Why Can't Third Parties Take Off?

America’s third parties, ​like the Libertarian and Green parties, think 2016 could finally be their year to break through to the political mainstream. After all, the major-party candidates are historically unpopular-with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump at 54 and 58 percent unpopularity, respectively​-and more voters identify as Independent than at any time in recent history. However, the candidacies of past third-party nominees don’t inspire much hope. ​In this video​, Atlantic associate editor Nora Kelly breaks down the sociological and systemic obstacles that third-party candidates will face in 2016.
Subscribe to The Atlantic on KZbin: bit.ly/subAtlanticYT

[@johnedwards5137]

the US has such a broken system

[@threadbearr8866]

Yes. The electoral college prevents more than two parties to run for the office of the Presidency: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r2LOgmuOqZt6qcU

[@muzikremixes9587]

John Edwards Australia has 4 major political parties: Liberal, Labor, the Greens and the Nationals, who are in a coalition with Liberal

[@LEFT4BASS]

Not just the US. Many countries have this same voting system that by and large butts out third party systems.

[@onlyonezay419]

That’s my entire point but they’ll never change it ... to much money and time invested by the people who are already benefiting from the current system... what we need is us the people too demand the change ... a literal revolution would be needed ...

[@jonathanhamilton8751]

Why isn't there a party that can just take care of everything?

[@toldiam5841]

I'm sure literally banning third parties from the debates, and virtually no media coverage doesn't have anything to do with that. Right?

[@johnspinelli9396]

Libertarians and Independents should have more seats in Congress

[@ilebillybobjoe]

1 Libertarian seat in congress

[@johnspinelli9396]

@@ilebillybobjoe yup Amash

[@Steve-zc9ht]

As of now do they even have any they don't have anything in america

[@mrleafbeef634]

I believe in the constitution party.

[@thenewraymak9561]

Nope! They shouldn’t, they are very reliant on the government, and believe in very “leftist” ideas. And extreme socialism

[@gregorbegger9291]

As a Republican I think Libertarians and other third party members should get more votes.

[@cicadaboi101]

Libertarian becoming the president would most likely be much better that Trump or Biden. I don't agree fully with the libertarian party but who said that you have to be completely on board.

[@AG-rb4qe]

@@cicadaboi101 I can agree to that

[@cicadaboi101]

@@AG-rb4qe But I won't vote for the libertarian party cause it for sure isn't going to get elected. And honestly i'd prefer Biden over Trump. At least Biden won't constantly ruin America's reputation with every sentence.

[@AG-rb4qe]

@@cicadaboi101 Big facts

[@outdoorswashington7021]

@@cicadaboi101 Biden wants to take away our guns also trump made the economy better TRUMP2020

[@shyamwolfstrider]

The reason third parties do not take off is not mainly because of the above mentioned reasons. Those hold only for presidential elections. Third parties fail because they focus almost exclusively on presidential elections and not enough on local elections. They don't plan for capturing the posts of mayors, state representative or state senators, governors, and US representatives and US Senators before capturing the Presidency. The base of the pyramid has to be wide enough to support the height. If you want a third party President, help third party candidates win in local elections.

[@tobicapriroy0176]

I'm curious if an independent candidate, one that belongs to no party, can possibly win the presidency if they go up the pyramid.

[@jedgarsquink]

In most states, staying on the ballot depends on how the presidential candidate does. If you try to run only downballot candidates you lose your ballot line.

[@bjnowak]

Shyam Sundar Sridhar libertarians are working hard at local elections here in the future- 2018

[@erickofspirit]

I checked the Green Party website where they have a page showing Green Party members who are elected at the local level (i.e. City Council, school board, water board, ect). So the argument that third parties aren’t running for local offices is not true.

[@Masterfortinero97]

The same duverger's law mentioned in the video applies to most legislative offices in the US (both state and national level) because they're elected using first past the post system in single-member constituencies. The spoiler effect (vote for democrat so republican doesn't win or viceversa) is strong even in local elections because of that electoral system.

[@MIloszKluski]

The saddest thing is that it would be possible if people just voted for third party regardless of tradition, media coverage, money spent by major parties etc. We don't have to do what we are expected to do no matter how hard the system wants us to. How many people hates two-party system but voted for one of the two parties anyway? Americans hated both Clinton and Trump but voted for them so the other one wouldn't win. If everyone voted for they really think should have win, probably nither Trump nor Clinton would win. But we don't want to do that just because we know other people from the same group don't want to do that and they don't want to do that because we don't want to do that. It's a blind circle. We have Internet, we have brains, we know how it all works. So why son't we just vote on third party?

[@Knightmessenger]

Well for one, every third party voter would have to vote for the same third party candidate. So lets say people voted honestly in 2016 and 51% voted for someone who was not Clinton or Trump. If that vote was split among 3 different 3rd party candidates, Trump or Clinton would still likely win with 25% of the vote. (5 way split vote) That's why ranked voting is such a game changer. It allows people to vote for who they like without fear and in the event of a split vote like I described, it rewards the candidate who has broadest support among all the voters, instead of a slightly higher plurality, regardless of how polarizing they are to anyone else.

[@MIloszKluski]

@@Knightmessenger I agree about ranked vote but about the rest... you don't know if Trump or Clinton would win 25%and whole election if people voted who they actually want and even if that would happen, it means that in worst case outcome wouldn't change much but at least the winner would understand how much he or she still needs to proove.

[@knightshade2654]

We have to realize that our “major” third parties, that being the Libertarians, Greens, and Constitutionalists, hold very niche views that do not appeal to most Americans. The Democratic and Republican parties hold big enough tents to appeal to a majority of Americans; this is not to say that our third parties are more extreme, as they can be arguably more moderate than certain Dem or GOP factions. However, they are still niche.

[@MIloszKluski]

@@knightshade2654 Actually I wouldn't be so sure. How is that in 2015 the top presidential candidates were Clinton and Trump and polls showed also that most people actually did not like neither of them? It's not even opinion, it's the polls. People had to vote for people they did not like and I think it's because of not seeing other way, being used to it and just not realizing that it doesn't have to be this way. Most countries in the world, even with Single-member district system, have few parties in the parliament. It's hard to believe that Americans are so much simpler society. Naturally, it certainly helps that both Republicans and Democrats are varied themselves but there are times when polls clearly show that sometimes Americans just don't believe in their system at all and they cast votes more against someone then for someone. Maybe STV system would show the real preferences of American people/

[@knightshade2654]

@@MIloszKluski That is very true; our simple first-past-the-post method is very limiting. However, my main concern with STV is that it requires voters to have a knowledge of all candidates who are on the ballot and also prevents the ability to do a write-in candidate most of the time. Still, it is preferable our current system of voting.

[@yanrokbowl28]

"You're not always voting for the candidate you like, or the one that really represents all your views. You're voting AGAINST the candidate you DON'T like" So true.

[@traviswall1982]

What do you mean we have a 2 party system? They are 1 MEGA party, just counting the 2 sides as "different".

[@sgedlund]

We need third parties now more than ever!

[@flametracking10]

They can, but not in America

[@adamlong1196]

They can if we let them

[@thejetixmasta]

The real question is, Why do we have political parties at all?

[@RenzoIsHereYT]

Tesco cuz it’s the big gayyy

[@brunor.1127]

So we can do the "Us vs Them" With eachothet

[@tjryanspeaks]

Tesco Hamilton and Jefferson

[@erickofspirit]

Political parties are a necessity to having a democracy. A country without political parties is a country without a democracy. Political parties are around to make sure that people’s voices are heard. The more political parties a country has, the higher the chances that more people are represented in the government.

[@nelsinkr8568]

Assuming there is no answer to this question, what shall implement instead?

[@AdamBechtol]

Ah, how it would be if only we didn't have that winner take all system.

[@GreenBunnyTNT.]

USA needs to make this update smh

[@AFiveDayStorm]

I'm a Green, gonna be that way until they give me a reason not to be.

[@johnkesich8696]

But why should Duverger's law apply to a system like ours with an electoral college? Consider a state like Wyoming, the reddest of all, Clinton-27%, Trump-70%, Johnson-5% Given Clinton's high unfavorability rating, why did so many people choose to "throw their vote away" on her rather than Stein? Of course, the real question is, why do we continue with an undemocratic winner-take-all system, instead of adopting ranked choice voting?

[@adanactnomew7085]

Maybe because most left leaning people prefer Hillary to Stein.

[@adanactnomew7085]

Also most Libertarians align more with Democrats than Republicans.

[@adanactnomew7085]

@@Tombstone_Active i find that whenever libertarians do better dems to worse in the same county/district/state.

[@BigJMC]

Here is Australia, we have a numbered system. We choose who we want the most as number 1 and the least as the last number. This means that even if a party gets a good chunk of the number 1 votes, it’ll be pulled down by the people who voted them as last if that is what the majority voted for.

[@AnonymousCommentor_]

Has anyone ever thought of hosting debate stage for third party nominees? I think something likes this existed in the '90s but I'm not sure if people do it anymore. The debates would be between the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, and every third party nominee with significant support, including some independents.

[@zenmoon2543]

This is REALLY a shame!

[@elliottanderson2453]

Float like a butterfly, Sting like a bee, I'm so early the clip's not yet rendered properly

[@LEFT4BASS]

Very good video. Well made. The two things we need to change most are first, the voting system that forces you to choose between voting someone you actually like and against someone you don’t like And second, the fact that federal money goes to campaigns. There’s no reason these parties need government money.

[@jakemyers6829]

It’s ironic I got a trump ad at the beginning of the video and a Biden and the end. Both sides work together to maintain each others power and not let the people voice their opinions. Abolish the 2 party system.

[@labyrinthdweller6707]

I feel like no candidates on either party suit me or my needs. I wish there were was another option.

[@WhiteCamry]

This ignores three facts: a) The presidency has only one seat. b) To win that seat the winner must win the majority of electoral votes. c) If no one person can do "b" then the House of Representatives decides from among the top three electoral vote-getters. Whomever of those three gets the majority of states - that's states, not representatives - wins the presidency. The Big Two Parties do all they can to prevent "c" from happening. They do so by winner-take-all laws in most states, where the winner of the majority of the popular vote wins ALL of that state's electors. As a bonus, third-parties are shut out from the final tally. Contrast that with Maine and Nebraska, which have vote-by-district; i.e., only two electors are chosen statewide and the rest are chosen one elector per congressional district. This reflects more closely the state's local split. Theoretically, a third-party candidate could also score one local elector. The most glaring case-in-point of winner-take-all in recent years was the 2000 Recount which had all of Florida's then-25 electoral votes at stake, thanks to a questionable result in one local district. If that state had vote-by district then the result would have been Bush 14-11 Gore.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

How about changing all these idiotic bullshit unnecessary regulations/laws about voting?

[@jedgarsquink]

In 10 of 58 presidential elections, more than two tickets have carried states, but only one of those went to the House and in that one four tickets carried states and all carried at least two. A strong "third" candidacy starts to have a decent chance of getting an electoral vote majority around 38% of the popular vote if the the D and R run within 5 points of each other. When two candidacies in a three-way race are not close but the hindmost gets at least 15% of popular vote, it takes a bit more for the plurality winner to get an electoral vote majority, but not a lot more -- around 40 or 41%. In 1992, Clinton got 68.8% of the electoral vote (commonly considered a landslide, >2/3) with 43% of the popular vote and only a 5.6 point popular vote margin over Bush.

[@threadbearr8866]

OMFG! OMFG! *THANK YOU!* For the last fucking two years of my fucking life I've been telling people exactly this and all I fucking get is "shill". I haven't come across another comment saying what I was saying over that entire fucking time! Holy fucking shit! Thank you! This is the video I was sharing when making this argument. Maybe it can help you if you ever need to: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r2LOgmuOqZt6qcU

[@grmbtl]

2:20 Bernie Sanders: " I will destroy Top 1 % of the wealthiest .... Oh, just a sec. I take now this millions, close your eyes" 😂

[@spearb-_-selene5281]

Bennie didn't take any SuperPac money, Biden did. Biden is bought by the rich and Bernie was bought by everyday American middle-class. That's the big difference.

[@BayouMaccabee]

It would be nice if we could get rid of all parties altogether and vote for the individuals who most-closely align with our own respective views.

[@ArionsExtras]

Let’s go Libertarian party!

[@gregorbegger9291]

As a Republican I agree

[@verneshaxquisite8638]

Thank you so much really good tips

[@uefamikep]

Thank you for the explanation

[@Katniss1912]

Both democrats and republicans are crooked as hell we need people who don't sell out and fight for the people not saying all politicians are bad but man there is a good chunk of them that are.

[@tylerwbullard]

You're not paying very much attention then. Parties are made up of people so how do you know replacing one party with another won't just put us back to where we are now?

[@ConwayBob]

@@tylerwbullard -- Well, there are parties that spring from the grassroots and parties that are usurped by the capitalist oligarchy. At one time, you know, each of the two major parties (D & R) was a grassroots party. The GOP was progressive in 1860 when it pushed for the abolition of slavery and then at the end of the 19th Century when, under Teddy Roosevelt's administration, it expanded our national parks and busted big business monopolies. It was still probably more progressive in 1956 than Chuck Schumer or Bill Biden are today. The New Deal Democrats were progressive when they pushed through the WFPA, REA, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, minimum wage bills, labor laws, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. But both parties fell under the control of the capitalist oligarchy to one degree or another over the many decades since 1860. Today you've got the Green Party which takes NO corporate money and is free of corporate influence versus the D & R parties which both are in the back pocket of Wall Street. So there are parties and there are parties, and people should choose to support them based on the values for which they struggle rather than because their parents supported it. We've got to keep abreast of what's going on and vote our values. Otherwise, the oligarchy ALWAYS wins.

[@ConwayBob]

You're right, Bonnie. People should be voting their values, not a party. They should be voting for principled public servants, not for whoever runs the slickest, most well-funded political campaign. They should be informing themselves on the issues rather than blindly swallowing corporate propaganda.

[@kingjupiter5795]

Thanks for this vid

[@foragingfleur]

First, dump the electoral college. Second, replace with rank choice voting. Third, have debates open to third parties. Then third parties will take off and have more representation among the American people

[@austinkowalski5982]

starsgirl0414 no you idiot, the electoral college is important

[@mr.hawklingiii8739]

sorry but the Electoral College is Constitutionally Enshrined, so unless we AMEND the Constitution, you can just accept it's gonna be there till the country disappears

[@vickiecordon7887]

The electoral college is a f$$k up system. It needs to go. I want other parties. The only difference between North Korea and the United States is the number of parties. North Korea only has one the United States has two which is not a real choice.

[@alvagonzalez2575]

@@vickiecordon7887 the electoral college is next with the majority will not infringe on the minority in other small states

[@Goldenbear87]

The two fascist corporate parties will not allow it

[@thickFruitJuice]

Perhaps I'm too optimistic. I think all these barriers can be worked around. There are many unhappy people with current options.

[@nickvinsable3798]

What would happen if 3rd Parties formed a Coalition so that they’d run their own presidential primaries & whoever gets 1st place becomes the PotUS candidate, whoever gets 2nd place becomes the VPotUS candidate (could possibly switch, especially if the only way of becoming a VPotUS candidate is through these inter-3rd party primaries, but the primary voters are fully aware of this, but the VP runner still gets the most votes, because the voters loves how pragmatic & realistic he/she is about themselves & their promises of being VP). However, its more like a Poker Game when running for the White House; the Democrats & the Republicans threw their chips into the game, however C-3PO (Coalition of 3rd Parties Organization) throws in the chips that the 3rd Parties have scrounged up. If the Libertarians paid 20%, the Greens 30%, & other 3rd Parties 10% each, then they’d get their respective 20%, 30%, & 10% back & more…

[@samuelbrewer6986]

I didn't expect something with a shred of truth from the Atlantic. I was pleasantly surprised.

[@itchyscientist0576]

They do, we just do it within the party, Trump and Bernie are the equivalent.

[@erickirk6966]

A lot of things may be worth noting... (1) A lot of states having voter access laws on the books, where states can legally refuse to recognize third parties (Independent, Libertarian, Green, Reform, Constitution, etc.), in favor of only recognizing the 2-party monopoly (Democrats and Republicans). (2) Other than the restrictive ballot access laws, some states (like New Hampshire and the Commonwealth of Virginia, to name a few) having closed primaries, where Independent voters (not registered as either Democrat or Republican) can't participate. In open primaries (found in a few states, like Georgia), Independent voters can participate. (3) Another subject to touch on is runoff elections, which is common in most southern states, and not a lot of states do runoff elections. If you have multiple candidates on the ballot, and neither of them get 50% plus 1 vote, the top 2 candidates that received the most votes advance to a runoff, in order to get the 50% plus 1 vote majority.

[@mike_404]

2016 was such a missed opportunity for third parties

[@Alan.Endicott]

America's most recent 3rd party candidates with any measure of support (Perot in 1992, Anderson in 1980, Wallace in 1968, Thurmond in 1948) were initially and exclusively presidential efforts. None secured any congressional, statewide or even state legislative victories. The Reform Party, the National Unity Party, the American Independent Party and the States Rights Democrat Party all came and went because they were invested either in a personality or a transient cause. The enduring 3rd parties (Libertarian Party and Green Party) likewise are totally focused on presidential elections and virtually disappear in off-year cycles. Until a 3rd party succeeds in electing candidates to lesser offices and establishes itself as a credible presence with it's national efforts matter.

[@hitkid2456]

Those on either side like it that way. It is self-propagating. It's all about the power, of course. And there'll always be someone to buy into it.

[@lucasrichards7247]

Now how is it set up in Europe where they have 5+ parties going at it

[@scoutofthe107th]

True, True, TRUE! now i would like to see solutions but the simple on is really just base the system around AV not PV/FPTP/WTA but NEVER add the "national" modifier.

[@msmith1418]

First.. *GET RID OF* the Electoral College system in the U.S. Then the third parties will have a *fighting* chance.

[@Knightmessenger]

Incorrect. With a national popular vote by plurality, you will still have a 2 party stranglehold. Look at races for congress or state offices like governor. No electoral college there yet still dominated by Democrats and Republicans. We need ranked voting everywhere.

[@Cybernaut551]

@@Knightmessenger I agree!

[@jeffsweeney312]

For an excellent analysis read "Grand Illusion" by Thersa Amato.

[@wyattwahlgren8883]

#letgarydebate

[@sicgc7658]

Sure. "What's Aleppo?"

[@tomster4974]

I'm sure he'd know at least that Belgium is a country and not a city unlike Donald Trump

[@sicgc7658]

De Wasbeerkoning It was Hillary who thought Belgium was a city; she said it when she was first lady when visiting European Parliament.

[@Orf]

2:41

[@TimLaSalle]

Matt Orfalea great Bernie work man! Currently doing some “forming a new party” ‘research’ and saw this old comment ✊ keep it up

[@MikeIzzle_]

Over 60% of the country wants more choices, but only 2% will do anything about it. I’ll keep voting third party until one of the major parties gives us a good candidate

[@matthplays-2312]

Its because people say they can't. The reason why they don't vote for them is because we're told it won't win. When in reality if people threw that mindset out they could

[@Woopor]

I’m not old enough to vote yet but when I am I’ll promise that in all state or federal elections I’ll vote third parties. Local not so much, but people in the senate, White House, and state government are so extreme and I’m not gonna vote either of them. I know that it’s a wasted vote, but better a wasted vote then another vote into polarization and extremism.

[@ArchYeomans]

Third Parties will never win. Ever! Bring big money to the table or go home.

[@madden8021]

They also won't win in other Elections like other Federal Level Elections to all State Elections, County Elections and Local/Mayor Elections, The Two Parties won all levels of elections, it's over, this is now a Two Party System Dictatorship. You either vote for Coke or Pepsi, Sonic or Mario, Black or White Ice Cream and Cake, Left or Right, Communism or Capitalism, Comcast or AT&T, T-Mobile or AT&T, Yamaha or Roland, Chevrolet or Ford or if living in Florida then there's no competitor for Electricity and Florida Power & Light has full control of the States Electric Grid

[@deleted-something]

Damn

[@TheBluerayxx]

We need a popular vote system so that every vote counts, because the electoral college throws out the votes of the losing party and the Electoral "points" goes only to the winner. Which is absolutely not democratic if votes are lost. Add up every vote and whoever has the most should win simple as that.

[@TheBluerayxx]

Zacharie the Memeposter What stops a person from doing that in the electoral college? In states that add to the right values, you place fake votes to win the state. With a popular vote system they may have to implement a ridged identification system like your fingerprint or blood to match you to vote your vote.

[@adamkiehl2316]

Raymond Conroy Do you even know why we use the electoral college? I guess no because California alone would choose the winner. How is that far to states with smaller populations? Answer me that? Or are you too selfish to understand why we use it?

[@ryanalving3785]

The electoral college, as I understand it, is in place to ensure that states with smaller populations can't be drowned out by states with larger ones. That way, a small number of high population states can't dictate policy without paying attention to the rest of the states. It is a good idea, though as with all good ideas, it has some flaws of implementation.

[@iamthinking2252_]

Though consider that even in Canada and UK, Multiple parties continue to hold on

[@Bax365]

Nothing will ever change. Sad.

[@alsass0a]

2020 and still no change

[@elbowstrike]

Ranked ballots solve this problem by allowing everyone to vote for the party of their choice, but still only picking a candidate when they’ve reached the 50%+1 approval threshold. “Approval” ballots also solve this problem by allowing voters to mark an X beside “all acceptable candidates” and then the front runner with the most approvals is elected. That way moderates who appeal to the greatest number of people win instead of extremists who can best agitate their extreme base to get to the polls.

[@zadiefluxx7140]

okay let's rebel against the government

[@imasian9780]

best video ever explaining duverger's law !!!

[@akashzz4347]

if these points are the major reason, India should have been 2 party nation( india also have first past the post system), but we have over 2000 parties and around 15 parties are represented in parliament

[@nikhilhembrom8952]

In our country we have very strong regional parties where both bjp and congress aren't dominant

[@bigwilly528]

Time to test this lmao

[@aelvonus]

Oh, the vocal fry, it never ends...

[@will_2is]

who here also takes AP NSL Government and has to do a worksheet on this

[@hankgoodwin202]

We need a new governmental system people need to wake up and realize this we need a party that will actually work for us the people!!!!

[@americablessgod1273]

Can someone explain “winner take all” That part was confusing

[@tonymp]

Hypothetical situation: Two candidates are running, the Yellow candidate receives 51% of the vote while the Orange candidate receives 49% of the vote. Yellow gets office and represents 100% of the constituency while Orange doesn't represent anyone even though virtually half the country voted for Orange. This is even worse when you take gerrymandering into consideration and discover that it's possible for a candidate to win even though they receive a minority of the votes

[@denverlabrec]

So facts

[@Lathnor]

It should be more parties here in Norway we have many parties

[@s.labrador]

I wish the Green Party could win at least once. Too much smog in the air here in NJ. Also I don’t want to have to rely on gas/oil as a fuel source.

[@madden8021]

I wonder if 2020 will be for the third parties time to shine?

[@SoSo-ci8su]

1:10 sadly that’s 2020

[@pongop]

“If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, you will always have evil, and you will always have less.” -- Ralph Nader

[@Hals]

Time for an actual democracy

[@MJ-hg1mk]

You have to look BELOW - to the State legislatures (and local). That is where bottom up REAL change can occur. How? Well 1. Vote anit-incumbent (over and over). 2. Vote 3rd party when ever you have that choice... Each state controls the rules of their respective state party systems. And they COULD easily over power the national parties if their was a critical mass. Then, we'd have a chance to develop a political class that LISTENS TO AND ACTS based on what the people want, not just rich people or monied interests. (Private $$$ would have to be criminally banned from politics). The electoral college is ONLY for presidential contests. And it is not necessarily forever. Nothing is. Change CAN occur. But only with vision and courage. Because things would get worse before they got better. This system is deeply entrenched.

[@bobholly3843]

Yeah, you gotta have 15% support or enough money to jump in at the last minute

[@worstcaseofcrabsever5510]

The commission on presidential debates? WTF is that a government agency? You cant just gloss over that. You should have went into detail about that. Like when was it established, who runs it, where its authority comes from ect ect.

[@Fishslayer04]

What’s her name

[@davidhill1634]

Big pharma lobbyists airline big 3 corruption ect.

[@davidhill1634]

Also big oil

[@americablessgod1273]

I don’t understand - HELP! 😞 Please explain, how do we vote against the one we don’t want? And did you mean that ultimately it’s Congress who decides who is kept and not, so we have to chose between the two “most likely” they will pick? I didn’t understand the part where “the person with the most votes wins - even though the most ballots were for another person” - ???

[@Knightmessenger]

So if there are 2 clear frontrunners and other minor party candidates, people vote strategically for the big party candidate they sorta are ok with, in hopes this will prevent the other big party candidate from winning. Even if they like a third party candidate more.

[@Knightmessenger]

Plurality means you win with the most votes, even if you dont get over 50% of the vote overall. So imagine a 4 candidate race where A gets 40%, B gets 30%, C gets 16% and D gets 14%. Candidate A has the most votes but it's a plurality, not a majority. Therefore, 60% of the voters wanted someone else besides A but A still wins without any sort of a runoff to see what the same voters would prefer if it was just A vs B. For all we know, everyone else could hate A besides the 40% but those amount of votes could win just by other candidates splitting the vote. If there are plenty of polls in advance showing this as a likely outcome, many C and D supporters will often vote for B, just to try and prevent A from winning. Officially, their vote registers for B their effect was to vote against A. So B gets a significant amount of votes from people that didn't really like B all that much. And C and D got less support than they actually had, so we get a distorted picture of what voters actually want.

[@stormer9952]

GO FORWARD PARTY! GO YANG GANG!

[@MikeSmith-tm3zq]

Vote third party or don't vote is the way I look at it. If you vote for either party then that is the definition of insanity as defined by Einstein.

[@RB01.10]

It’s insane that anyone would vote for a third party thinking they have a blessed chance at winning

[@rcquakes30]

​@@RB01.10Maybe because the working class loses no matter what major party is on power

[@eins.wanderer4799]

maybe one day....

[@BooBop1987]

We really do need an Independent Communicator for our America.

[@williamwaugh8670]

What if the People's Party, the Greens, the Libertarian Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), and all minor parties were to announce, "We will be separate parties again in the future, but until we get Approval Voting in every State, we are going under the banner of the People's Party. We ask everyone to join our parties and get on our mailing lists if you have affinity for our ideologies at all, but also help organize the People's Party and vote for People's-Party candidates until we have won Approval Voting. The Americans have everything to gain and nothing to lose by following this plan. It is the shortest and least violent path to the defeat of corporate rule."

[@HughSHay]

Because Divide & Conquer gets worse not better when it tries Three-ways?

[@kennethakin271]

Justice is blind the third party system is a joke, the only reason there are judges is if one party disagrees with the other party on a thing or subject but if the two parties agree why does the third party always gets the upper hand it’s because of the need to control.

[@NFSMAN50]

They need a geographical region to be a competitor

[@Alternity666]

It's very simple. No medias are talking about them.

[@bestrafung2754]

I agree with other comments. This video is good but doesn't mention the fact that they only focus on presidential elections, or at least they mostly do. These "third parties" should focus on local elections first and then hopefully they can get state representatives and eventually a president. Look at the CPUSA (Communist Party of the United States of America) for example. They stopped running in presidential elections and now just do local, although they don't get a lot of votes considering how unpopular Communism is in the USA but you get what I mean. *IF* the CPUSA ever became really popular then they could become very influential (not that it'll ever happen but you get the idea).

[@amelaamelajiang493]

They put wrong for my drive license ........💌

[@amelaamelajiang493]

Is CBC.

[@NoobToobJamarMemes]

Just an example... All a hypothetic, centrist and relatively competitive, third party would do is cost one of the two major parties an election. We would need A LOT more parties and significant power loss among the current two parties for a multi party system to work. And after all the work of getting to this point, all those parties would just coalition and form two sides. So business as usual for the most part.

[@folladordeprostis]

2020 and nothing changes 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@rachel11ll]

So this can be easily overcome for 2024 😉

[@seastorm9548]

The two party system is flawed because there's not really anything for people who don't consider themselves to be on either side and it discourages free thinking

[@coffymix2269]

I used to ask myself the same question, why not a third or fourth party, but after seeing the way Great Britain multi parties operate, I'm glad we are not like them, imagine in the USA a different party representing every race, every gender, every religion and every age.This country may not be perfect, but it's still the best country in the world to live in, otherwise, millions of immigrants wouldn't be dying to come here

[@MattJohno2]

In the UK I voted for the green party, which seems to actually be pulling in votes from the main party which is great to see.

[@hulick6910]

They are the underpants gnomes from South Park.

[@Lathnor]

Search on Norwegian politics

[@supersam1914]

💰

[@amelaamelajiang493]

And also behind my person Life .on carmra 📹

[@BodasHarsha]

Why can't US have proportional system as In Germany? Why always bet on the same

[@Juan-xh4ro]

first pass the post plurality voting