Third Party Madness

One maddening thing about every single Presidential election cycle is the inevitable cries of “We need a third party!” I always find this concept generically annoying, not because I’m in love with my own party (believe me, there have been many times when I wanted to junk-punch the Democratic Party and/or some of its component parts), but because the two-party system is simply baked into our political system. No, the system wasn’t designed for only two major parties, and the Founding Fathers didn’t especially want only two major political parties, but you can’t always foresee the future, and this is what we got: a system that by its very nature allows only two major parties.

This is all explained very effectively by blogger Christoper Bird, who is very astute about American politics. (This is interesting because he’s Canadian. Oh, and that blog is something of a group effort, but he’s the Big Cheese there and posts as MGK.)

So, first this (it’s a slideshow, so you’ll have to, well, slide your way through it):

And then, as follow-up, this (just normal scrolling now):

1. A lot of responses of "well excuse me I believe I will vote THIRD PARTY" and my response to that is always pic.twitter.com/bqmh7u8ykv

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 24, 2016

2. The nature of first-past-the-post systems makes third party voting actively detrimental to the goals of people inclined to do it.

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 24, 2016

3. If you're disinclined to vote for either candidate *equally*, then sure, third-party voting makes sense. But you almost surely aren't.

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 24, 2016

4. You, like almost everybody, are probably closer in policy preferences to one of the candidates than the other.

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 24, 2016

5. For sake of argument, let's say you're likely closer to Clinton than Trump. (If not, why are you reading this? Go watch monster trucks.)

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 24, 2016

6. Now let's say "you" is actually "a subset of voters like you, say 1% of the electorate."

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 24, 2016

7. If you vote third-party instead of Clinton, there is a set of possible outcomes. *None of them include the third party winning.*

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 24, 2016

8. Because FPTP systems are two-party systems, by definition. It's not because of corporate collusion. It's because of *math*.

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 24, 2016

9. You are not the first person in history to say "well gosh how about a third party." This is not an original thought you have had.

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 24, 2016

10. The reason third parties don't work in FPTP systems is because the system creates two parties with broad bases.

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 24, 2016

11. Aside: Canada is a two-party state (the Tories and Liberals) with two smaller parties that split left-wing votes https://t.co/QD303rYeq3

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 24, 2016

12. Anyway, mathematically speaking, it makes sense for parties to capture as much of the popular vote as possible.

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 24, 2016

13. So FPTP usually creates a political landscape with both parties trying to ensure the support of "51% of the electorate" as possible.

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 24, 2016

14. Whatever the reason, conservatives usually all line up in one major party; liberals are more inclined to subdivide.

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 25, 2016

15. (This is pretty reliable for FPTP systems across the world, incidentally. It happens again and again.)

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 25, 2016

16. (Australia is the major outlier, and their "two" right parties are really just one party for all intents and purposes.)

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 25, 2016

17. The result of this is a steady worldwide progression towards more conservative policies, because *conservatives don't split their vote*.

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 25, 2016

18. Because conservatives vote with "their" party reliably, the conservative party in Country X With FPTP caters to their preferences more.

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 25, 2016

19. And because center-left parties across the world know that the far left is not a reliable vote, they dismiss them to chase the center.

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 25, 2016

20. So: if you're voting Green because you don't like Hillary, my posit to you is this:

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 25, 2016

21. Voting Green will mean the following things WILL happen.

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 25, 2016

22. Firstly, the Democrats are less likely to win, because a voter who is largely aligned with their policy goals isn't voting for them.

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 25, 2016

23. Which in turn means: secondly, you increase the odds of a Trump victory, which I assume you *don't* want even more.

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 25, 2016

24. Thirdly, if Hillary *does* win, she will be less likely to pursue policies you *would* like, because *you did not vote for her.*

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 25, 2016

25. So, by voting third party, you're making every outcome you actually want *less likely*. Which is why voting third party is stupid.

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 25, 2016

26. The one thing you *will* get from voting third party, to be sure, is a feeling of satisfaction. (Remember what I said about narcissism?)

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 25, 2016

27. Anyway that's enough, I wanna watch wrestling now, Bayley is wrestling and that's very exciting

— Aaron Bird, Sir (@mightygodking) July 25, 2016

Comments on this post are deactivated.

Share This Post