[General Battuta]

I have actually put more thought into third party candidates this year than ever before (read: more than zero), but the fact is that a two party system is a game theoretic inevitability given the structure of our electoral system, and if a third party entered it'd just be a brief unstable phase before we resolved back to two one way or another.

So I dunno.

[NGTM-1R]

are gaining traction online.

The idea that this in any way represents a threat, considering many of the causes that gain traction online, is only slightly less laughable than, say, denying evolution. It also drips with self-congratulation that hasn't been particularly earned. It is not for you to confer relevance on yourself. You're relevant once you manage to accomplish something.

You want political change? Hope for a Republican failure cascade and breakup. It's the only remotely reasonable major shakeup at this time.

[Ulala]

I didn't mean to be so "self congratulatory" as you put it. I was just encouraged to see Johnson being talked about in one more circle. (I see it plenty on Google+) My mistake. Don't worry, I fully expect Obamney to win and for that cascade and breakup to occur. [edit] (not necessarily limited to the Republican party) [/edit]

[Mars]

I'd say that a Republican breakup seems rather unlikely in the near future.

EDIT:

The political factions that make up the US Republicans have had no qualms about working together in the past, and the situation hasn't changed for them in any meaningful way.

[NGTM-1R]

I'd say that a Republican breakup seems rather unlikely in the near future.

We already had an attempt at it. Remember the Tea Party? At some point the competing forces that are behind the current Republican coalition, particularly the fiscal conservatives and the religious conservatives, are going to look around and realize they don't have much in common with their party members.

Frothingly optimistic, many of us saw it coming in 2008, but the Tea Party movement fizzled...and rightfully so considering how much it resisted organizing. A loss now might prove to be a more serious matter, since any outside-the-US observer would have concluded a year ago that this was the Republican Party's election to lose.

[General Battuta]

Holy ****, Obama's got this in the bag now.

[Dilmah G]

I have actually put more thought into third party candidates this year than ever before (read: more than zero), but the fact is that a two party system is a game theoretic inevitability given the structure of our electoral system, and if a third party entered it'd just be a brief unstable phase before we resolved back to two one way or another.

So I dunno.

This.

As juicy as candidates like Stein are, you're only hurting your own cause by voting for a minor party and not a major party. Hell, the better a third party is, the worse it is for their side of the political spectrum and better it is for their opposition. (Insert rage about first-past-the-post voting system here).

[Scotty]

You're hurting your case inasmuch as it ultimately matters which primary candidate wins the election.  When the choice is between wrong and wrong (though there are different grades of wrong), there isn't really anything you're losing by voting independent.

It's a statement.  If significantly higher numbers of people vote independent than in previous elections, that's a statistic that can't be ignored without consequence.  At the very least, it's a sign that the two major parties need to step up their game and either appeal to a broader base or actually produce some results worth writing home about.

[Dilmah G]

True, I'm outside of the US and haven't been following it that closely apart from this thread, but Romneywrong seems ever so slightly more wrong than Obamawrong. I get that it's a statement, but I know I personally wouldn't be able to make that statement at the cost of helping Romney get into power.

I suppose it's a necessary evil, though, given the state of your political system/spectrum.

[MP-Ryan]

Speaking as someone who actually lives in a bastardized version of a parliamentary democracy that seems to function as a republic more days than not, I think those of you advocating for the third party protest vote really are missing the boat here.

Canada presently has 3 major political parties - a "right"-wing coalition currently called the Conservative Party ("right" is in quotes as they're about on par with the Democrats in the US most days), the Liberal Party (fiscal right, social center), and the NDP (leftist).  In the last election, the Liberals were nearly obliterated, the NDP got official opposition, and the Conservatives took a majority stake.

It hasn't always been thus.  In the 1980s, the then-Conservatives (a different faction altogether) imploded and became three parties:  the Conservatives, the Reform, and the Bloc Quebecois.  The led to a decade of Liberal rule with the NDP in a small minority stake.  When the "right" reunited under the Conservative banner again and the Bloc lost traction, it flipped.  This last election was the first time the NDP took any major ground and it was all taken at the expense of the Liberals and the Bloc.

So where is Canada today?  More or less the same place - politically - as we were in the 1990s.  Two major parties positioned on opposite sides of the political spectrum (which is a very small spectrum in this country anyway), with tiny parties in the fringes with virtually no clout.

Don't expect party implosion or third-party votes to substantially change things.  Unless your government structure includes a form or proportional representation, virtually all democracies end up with a two-party state in practice in not fact, and those who influence power behind the scenes will line up behind one, the other, or both as they always do.  Who the two parties are changes very, very little.

[Mikes]

You're hurting your case inasmuch as it ultimately matters which primary candidate wins the election.  When the choice is between wrong and wrong (though there are different grades of wrong), there isn't really anything you're losing by voting independent.

There is always opportunity cost involved in not voting for the lesser wrong, if the act of not voting enables the bigger wrong to win.

[Scotty]

However, if you don't actually feel like voting for a wrong choice, there's not really another choice to be had than voting independent.

To be blunt, I refuse to support either major party candidate.  To that end, my options are to either not vote or to vote independent.  Presented with that choice, it's an obvious pick.

[Nuke]

yea i decided to switch over to gary jhonson. party candidates just keep spewing out party mantras, not one of them is capable of independent thought.

[Ulala]

Tune in: http://live.freeandequal.org/stream.html

[edit] In case you missed it and you're interested: http://youtu.be/FEMi9-WZQqU?t=1h12m

[SypheDMar]

I find the argument ethically appealing on some level but tactically unacceptable.

I knew you knew that.

As far as third parties, neither of the two big ones (Green and Libertarian) are something I particularly like. The Green Party has almost everything except their biggest dealbreaker: They are pro-life and therefore do not support women's rights to abort.

I don't agree with the Libertarian fiscal policies, and while I do think that the candidate really wants to put America back in the right direction, none of his plans will go through Congress even if he was elected.

So for me, it's back to the Democrats. Also, I firmly believe that they are the right choice.

[Ulala]

Yeah, Obama will win.. so I'll keep buying silver and life goes on as usual. 

[karajorma]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2012/oct/24/donald-trump-barack-obama-records

I found this most amusing.

[The E]

John Scalzi has an excellent piece of trolling: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/10/25/a-fan-letter-to-certain-conservative-politicians/

Note: May contain triggering stuff for rape victims. I would also hasten to add that Scalzi is very much not a rapist; just someone who disagrees with certain things american conservatives have said on the issue of women's rights.

[MP-Ryan]

John Scalzi has an excellent piece of trolling: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/10/25/a-fan-letter-to-certain-conservative-politicians/

Note: May contain triggering stuff for rape victims. I would also hasten to add that Scalzi is very much not a rapist; just someone who disagrees with certain things american conservatives have said on the issue of women's rights.

Excellent piece that he should forward to every asshat who is against abortion in all circumstances and their local newspaper.  The biggest issue, I think, is that most of the assholes who take this position are willfully ignorant about rape and choose to remain that way.

[Thaeris]

Oh cool, here is the Third-Party Debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HevHirBmwFs

*EDIT:

After watching this, I really liked Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party, but I can't vote for him in Indiana. Gary tripped up a bit in the beginning, and seemed to borrow a bit from other independent voices I really like, but he still has my vote. And Jill Stein totally won at the last question presented to the group. Moreover, pretty much any of these people would have smashed Mitt or Barak in an open debate - the FEC has to go...

...Unfortunately, many people will either (a.) not do research and look into this sort of discussion, (b.) don't care and will abstain from voting, or (c.) will opt to follow only presented materials and messages in their decision-making. I realize point c can be applied to any message from any candidate, but with the major parties, the differences are minimal at best.