I agree with others who have said a real third party needs to start running locally and showing its party works rather than just throwing up a presidential candidate every four years, whining about not getting to debate and then hoping for 2 percent of the popular vote.
RE: National Divorce a la Mad Madge "Dude Looks Like A Lady" Greene and Delusional Don
While on the surface the suggestion by Mad Madge seems crazy, we need look only to Ireland during two eras to see the reality of a National Divorce:
1. Civil War. From June 1922 to May 1923, there was a conflict that followed the Irish War of Independence and accompanied the establishment of the Irish Free State, an entity independent from the United Kingdom but within the British Empire. In that conflict the established government had to deal with a guerilla war in the western counties.
Afterwards, the casualties for both sides, both combatants and civilians was between 2,500 and 3,500 in less than a year.
2. The Troubles. The religious/economic conflict in British-held Northern Ireland between the Catholics and Protestants that lasted about 30 years, from the late 1960s to 1998. It has been described as an "irregular or low-level war".
Although the Troubles mostly took place in Northern Ireland, at times violence spilled over into parts of the Republic of Ireland, England, and mainland Europe between supporters of the two factions.
3,500 persons were killed, of which 52% is estimated to be civilians.
Mad Madge and Delusional Don wouldn't care if such atrocities were committed on their behalf even with a factor of 10x the amount of the two Irish Civil Wars, since neither would put themselves in harm's way and their side's dead could be revered by Southern Traitors of the Confederacy.
Third party presidential candidates are useless if they do not have a third party congressional cohort. They would have to work with Democrats or Republicans in Congress. So... no third way with that.
A third party presidential candidate would siphon votes from one of the parties. Our system was not created to accommodate a multitude of parties, like parliamentary democracies. For example, if tfg decides to run as a third party candidate, he tanks the Republican Party chances. If it’s Bernie Sanders, he takes away Biden voters. I don’t think third parties are the answer until one of the two major parties starts to tank! There are no coalition governments here.
There are three third-party members of the Senate right now. They are not useless; they work with Democrats in Congress. A president could do the same.
Independents are not third party members. They’re independents who caucus with the Democrats. They do not belong to any party. They are functionally Democrats.
We do not have a government structured for third parties or multiparty coalitions. Splitting votes in the presidential election will inevitably siphon votes from the Democratic and the Republican candidates.
The fact is left of center people need the Democratic candidate to win in this scenario. Hurting them in a three way split when it’s a state by state contest and usually first past the post and winner take all electoral college wins is not a risk I would be comfortable with.
"If as third party group doesn’t recruit a third party candidate what, exactly, is the point of a third party group?"
A newspaper editorial board, before every election, tries to influence the outcome of that election, without recruiting candidates, with endorsements. What is the point of that? Well, presumably they think that some people will listen to them, even though most folks read the newspaper for news, and not as part of a political movement. That board can be considered a third party group.
Now, what if we had one that didn't produce a newspaper, but instead articulated a platform, and made endorsements for candidates that would advance that platform? Not necessarily by naming candidates most adherent to it, but sometimes by endorsing candidates from other parties close enough to it who could actually win. That would be a useful third party.
I don't think there are any such useful third parties, though.
My goal is to keep the comments section free of the vitriol that dominates the big media sites. That doesn't mean censoring anyone. I want people to feel as though they can disagree here. At the same time, I want to disagree in a polite way -- where we respect that other, smart people may well have different views than we do, and that we can learn from those differing viewpoints. Thanks for your interest -- and spread the word!
Why is it, in Israel, when the executive branch tries to dominate the judicial branch they protest and yet in the US when the judicial branch ( sometimes only one judge in Texas) set the rules for the whole US and dominates the executive and legislative branch we do nothing? In what Democracy, can a state judge, set laws for the whole US? What happened to standing (your ability to make a case that you are involved) make a state judgement valid for the whole US? Such cases always go to the Supreme Court and the judgement , if put forward by conservatives will stand until it is overruled. But, if the judgement is for a liberal case, the judgement must always await the supreme court ruling , and the conservative ruling from a lower court remains in effect until the case can be heard, which might take many years. Look it up. That is always the case with this court. Supreme Court? No, partisan, far right , we own this country court. And they do, they can overrule any law, state or federal, on a whim. Look at the gun law case, in New York, only laws that existed 150 million years ago ( actually 150 years) count? Really? that is nuts. That means that nothing that exists today, corporations, technology or laws that we have today count. Wife beating was not against the law 150 years ago , so the Supreme court says that wife beating is OK as there was no law against it 150 years ago? Really? Speed or run a stop sign? That must be OK as well. You do not need to be Harvard grad to see that this court ignores the existing law as precedent. We have no corruption in the US, as what is considered corrupt most counties is actually legal here. A million dollar donation for a candidate? The limit is $2500. OK, give it to a PAC instead, now it is OK. For my whole life I have been proud to be American, but not now, I have applied for a visa to move to Italy and already bought a house there. I am leaving a sinking ship. When the same points of appeasement that Europe did with Hitler ( just give him a little bit of territory in Poland and France will be fine) are now up for debate with Ukraine, that is nuts!! Taiwan will be next if we let him do that. I am 60 years old and I want to die as a free man, Not gonna happen in the US as we are now a one religion country.
I agree with others who have said a real third party needs to start running locally and showing its party works rather than just throwing up a presidential candidate every four years, whining about not getting to debate and then hoping for 2 percent of the popular vote.
RE: National Divorce a la Mad Madge "Dude Looks Like A Lady" Greene and Delusional Don
While on the surface the suggestion by Mad Madge seems crazy, we need look only to Ireland during two eras to see the reality of a National Divorce:
1. Civil War. From June 1922 to May 1923, there was a conflict that followed the Irish War of Independence and accompanied the establishment of the Irish Free State, an entity independent from the United Kingdom but within the British Empire. In that conflict the established government had to deal with a guerilla war in the western counties.
Afterwards, the casualties for both sides, both combatants and civilians was between 2,500 and 3,500 in less than a year.
2. The Troubles. The religious/economic conflict in British-held Northern Ireland between the Catholics and Protestants that lasted about 30 years, from the late 1960s to 1998. It has been described as an "irregular or low-level war".
Although the Troubles mostly took place in Northern Ireland, at times violence spilled over into parts of the Republic of Ireland, England, and mainland Europe between supporters of the two factions.
3,500 persons were killed, of which 52% is estimated to be civilians.
Mad Madge and Delusional Don wouldn't care if such atrocities were committed on their behalf even with a factor of 10x the amount of the two Irish Civil Wars, since neither would put themselves in harm's way and their side's dead could be revered by Southern Traitors of the Confederacy.
Third party presidential candidates are useless if they do not have a third party congressional cohort. They would have to work with Democrats or Republicans in Congress. So... no third way with that.
A third party presidential candidate would siphon votes from one of the parties. Our system was not created to accommodate a multitude of parties, like parliamentary democracies. For example, if tfg decides to run as a third party candidate, he tanks the Republican Party chances. If it’s Bernie Sanders, he takes away Biden voters. I don’t think third parties are the answer until one of the two major parties starts to tank! There are no coalition governments here.
There are three third-party members of the Senate right now. They are not useless; they work with Democrats in Congress. A president could do the same.
Independents are not third party members. They’re independents who caucus with the Democrats. They do not belong to any party. They are functionally Democrats.
We do not have a government structured for third parties or multiparty coalitions. Splitting votes in the presidential election will inevitably siphon votes from the Democratic and the Republican candidates.
The fact is left of center people need the Democratic candidate to win in this scenario. Hurting them in a three way split when it’s a state by state contest and usually first past the post and winner take all electoral college wins is not a risk I would be comfortable with.
"If as third party group doesn’t recruit a third party candidate what, exactly, is the point of a third party group?"
A newspaper editorial board, before every election, tries to influence the outcome of that election, without recruiting candidates, with endorsements. What is the point of that? Well, presumably they think that some people will listen to them, even though most folks read the newspaper for news, and not as part of a political movement. That board can be considered a third party group.
Now, what if we had one that didn't produce a newspaper, but instead articulated a platform, and made endorsements for candidates that would advance that platform? Not necessarily by naming candidates most adherent to it, but sometimes by endorsing candidates from other parties close enough to it who could actually win. That would be a useful third party.
I don't think there are any such useful third parties, though.
Thank you for answering my question!
Thanks for answering my question, comrade. Fair play to you. Keep your comments section open and fun, unlike Dan Rather’s: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-post-a-cringe-comment
Daisy
My goal is to keep the comments section free of the vitriol that dominates the big media sites. That doesn't mean censoring anyone. I want people to feel as though they can disagree here. At the same time, I want to disagree in a polite way -- where we respect that other, smart people may well have different views than we do, and that we can learn from those differing viewpoints. Thanks for your interest -- and spread the word!
Chris
Why is it, in Israel, when the executive branch tries to dominate the judicial branch they protest and yet in the US when the judicial branch ( sometimes only one judge in Texas) set the rules for the whole US and dominates the executive and legislative branch we do nothing? In what Democracy, can a state judge, set laws for the whole US? What happened to standing (your ability to make a case that you are involved) make a state judgement valid for the whole US? Such cases always go to the Supreme Court and the judgement , if put forward by conservatives will stand until it is overruled. But, if the judgement is for a liberal case, the judgement must always await the supreme court ruling , and the conservative ruling from a lower court remains in effect until the case can be heard, which might take many years. Look it up. That is always the case with this court. Supreme Court? No, partisan, far right , we own this country court. And they do, they can overrule any law, state or federal, on a whim. Look at the gun law case, in New York, only laws that existed 150 million years ago ( actually 150 years) count? Really? that is nuts. That means that nothing that exists today, corporations, technology or laws that we have today count. Wife beating was not against the law 150 years ago , so the Supreme court says that wife beating is OK as there was no law against it 150 years ago? Really? Speed or run a stop sign? That must be OK as well. You do not need to be Harvard grad to see that this court ignores the existing law as precedent. We have no corruption in the US, as what is considered corrupt most counties is actually legal here. A million dollar donation for a candidate? The limit is $2500. OK, give it to a PAC instead, now it is OK. For my whole life I have been proud to be American, but not now, I have applied for a visa to move to Italy and already bought a house there. I am leaving a sinking ship. When the same points of appeasement that Europe did with Hitler ( just give him a little bit of territory in Poland and France will be fine) are now up for debate with Ukraine, that is nuts!! Taiwan will be next if we let him do that. I am 60 years old and I want to die as a free man, Not gonna happen in the US as we are now a one religion country.