If we want to address issues (copyright law or whatever) that the two major parties agree on and don't want to talk about, third party candidates are a great solution. Third party candidates often complain (correctly) that they are locked out of the process because of corporate cash, the two entrenched parties, etc. While these barriers certainly do exist, the third parties themselves don't seem to be able or willing to do what they CAN do to change the process.
If you can elect a popular and successful lower-tier politician from a third party [see:California, Oregon, etc. for a few recent examples], voters in that area would be more likely to consider that candidate, or another from the same party, for a higher office (i.e. mayor becomes congressman becomes governor/senator). With a charismatic, successful candidate, this would not require a tremendous amount of time - press buzz can create momentum quickly. If this process can be duplicated in several (preferably diverse) areas, a national movement is created. Once the public sees even one or two NATIONAL level (governor, senator, Important Congressman) politicians from a third party, then you will start to see the migration of voters from other areas and will have a party that represents something meaningful.
If the two major parties' control begins to slip, THEN you MIGHT see a start towards runoff voting or other similar measures. The resulting political diversity would make politicians less accountable to direct corporate interests and more worried about things like public opinion, coalition building, etc.
So, yes we know, third parties are disadvantaged, the system is corrupt, blah blah blah...but if you want third party votes to be something more than an academic exercise in protest, third parties must: 1) Find charismatic candidates that make a good impression on voters (most people are not going to read your platform, but they will hear your soundbites)
2) Build credibility by advancing through the political system incrementally.
Unfortunately, recent third party election strategies have followed the sorry model of many of their platforms: 1) Start with a reasonable, popular premise. (ie, We should eliminate barriers to minority entrepreneurship...(Libertarian)
2)Quickly alienate the public by taking said premise to ridiculous conclusion (ie,...by eliminating government regulation of business altogether - no license required for taxicab drivers!) resulting in dumbfounded look on face of average voter
So in the meantime, I will not be participating with the 3-5% protest vote every four years. We may currently be choosing between two evils, but they are very different evils. In elections where they are remarkably similar and I really don't have a preference, I will vote third party. This time, I will choose the lesser evil...at least he can read;> (couldn't resist)
Slashdot Mirror
If we want to address issues (copyright law or whatever) that the two major parties agree on and don't want to talk about, third party candidates are a great solution. Third party candidates often complain (correctly) that they are locked out of the process because of corporate cash, the two entrenched parties, etc. While these barriers certainly do exist, the third parties themselves don't seem to be able or willing to do what they CAN do to change the process.
;> (couldn't resist)
If you can elect a popular and successful lower-tier politician from a third party [see:California, Oregon, etc. for a few recent examples], voters in that area would be more likely to consider that candidate, or another from the same party, for a higher office (i.e. mayor becomes congressman becomes governor/senator). With a charismatic, successful candidate, this would not require a tremendous amount of time - press buzz can create momentum quickly. If this process can be duplicated in several (preferably diverse) areas, a national movement is created. Once the public sees even one or two NATIONAL level (governor, senator, Important Congressman) politicians from a third party, then you will start to see the migration of voters from other areas and will have a party that represents something meaningful.
If the two major parties' control begins to slip, THEN you MIGHT see a start towards runoff voting or other similar measures. The resulting political diversity would make politicians less accountable to direct corporate interests and more worried about things like public opinion, coalition building, etc.
So, yes we know, third parties are disadvantaged, the system is corrupt, blah blah blah...but if you want third party votes to be something more than an academic exercise in protest, third parties must: 1) Find charismatic candidates that make a good impression on voters (most people are not going to read your platform, but they will hear your soundbites) 2) Build credibility by advancing through the political system incrementally.
Unfortunately, recent third party election strategies have followed the sorry model of many of their platforms: 1) Start with a reasonable, popular premise. (ie, We should eliminate barriers to minority entrepreneurship...(Libertarian) 2)Quickly alienate the public by taking said premise to ridiculous conclusion (ie,...by eliminating government regulation of business altogether - no license required for taxicab drivers!) resulting in dumbfounded look on face of average voter
So in the meantime, I will not be participating with the 3-5% protest vote every four years. We may currently be choosing between two evils, but they are very different evils. In elections where they are remarkably similar and I really don't have a preference, I will vote third party. This time, I will choose the lesser evil...at least he can read