have an ancient Biden occupying the presidency for four years than a loose cannon, vindictive narcissist who has clearly demonstrated that his own desires preempt the CotUS and the nation. 

But in 2024 we are likely to see the GOP inexplicably nominate Trump.   The GOP has managed to rally behind a nominee who is not only worse for the nation than Biden (by an order of magnitude) but is a traitor who is the only PotUS who has attempted to steal a US election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement.  The GOP is ignoring all of this and the likelihood that by inauguration time, Trump could very well be a convicted felon.

I get what you're saying and, somewhat agree with you. However, many people think Biden and the Dems are doing pretty much the same thing with the border. It is incontestable that part of Biden's duty is to secure our borders, yet he is quite obviously doing the opposite. Why? Many believe that he and the Dems believe all these people will be Democrats. That this is why, according to reports, a significant number of Border Agents are processing illegal aliens rather than securing the border.  They see it as manipulation of the vote, stealing it, by the same illegal means, just in a slower way. (May account for why Dems want to find a way to fast track citizenship all the time.)

I think there is credence, perhaps, to such a view, although I personally have another theory, but isn't relevant. It certainly is plausible, though. Which leads to...

This is surreal.  Never would I have expected both parties to fail so miserably.   And never did I expect any political party to seek to nominate someone as bad as Trump.

I totally agree with that. In fact, it still seems so inconceivable that one has to consider if it is on purpose or, have we really just fallen this low? If on purpose, it seems to me both sides would have to be in on it. But why would they do that? Perhaps so that we are so entertained by the show that we don't notice what the government and those who are actually in control (the rich or whoever) are actually doing? But that's conspiracy theory territory right now, brought about by wondering how things could be this cosmically stupid. 

My personal belief is that it is more likely that this is the result of our moving away from God as a society more and more. People no longer believe in objective truth or morality. Children are being taught in various ways that the most important thing in life is their feelings rather than educating them or teaching them to think. Postmodernist thinking in the colleges and universities teach that nothing can be trusted, there's no objective reality. In short, there is no objective reality, especially morally or spiritually, for society to head for or bind us together. There is no anchor. No solid ground upon which to stand. What we have today is the result. 

However, many people think Biden and the Dems are doing pretty much the same thing with the border.

Biden's handling of the border is his major policy liability.   And this is a self-infliction.   This is irritating for many reasons, but the worst is that it gives an edge to Trump.

But why would they do that? 

My simplistic explanation is that parties are mechanical.   The incumbent is granted a second term by the party (either party).   Period.  Attempts to counter an incumbent are met harshly by party members.   So it is up to the incumbent to step down.   In result, I primarily blame Biden for not stepping aside.   Next, however, I blame the D party operatives for not pushing him to step aside.  A profound failure, because with Trump as the R nominee, the Ds could easily win and secure the presidency for (likely) 8 more years.   

The GOP side is harder to rationalize.   Basically I think it boiled down to a cohesive group of Trump hard-core supporters.   The MAGA crowd.   This group immediately gave Trump early momentum and made him a viable candidate.   As time progressed, the herd-mentality kicked in and Trump's momentum snowballed.   By time the debates started, the polls had Trump so far in the lead that he was virtually unstoppable.   

So first blame goes to Trump for using politics to help him with his self-inflicted legal woes.   Then the blame goes to the low-information-voting MAGA group.   Next blame goes to the irresponsible voters who leapt onto the bandwagon.   They basically sealed the fate of the GOP.   Finally, blame goes to the GOP organization and politicians for failing to have the spine to counter Trump and educate their constituencies.   

In result, we have largely unthinking dynamics that produced two truly shitty likely nominees.  

The resolution to this, in my mind, is recognition that Trump is an order of magnitude worse for the nation than is Biden.

A third party is not going to magically appear and be viable but it has to start someplace.  

Take the no name party for example.  They will need to make money and infrastructure.  That is not going to  be easy but it is possible.  They will need to convince people they are here to stay and not just be a blip for a year.  Getting some big names behind them and into a few elections is a good place to start.  They will need to get a much bigger cash flow.  IMO the best way to do that is to show your party and a future alternative so donors will feel better about donating to the party.  How do you do that?  By shaving 25 to 50% of voters in their direction.  You don't have to be a viable party today but you do have to show you are an alternative in 4 or even 8 years.  There is no better time to do that than when the majority of voters don't like the present choices they have.

Don't do this.

1. Vote for lesser of two evils or a against a candidate

2. Wait until next election to see if there is a viable candidate that could win or if there is actually a candidate you like.

3. If there is not a candidate you like  got to 1 and start over.

A third party is not going to magically appear and be viable but it has to start someplace.  

Yes, starting is indeed a necessity.

Getting some big names behind them and into a few elections is a good place to start. 

That is what they should do.   Secure the charismatic candidates propped up by an effective political machine before votes are cast.

How do you do that?  By shaving 25 to 50% of voters in their direction.

That would be historic.   Quite incredible even.   A wonderful idea but extremely wishful thinking. 

There is no better time to do that than when the majority of voters don't like the present choices they have.

I agree that high dissatisfaction is the best time to secure votes.    Too bad we do not have a viable third party in 2024 to which we can apply the votes.

Here is the problem:

NoLabels is a young party that lacks an effective ground force.   It has limited funds, has engaged in very little marketing, has not provided a candidate, and the likely candidate is a 73 year old who is looking to retire and is clearly NOT a charismatic figure that people would line up to vote for.   Even with substantial support, NoLabels has a long, difficult path to achieve viability.   Consider Ross Perot running as an Independent in 1992.   This was one of the most successful third party runs in history.   It was well funded (Perot was a multi-billionaire), had a charismatic candidate (Perot), and was well organized and marketed.   Perot wound up with a truly amazing 18.9% of the popular vote yet won 0 states and earned 0 electoral votes.   The effect was to split the GOP ticket and cause George H.W. Bush to lose to Bill Clinton.   His great campaign was simply a spoiler (that was his plan).   After that, he formed the Reform party which then promptly disappointed in 1996 and fizzled out over time.   Even with amazing initial success, the end result was a dead third party.

The Libertarian party has been around for over 50 years.   After five decades, this party has yet to achieve viability.   Even with all this time, you offer NoLabels as your example rather than the Libertarian party.   It is very likely that the NoLabels party will be overlooked in favor of some other shiny new third party just as the Libertarian party has with NoLabels. 

The moral:  building a viable new party is extremely difficult and has not been achieved since the 19th century.   Even getting a significant portion of the votes (as Perot did) is woefully inadequate.   Every election year is a new challenge and the organization must have the grit and resources to make headway in every election cycle in a world dominated by the D and R parties.   Failure to do this is why we do not have a viable third party in the USA.

The NoLabels party has zero chance to win the election.   It would be remarkable if it could secure a single electoral vote.   Voting for NoLabels will encourage its growth, but you should expect decades before it achieves viability (if ever).   Unless you plan to vote NoLabels each cycle and actively support its growth, it is a safe bet that it will fade away.  

To wit, your NoLabels vote in 2024 will accomplish nothing other than possibly make you feel good.

The responsible, rational, and patriotic move would be to deal with the critical issue today:  ensure Trump is NOT given the powers of the presidency.

Right now, the priority should be to ensure a malignant narcissist traitor who has demonstrated that he will violate the CotUS and the foundation of democracy (the vote of the electorate) and one who could very well be a convicted felon by inauguration does not become president of our nation.   It is unfortunate/irresponsible that the Ds put forth Biden, but for all Biden's negatives, Trump is an order of magnitude worse than Biden.

To wit, your NoLabels vote in 2024 will accomplish nothing other than possibly make you feel good.

This is where I disagree.  If enough people do it then momentum and cash can  begun in earnest and it has the chance to snowball.  Of course nothing is certain and it is up to the voters and possible donors to help determine what happens to a possible future viable third party.  While I do agree it would be nice if no labels party were already farther along I would hope the if the current dissatisfaction with this years choices translated into votes (Maybe a Haley/Dem or ex Dem) it will be the boost needed. 

The NoLabels party has zero chance to win the election.   It would be remarkable if it could secure a single electoral vote.   Voting for NoLabels will encourage its growth, but you should expect decades before it achieves viability (if ever).   Unless you plan to vote NoLabels each cycle and actively support its growth, it is a safe bet that it will fade away.  

That is probable but IMO encouraging growth is better than continuing the cycle we seem to be in while waiting for a potential viable party to somehow get the funding and interest. The interest is there now. If they do well hopefully the interest and funding grows if the party is serious (and it seems they are)

 If they grow enough maybe the other two parties will pay attention in who they nominate as they see NL get bigger.  As long as they can get better candidates than the other two parties seem capable of I will continue to lean in their direction with the understanding I most likely have no impact on the current election or maybe not the next, maybe it will matter more to my kids than it does to me.  I am OK with that.

If enough people do it then momentum and cash can 

IF.   I am suggesting that your IF is extreme wishful thinking.

That is probable but IMO encouraging growth is better than continuing the cycle we seem to be in while waiting for a potential viable party to somehow get the funding and interest.

If Trump was not within reach of the presidency, I would be inclined to agree with you.   That is not the case in today's reality.

Growing a viable third party is a daunting task that will likely take decades (if at all).   Again, look at the 52 year old Libertarian party as an example.  

I am all for trying to build a viable third party but I recognize this is a long-term, fragile, long-shot effort.   In the meantime, we have right now a malignant narcissist traitor who has demonstrated that he will violate the CotUS and the foundation of democracy (the vote of the electorate) and one who could very well be a convicted felon by inauguration running to be president of our nation.  

Dealing with this should be the top priority in 2024.

Don't do this. 1. Vote for lesser of two evils or a against a candidate

Why not?   If both candidates are bad but one is an order of magnitude worse for the nation, the rational, responsible, patriotic thing to do is to use one's vote to help stop the candidate that is an order of magnitude worse.

If given the choice of bad vs. BAD, the rational mind would choose 'bad'.

First they have to agree that order of magnitude and bad vs. BAD is more than just hyperbole. 

Yes, those who believe there is no difference in bad between Biden and Trump will not be motivated to choose one over the other.   Unfortunately there are many superficial thinking voters out there who are so ill informed that they do not comprehend the difference between these two choices.   Add to that the partisan bias and we see how Trump has a chance to be PotUS.

Unfortunately there are many superficial thinking voters out there who are so ill informed that they do not comprehend the difference between these two choices.

Just because some people don't agree with your assessment it does not make them superficial thinking voters who are so ill informed that they do not comprehend the difference between these two choices and it is rather insulting that you keep promoting that narrative.

Agreeing with my assessment is irrelevant.

I am positing that those who think Biden and Trump are equally bad for this nation are ill-informed or blinded by bias (or both).

Agreeing with my assessment is irrelevant.

Oh, it is just a coincidence.

To create a viable 3rd Party one would have to advertise like nothing we've seen before during non-election year to grow enough support to and make a sustained effort to reach enough people to make a run during general election. I think it would take Tylor Swift type of hype to make a serious run. It only has to happen once to break that glass ceiling.

hmmm.... are moderates just too boring? 

The silent majority needs to wake up and speak up or the extremes will keep running the show.

What silent majority are you speaking of - the 60% that don't vote?

Actually the moderates and people not happy with the choices given by the parties in the last several cycles.

Actually the moderates and people not happy with the choices given by the parties in the last several cycles.

There is a majority of moderate left/right lawmakers currently in office. We can question how long that lasts if we start tracking who is not seeking re-election this year. There is too much in flux right now to make any bets - States like WI are getting new district maps this year. Tomorrow what should be a solid NY Dem special election win has been solidly red for more than one election and then will be redistricted. There is too much of this goin on and I'm not certain where it will even out back to a governing moderate group of lawmakers. It will take a bit longer than the 2 current candidates. 

On another note - recently polling shows Haley winning against Biden by something like 17 points where Sleepy and Dopey are essentially tied. 

On another note - recently polling shows Haley winning against Biden by something like 17 points where Sleepy and Dopey are essentially tied. 

Just illustrates how dysfunctional the GOP has become.   They have a sure win with a decent candidate yet they are going to nominate a malignant narcissist, asshole, traitor instead.

Amazing.   And we can see that here with the ongoing irrational defense of Trump.

On another note - recently polling shows Haley winning against Biden by something like 17 points where Sleepy and Dopey are essentially tied.

I think a third party of Haley/Manchin (understanding Manchin is too old to ever be president) would be very interesting and impossible to predict with accuracy exactly what party would have the most votes drained from them.  IMO that would be the best chance for a third party to get a good start although I may be missing someone 

A third party of Haley / Sununu would be promising.   They would not win, but they would drain from Trump and thus accomplish what is most important.

I do not believe either Haley or Sununu would leave the GOP so this is a non-starter.

For fun, imagine Haley / Oprah.   That would be fascinating.

That would be good as far as qualifications go but I am not sure Sununu has the name recognition at the current time.

Probably not Sununu but if Haley feels there is no place for her in the party then who knows?  Maybe Haley and Cheney.  That would cause some heads to explode and give a third party some legitimacy.

That would be interesting and totally unpredictable.  Just be thankful the voting age was never changed to 16 or Swift/Winfrey might be our next Pres/VP

I do not believe either Haley or Sununu would leave the GOP

somebody needs to stick around to pick up the pieces of the GOP after the maga trash are all jailed...

For fun, imagine Haley / Oprah.   That would be fascinating.

Oprah would never be vice president to Haley. Not on planet earth. 

Oprah proposed to Romney in 2020 that they form a joint independent ticket and she would be his VP.

Oprah proposed to Romney in 2020 that they form a joint independent ticket and she would be his VP.

A spokesperson for Winfrey said that she was never considering a run for the White House in 2020. “In November 2019, Ms. Winfrey called Senator Romney to encourage him to run on an Independent ticket,” a spokesperson for Winfrey  stated . “She was n ot calling to be part of the ticket and was never considering running herself.”

Oprah Winfrey Denies Pitching 2020 Presidential Run With Mitt Romney (rollingstone.com)

Haley has made questionable comments about racial issues that involved her pandering to MAGA sensibilities.  Oprah would never be no. 2 to that. 

Then one of those two is lying because this is in Romney's book.

Maybe there was a misunderstanding.  But, remember, this was in 2019, before Biden emerged, and before Biden beat Trump. Her framework would be entirely different this year. 

he's probably trying to buy some minority street cred, since he is definitely pre-1978 LDS...

T.G.

I enjoyed your article, thanks for sharing your perspective on a critical issue in this country, the comments and dogmatic positions took the usual NT course but some very good points were made..

I think there will be choice sin 2024 --- people will be able to vote for one of the major party candidates, for a No Labels candidate, perhaps a Green Party Candidate, RFK Jr and perhaps others and I welcome as many choices as possible for the American people.

There is also write-in that technically is a choice.   We also have the choice to abstain.   We can even choose to privately hold a choice yet never express it.

Problem is, the only choices that will lead to the presidency in 2024 are D and R.    If one recognizes a profound difference of bad in these two nominees, one might use their vote to help minimize the ill-effect on the nation.

If one recognizes a profound difference of bad in these two nominees, one might use their vote to help minimize the ill-effect on the nation.

Which is exactly why some people looking for the lesser of two evils may vote against Biden.  They have seen both candidates in action and choose who they believe will do less damage to the country.

Is that how you see it?   Biden is worse for the nation than Trump?

Is that how you see it?   

Read my comment again, especially where it says " some people".  It seems many (possibly even a majority) of independents are leaning toward Trump because of issues and are not factoring Jan 6th as high on the list of things to consider.  They do, however, seem to factor in Joes age and mental capabilities.  If that is true the lesser of two evils for independents seems to be Trump.

newsweek

I asked how YOU see it.   I need not read your comment again.   

I was asking if you see Trump as the lesser of two evils.

That is irrelevant to my comment.

 none of the true believers can answer that question...

It is simply refusal to answer, not inability.

if they give the wrong answer, they're drummed out of the cult...

for a No Labels candidate, perhaps a Green Party Candidate, RFK Jr

ALL of those choices make it more likely that Trump will be elected. Please tell us why that is ok with you.