“I’ll only vote for you if you do this, otherwise I’ll vote third party” then they have an incentive to do the thing in order to earn your vote.
Don’t they only have an incentive to do the thing if the third party you vote for instead has a chance to beat them? Which will never be the case unless we see voting reform.
No. If a third party gets, say 5%, it tells the candidate that they could potentially pick up that 5% by moving closer to that party’s positions.
Voting reform is great. It also goes directly against the self-interest of both major parties so they will only ever support it if they believe they have to in order to win.
That seems like an over-simplified or even naive example. Like, a candidate moving their platform has just as much chance to lose 5% of their base as it does picking up those third party votes.
Also, realistically, there isn’t one singular thing that people vote third party for - there’s lots of little “one things” that particular individuals vote third party over, so it’s a more difficult matter than simply “moving closer to those party’s positions” - it’s going out and figuring out what exact positions those votes left you for and trying to incorporate them piecemeal into your platform, all in a way that maintains your current base, or at least gains you more votes than you lose…
IDK man, I don’t see the draw there. Surely it’s much easier to find that 5% in centrists or undecided voters, rather than the very principled people that decide to vote third party.
Ok then, if they believe they can win without me and people like me, then they can go right ahead. But I’d better not hear anyone blame the left when the democrats move right and lose.
Don’t they only have an incentive to do the thing if the third party you vote for instead has a chance to beat them? Which will never be the case unless we see voting reform.
No. If a third party gets, say 5%, it tells the candidate that they could potentially pick up that 5% by moving closer to that party’s positions.
Voting reform is great. It also goes directly against the self-interest of both major parties so they will only ever support it if they believe they have to in order to win.
That seems like an over-simplified or even naive example. Like, a candidate moving their platform has just as much chance to lose 5% of their base as it does picking up those third party votes.
Also, realistically, there isn’t one singular thing that people vote third party for - there’s lots of little “one things” that particular individuals vote third party over, so it’s a more difficult matter than simply “moving closer to those party’s positions” - it’s going out and figuring out what exact positions those votes left you for and trying to incorporate them piecemeal into your platform, all in a way that maintains your current base, or at least gains you more votes than you lose…
IDK man, I don’t see the draw there. Surely it’s much easier to find that 5% in centrists or undecided voters, rather than the very principled people that decide to vote third party.
Ok then, if they believe they can win without me and people like me, then they can go right ahead. But I’d better not hear anyone blame the left when the democrats move right and lose.
I won’t be blaming the left. I’ll be blaming a lack of voting reform, because I don’t think voting for a third party is an effective solution.
Getting 5% is also important because it qualifies the party to get millions of dollars in federal grant money.