3rd parties

Flipping through the channels. In the context of the Speaker vote, Chris Cuomo on NewsNation quoting Shakespeare and urging people (Dems) to become Independents.

Have read the same regarding those urging Trump to run as an Independent. 

Are we to the point that Independent parties can become viable?


jimmurphy said:

Flipping through the channels. In the context of the Speaker vote, Chris Cuomo on NewsNation quoting Shakespeare and urging people (Dems) to become Independents.

Have read the same regarding those urging Trump to run as an Independent. 

Are we to the point that Independent parties can become viable?

Not without more and wider structural changes to elections.

In a system where whoever has the most votes wins (aka "first past the post'), there's only two options -- win or lose. Losing while still winning a lot of votes doesn't get you anything. Winning while winning too many votes probably just means you spent more resources than you needed to. That dynamic, broadly, means that you'll have two voting blocs -- a third or fourth or whatever voting bloc can only either draw votes away from one of the main blocs, or win outright and replace on of the previous main blocs. So you can get a third party that replaces another party, and for a time have multiple parties, but it will rather quickly revert back to two parties (eg Republicans replacing Whigs).

If you want to fix that, you have to have to change the rules of how you win. One way is to try to change it from "whoever has the most votes" to "winner must have a majority of the votes." Ranked choice voting, which a few states and cities have picked up, is one way to do this. Another is multi-member districts.

You also probably want to look to apportionment -- more districts, representing fewer people. Given the population of the U.S., it's ridiculous that there are only 435 seats in the House (the Senate, of course, is even worse, but changing that would require a constitutional amendment).


PVW, you haven’t allowed for negotiation - what happens here is essentially 2-party, with either Independents (the so-called ‘teals’), Greens or similar next-sized bloc negotiating with one or other major party over a few key issues. If that major party will amend their plans to encompass the third party’s concerns, then extra votes are acquired as needed (not on all matters, just on critical, agreed matters) - if the major party doesn’t act ethically or in good faith on something else, that third party can change their mind and their vote. (And they do, always explaining very publicly why cheese )


Have to win seats in order to force on of the main blocs to negotiate with you, though. I don't know the Australian system in detail, but at least one key difference I'm aware of is your far more widespread use of ranked choice voting? Not sure if that on its own is sufficient to explain why Australian third parties can actually win seats and ours generally can't.


Sometimes the discussions for issues voting begin once candidacy is announced; it often helps voters in key electorates decide their non-standard protest vote. This also helps set up ‘coalitions’ that will operate if enough minor candidates are elected. For instance, over here you might find that several Independents will agree to cooperate around a few key issues, leaving some others up for later discussions as relevant to their local voters. Also, the two more conservative parties (LNP and Nationals) usually form a coalition to govern, while the ALP (Labor) might join with the Greens or Democrats or ‘teals’ as required. 
Interestingly, there was a series of articles in the media this week pointing out that younger voters really aren’t into conservative parties over here. Don’t like their policies, don’t like their politicians, don’t like their ways of dealing with people or problems. Doesn’t necessarily mean young voters are free-thinkers who want an undisciplined society - they’re just not into inherited prejudices, grumpy older white men with cruel senses of humour and vindictive sense of justice. 


(The Australian Democrats were an amazing party for a short while. Sadly, they’ve fizzled out after Cheryl Kernot)


joanne said:

... 


Interestingly, there was a series of articles in the media this week pointing out that younger voters really aren’t into conservative parties over here. Don’t like their policies, don’t like their politicians, don’t like their ways of dealing with people or problems. Doesn’t necessarily mean young voters are free-thinkers who want an undisciplined society - they’re just not into inherited prejudices, grumpy older white men with cruel senses of humour and vindictive sense of justice. 

That's the same here Joanne, but as those young people age they often turn into grumpy, older, more conservative people.


We begin to vote a few years younger than you do (18), so some of that disillusionment might be delayed. cheese The articles are talking about more definitive action (instead of endless reviews) on programs for job seekers, wage reform, harassment both in the workplace and in the home/family, fairer support for asylum seekers and refugees, etc. They want resource conservation as a priority.


In many ways these young people remind me of when we were their age, and saw the possibility for change. But there’s more practicality, more embracing of tech solutions. And I’ve noticed a few may be personally conservative, yet they don’t like the major parties. Interesting. 


We start voting at 18 as well.


Ranked voting is the key.  It would promote a paradigm in which people voted for the candidate they liked, instead of simply voting against the candidate we hate like we do today. Leaving aside the potential upsides for independent parties, I think that shift might measurably improve attitudes about politics in general. 


Thought it was 21, thanks for the correction. 

jamie said:

We start voting at 18 as well.


Also, having to show up. If you have to turn up, or face a fine (about $100) then once there, most people will cast a vote of some kind.  If you don’t have to turn up, well then, so what??

GoSlugs said:

Ranked voting is the key.  It would promote a paradigm in which people voted for the candidate they liked, instead of simply voting against the candidate we hate like we do today. Leaving aside the potential upsides for independent parties, I think that shift might measurably improve attitudes about politics in general. 


GoSlugs said:

Ranked voting is the key.  It would promote a paradigm in which people voted for the candidate they liked, instead of simply voting against the candidate we hate like we do today. Leaving aside the potential upsides for independent parties, I think that shift might measurably improve attitudes about politics in general. 

How does voting work in Alberta?


PVW said:

How does voting work in Alberta?

Canada has a "first past the post"system so, whoever gets the most votes, wins.  There are no run offs.

If the US had used a similar system, Democrats would have controlled the White House since 1992 with the possible exception of 2004-2008 (of course, subsequent elections might have turned out differently if Gore had actually been made President after winning in 2000).


joanne said:

Thought it was 21, thanks for the correction. 

jamie said:

We start voting at 18 as well.

No alcohol before 21. Everything else is pretty much 18.


GoSlugs said:

Canada has a "first past the post"system so, whoever gets the most votes, wins.  There are no run offs.

If the US had used a similar system, Democrats would have controlled the White House since 1992 with the possible exception of 2004-2008 (of course, subsequent elections might have turned out differently if Gore had actually been made President after winning in 2000).

I either asked my question unclearly, or don't understand your response, because the US is also a "first past the post" system.


Oh! Turns out I'm wrong -- First Past the Post is not the same as winner takes all. Thanks social media for teaching me something!

ETA -- no, actually I think I was right the first time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting


ridski said:

No alcohol before 21. Everything else is pretty much 18.

Tobacco products is 21 also - this was raised at the federal level in 2019.


jamie said:

Tobacco products is 21 also - this was raised at the federal level in 2019.

Ah. I had quit long before that so didn't notice the change.


ridski said:

jamie said:

Tobacco products is 21 also - this was raised at the federal level in 2019.

Ah. I had quit long before that so didn't notice the change.

Weren't you something else long before that also, so that you wouldn't notice?  cheese



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.