Every four years we're told this is the election where a "real" third Party/Independent candidate gets people to shift political loyalties. And it never happens.

Bull Moose Party...TR

John Anderson in 1980

Ross Perot. 92 & 96

They probably got the closest. Every 4 yrs there are lots of contestants from the bizzare world trying too.

http://www.presidentsusa.net/thirdparty.html

Ross Perot might, repeat 'might' have been an exception. Having him in the race threw the 92 election to Clinton.

party candidate help anything. As to the two parties being the same? I am more interested in social actions and the Democratic Party is far better (not perfect) than the Rs that want to take it all away. On those issues there is a difference.

On war and the economy I am not sure. One reason I will vote for Bernie in the Primary.

in my opinion. Democrats seem better to me on civil rights, workers' rights, social programs, and Supreme Court picks than Republicans, but because of their stances on war, justice (legal, as opposed to social), and Wall Street, I consider them to be a lesser evil. I like the Green Party, but I vote for Dems because I really don't want the Republicans to win.

of the reasons we have a hard time getting out the vote in off elections. It fosters a "who cares" attitude. I wish it was different. But this year the SCOTUS is at stake for the next 30-40 years and we definitely cannot afford that.

Put in place INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING for next election and I'll withdraw and support the party in this election that puts it in place.

You would get two votes. You indicate your first preference and your second preference. If your first preference is not in the top two and your second preference is then your vote automatically goes to the second preference.

Example: You vote for the Green candidate as first preference and Dem as second. The R and D candidates are in the top two but neither has 50%. So your Green vote is shifted to the Dem candidate.

After votes are first tallied Dem has 48%, Rep 46%, Green 4% and Libertarians 2%. Then the instant run off takes place and since most of the Green people voted Dem as 2nd and most Libertarian voters picked Rep as 2nd the final tally is Dem 52% and Rep 48%.

Bottom line is that you can vote your principles with out worrying that you will be a "spoiler." It would help third parties grow.

I have not heard any put forward. Unfortunately not likely to get too far except in local areas because it is a threat to the two parties and they control the rules.

Jurisdictions that use a form of it:

Arkansas (only overseas voters in runoffs): Adopted in 2005 and first used 2006


Alabama (only overseas voters): By agreement with a federal court, used in special election for U.S. House, 2013

Berkeley, California: Adopted in 2004 and first used 2010 (for mayor, city council and other city offices)

Hendersonville, North Carolina Adopted and used as part of a pilot program in 2007, 2009 and 2011 (mayor and multi-seat variation for city council) and under consideration for future elections

Louisiana (only overseas and out-of-state military voters in federal and state runoffs): Adopted and used since the 1990s

Minneapolis, Minnesota: Adopted in 2006 and first used in 2009 in elections for mayor, city council and several other city offices, including certain multi-seat elections

Oakland, California: Adopted in 2006 and first used in 2010 (for a total of 18 city offices, including mayor and city council)

Portland, Maine: Adopted in 2010 and first used in 2011 (for electing mayor only)

San Francisco, California: Adopted in 2002, first used in 2004 and used every November election since then (for mayor, city attorney, Board of Supervisors and five additional citywide offices)

San Leandro, California: Adopted as option in 2000 charter amendment and first used in 2010 and every two years since (for mayor and city council)

South Carolina (only for overseas voters in federal and state primary runoffs): Adopted and first used in 2006

St. Paul, Minnesota: Adopted in 2009, first used in 2011 and to be used every two years (mayor and city council)

Springfield, Illinois (for overseas voters only): Adopted in 2007 and first used in 2011

Takoma Park, Maryland: Adopted in 2006 and first used in 2007, with elections every two years and with some special elections in between (for mayor and city council)

Telluride, Colorado: Adopted in 2008 and first used in 2011 (for mayoral elections)

http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/where-instant-runoff-is-used/

We have a long way to go to get this enacted. Is there an organization working for this?

And I don't know too much about them. I don't know if they are just an 'information' distributor or if they are actively trying to get this passed.

The current system is pretty similar, except that we have two first elections (for a left side and a right side) and then have the runoff for the top two candidates on each side. Some places (like California) have a setup closer to instant runoff voting – the top two winners in the primary go on to the general. Of course in those cases the runoffs are separate elections rather than being done concurrently; I’m not sure which is a better way of handling things, myself.

I think instant runoff voting or another round of runoff elections (perhaps sub-party elections) would be most beneficial at the primary level, where it seems like vote splitting is much more common than in the general (at least in my experience).

Look at what has happened in California District 31 the last two elections for examples of why this is bad.

There you had more Democrats running than Republicans in each of those "top two" primaries, and they split their votes so much that you had two Republicans advancing to the primaries instead of at least one Democrat, because of the greater Democratic Party splits, and a Democratic Party majority district had to choose between two Republican candidates in the runoff in November. In the more recent election that same split almost happened again, but you had one more Republican candidate that had the Republican splits have the second choice barely going to a Democrat instead of a Republican again. This will only provide incentives for each party to have LESS candidates running at this stage instead of having more choices for that party to ensure that they don't have the vote splits screw them up like it did in District 31. Is that what voters wanted with top two primaries? LESS choices with LESS people from each party running because more running would screw them out of having a rep in the fall primary?

And you have other problems too that can happen out of these kinds of initiatives that have a lot of big money special interests behind putting them in that in effect shuts down both major and third party engagement and involvement in endorsing and helping at the citizen level inform fellow citizens on who they should elect.

Here in Oregon, some locales have rules that if a single candidate in the primary gets more than 50% of the vote in a non-partisan election, that there is no runoff later. Now, this would be expanded to "partisan" elections too in many areas, so that you could have an unrepresentative voting populace (maybe 30% of registered voters) that are mostly white and well off, provide over 50% of a votes that wouldn't give the true majority a chance at voting even a runoff vote in the fall when more voters vote (and in many cases might not make the same choice that 50% of the voters did in primary season).

Also, when politicians leave office, which happens at many times and for a variety of reasons, local state candidates here in Oregon are selected by the PCPs of the counties of the same party of the politician leaving that seat. This happened here in Oregon when Democratic Parrty PCPs voted on who to replace Suzanne Bonamici as a state senator when she left that position after winning a special election to replace David Wu as our congressperson here who resigned mid term. Now the PCP's provide a recommendation they vote on from the list of Democrats (or Republicans if it were replacing a Republican politician), for the County Supervisors to select from to win the temporary slot (in this case the State Senate seat). In this case the Republican majority County Supervisors replaced Ms. Bonamici with the runner up selection (Elizabeth Steiner Hayward) who was less experienced than the state House rep that was selected by the Democratic PCPs (Chris Harker), probably figuring it would help a Republican win the next election for that seat. Fortunately, they weren't successful as Ms. Hayward has also been a fine state senator too. But if these newer election rules were in place, the County Supervisors could have and probably would have selected a Republican to replace Ms. Bonamici instead, reversing what that district had voted in to office. Since a larger majority of counties in Oregon are controlled by Republicans, even though at the district levels for state reps and senators the Democrats control that, you can see how this could abused a lot, if a lot of state reps had to leave office for some reason. This was more discussed here in this Daily Kos page.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/03/1314661/-Top-2-Primary-will-be-on-the-ballot-in-Oregon-Don-t-vote-for-it

This is precisely why any changes to laws on our elections need to be HEAVILY scrutinized to ensure they will do the right things, and not have hidden crap like Measure 90 does for Oregon, and that we also need to make sure that the public understands what is being voted on and can understand that it works for them, and not be just "told" that is.

solve the underlying problem. I guess instant runoff voting would have similar problems (favoring the faction with the least number of candidates running) if it ever made much of a difference in the general (I don’t think it would, however).It does make sense to have the runoff election (general election) be factional (the candidate most favored by the left against the candidate most favored by the right) rather than simply being between the two candidates who were able to survive for one reason or another.

Getting people engaged in the primaries is much more important. And again, some method to avoid vote splitting in the primaries (I think option sub-parties might work) would be useful, but the thing that would make the biggest difference is just people showing up and making good choices (which only a very small number of people do).

Though IRV has the problem I outlined here, I don't think it hurts as much as the top two system does in encouraging less candidates to run to avoid spoiler problems, though could a little bit. The Top Two primary is WORSE in this regard than the current set up where the closed primary season winnows down the larger choice situation in the general election, so that the system itself requires only 1 candidate per party and at least avoids the general election choices keeping out a majority party from being voted on.

I think IRV works best in the November election when all parties' candidates are running as well as independents, where the positions of candidates are a lot more divergent than within parties, and voters feel the greater consequences of the spoiler effect that much more that has them potentially avoiding for their favorite candidates now.

But if a party feels that instant runoff voting works best for them, if we already have methodologies in place for the general election, we could put in place here, even with a "closed primary" of just party members voting. That way in large jurisdictions with large numbers of potential candidates within a party, you could encourage even people that don't have big money backing them to try their hand at running within the party, if they have a lot of party members supporting them (even if the money isn't supporting them).

The main thing people like myself and other techies and those working on the design of these systems need to do now, is to refine the IRV algorithm so that it doesn't penalize those with many 2nd place votes but lower amounts of 1st place votes to the point that people in general feel that the best choice results from the "runoffs" that get automatically calculated from the ranked voting is done right. If we can get a system that both those advocating range voting and IRV can be more unified to feel comfortable with the spoiler problems, etc. being a lot better addressed, that is when we go on a nationwide campaign to get that understood, accepted and put in our systems in various places. And do it in a fashion so that we don't have a lot of outside money pouring in to those working on these problems that want to throw in points of the system where choice can be manipulated, etc.

a limited number of choices (they have 1-15, but stop after 2). Ideally everyone would use all 15, but in actuality many would only use a few (or just one). Particularly since this would be equivalent to merging the primary and the general into a single election, it might be a bit difficult to get people to vote in favor of the people they are currently against (IE, getting Obama primary voters to vote for Clinton at the same time they’re fighting against her).

This might be particularly true if people think something like, “I already voted for 5 progressives, why do I need to vote for these two DINOs.”

Another issue is that it would encourage the side without a clear frontrunner to spend more time attacking each other than the other side, while a side with a clear frontrunner could focus on hammering the other side.

And again, I’m not sure what problems it would solve. Spoilers aren’t much of an issue, and just having an extra party or five isn’t going to improve things on its own. Naming your party the Green Party doesn’t inoculate it against a takeover by corporatists. Right now that happens because corporatists so no use in the miniscule party, but if it became a major party you’d better believe they’d be there. Either way people will have to get involved in intraparty politics in order to make or keep a party progressive. The main issue, I think, is that people want to be able to ignore intraparty politics and have a powerful progressive party handed to them without doing any work.

I think that political parties are one of the few if only organizational constructs in our system of government now, which allows grass roots citizens to become locally involved and participate locally, regionally, and even nationally, on many issues that they work together with others from the same party on. If you take away a vote for leadership within that party, then you take away their way of organizing who they want to lead that party on certain issues, not just who gets elected for a general political position.

That's the ultimate failure of the jungle primary (top two) system, as it take away any form of "citizen-based" endorsement that closed primary votes have traditionally provided for the general election nominees, and replaced it with a system that in some cases allow candidates just to attach a party "label" to their name which is nothing more than a marketing label, as it is meaningless for the voter to measure what they are actually about and what they have talk about doing, if you take away the closed primary part of the equation.

And top two still doesn't allow you to make sure that one of your top choices whether it is only one or five or even more if allowed, will have their vote counted against those on the list you don't want in. Now, you have to measure whether your one vote will count in this jungle primary since you have only one shot. With top two, you either vote for the one that most likely will get nominated that is the "lesser of two evils" among the two that are most likely to get nominated, or you strategically vote for the worst of all evils, so that your favorite has a better shot at winning. The latter is not as much of an issue for top two as it is for simply "open primaries" where anyone can vote with a primary without registering as a party member. The latter I think is partially lead to Mr. Brat winning over Eric Cantor in Virginia too.

IRV would actually encourage more people running with similar viewpoints working together than attacking each other, as they can pick up supporters for at least 2nd or 3rd place votes from those that support other candidates with similar viewpoints. If you attack those with similar viewpoints, you are more likely to LOSE those 2nd and 3rd place ranked votes.

Preserving the closed primary party instead of letting it be destroyed like Top Two does, actually promotes the notion that people need to work doing more intraparty politicking during the primary season to ensure they are the one that wins, whether that closed primary is decided by the traditional winner takes all vote, or by IRV vote. People inside parties, and I think with closed primaries, it would be VERY hard for a corporatist "takeover" of the Greens, for example, worry less about an extreme candidate that they don't like winning a nomination rather than wanting to hear what everyone has to say that is running and ranking those that prioritize what they see as party priorities in a similar fashion. Then even within party closed primaries, you are more likely to get a candidate that best represents a party platform, than allowing those with bigger moneyed or other resourced organizations to dominate getting the vote in those closed primaries.

The effort here in Oregon to pass measure 90 is trying to tell independents that they should feel like their taxpayer money is being taken away from them to pay for this primary election, when they aren't "allowed" to vote in it. First of all, people can register in a party very late in the process before an election. You can still register now in Oregon for the next few weeks. Secondly, would someone try to use the same logic to say to those who aren't even registered to vote that they shouldn't feel its fair that our government uses their taxpayer money to pay for elections that they without registration can't vote in? I think most people that aren't true fascists would still value that we have elections and not say we should shut them down in general to appease those that don't get to vote because they don't register to vote.

This is how the moneyed interests from the Kochs and others are trying to take over our electoral processes, by trying to appeal to a growing disaffected set of voters who are fed up with the way that both parties aren't listening to them, largely because of the money being spent on elections to get influence instead of the voters having influence over party agendas. And of course many don't realize that by voting this in to place, they are actually going to make the problems they are frustrated with that much worse, as it will be more the big money spent on ads and corporate media press that will determine elections and not who wins the primary votes of party members that gets taken in to account for people's selections.

is just the name and the people who join. The Greens don't have the (successful) career politician types because they aren't a viable party. You're better off winning if you have no party support than Green Party support; they're support is detrimental in most places. But if they were ever viable, they definitely would have more people joining for purely political reasons. I doubt the party would be able to keep everyone in line, because they have a helluva lot of trouble doing that even now, while they're mostly a small group of ideologues uninterested in winning elections.

IRV might incentivize people to not attack each other as much, but the current system discourages vote splitting and you still get that. Again, not so much in the general but quite a bit in the primary (part of why it drives me crazy when vote splitting is treated as _only_ a general election issue). We already have people here saying that they won't vote for Clinton no matter what; if IRV made third party candidates more viable (a pretty big if), it's quite possible we'd see sentiments like that spreading ("I've voted for 3 progressives, I don't need to vote for a DINO&quot .

But yeah, the current primary -> general election system isn't bad, it's just that the primaries are often ignored. It makes sense for people on the left to get together and choose one candidate to get behind in a general, and it makes sense for progressives to get together and get behind a progressive candidate in the primary. The problem with third-parties is that they basically are saying that since they are unable to get enough people on the left behind them they're going to throw out the whole notion of getting behind one candidate. "We know we can't win so we've decided to split the vote" isn't a particularly laudatory position.

Where if you have a candidate amongst a large candidate field that gets a lot of 2nd place votes but not as many 1st place votes as the other candidates, they might be a better choice that most would support over most of the candidates in the field, but might be eliminated early because they have the lowest number of 1st place votes. I think the chances for this statistically are lower than the problems with spoilers in our current system, but it is still an issue to be looked at, and perhaps how candidates rankings are measured for the different rounds needs more refinement than what the current methodology of IRV provides. To me this is something that if we got our heads together, we could come up with a better way of evaluating candidates for each round, but would need to make sure it is still relatively simple and something that the average person could understand and that it is not being manipulated for certain outcomes.

Read more here:

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/01/02/no-relief-convicted

I think there are critiques of range voting too, which appears to be advocated here as well, but I think the bottom line is that one could build a better system that would avoid spoiler issues, allow a first pass vote that shows people's true favorites and their percentages, as well as the final results (with the runoff rounds interated through). This would be helpful for both the public and the elected officials to get a good measurement as to how the public felt about the different candidates in the field, to allow them to work with those other candidates that overlap their own constituencies and look at what issues they were pushing, etc. to help them with governing better for those that ultimately voted for them too with 2nd or 3rd place votes.

The bottom line is that we really need to have studies to evaluate different methodologies that will refine what IRV provides a good promise for, which is to allow people to vote who they really care about, without fear of the worst of their choices getting elected because they "threw their vote away"...

We have to do this soon too, as many states have already voted in "jungle primary" so-called "solutions" to this (California and Washington are two of them), and I'm involved a lot in trying to help argue against Measure 90 here in Oregon this November which is going to try for the second time to get that voted in here too. Koch money as well as other wealthy lobbyist money is behind this effort, which basically in effect takes down closed primaries (and along with it the whole principle of using political parties for people to work together on issues and selecting leaders to champion their positions on these issues). Those supporting "Top Two" primaries want to have the main decisions for who gets elected (not the 2 person runoff afterward) made in primary season, when voter turnout is a lot lower and unrepresentative. And the only guide voters have then in picking who they want is a party "label" attached to a candidate that isn't a primary win endorsement, and the paid for ads and corporate media endorsements of these candidates. Big Money WANTS it that way.

They're getting successful putting this kind of voting in place because there are a growing numbers of independents everywhere now that are frustrated with both parties. These independents are being told that since they can't vote in these closed primaries, they can't affect choices for "moderate" candidates that aren't more extreme in their party positions to win those primaries. These independent voters in some cases are swallowing this, though they are likely to realize after the fact that they are begin USED to help the wealthy in effect shut down the more democratic aspects of our elections.

With the growing number of disgruntled independent voters, this is a growing problem in all of the states now. That is why we really need to come up with a more generally understood and acceptable alternative in something like Instant Runoff Voting or Range Voting that won't allow politicians and how they are chosen to be bought more. Talking to insiders in the Democratic Party here in Oregon, I think the biggest reason they don't endorse instant runoff voting, or at least the reason they've given me, is that they don't want to endorse as a party something that voters don't really understand just yet, and I think that is a valid criticism, especially when you look at how these "top two" initiatives are being voted on, and the aftermath they have and will create in the states they are put in place.

We need a movement to help make this a broader question for people to look at and refine and help the public understand well.

Australia, which requires its citizens to vote or they pay fines if they don't, has instant runoff voting in place nationwide. Here's an interesting article to read on this subject. Note that they also have some proportional representation that they use alongside this methodology, which is something we should also look at, but might be a lot harder to implement here in the states without some constitutional convention or the like to update our constitution to allow for proportional representation voting.

http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/instant-runoff-voting-in-australia-guest-blog-from-ben-raue/

party mixes it up some IMO giving more variation and less dueling. What I see now are in many ways very similar parties. Also, getting the F'en money out of the election process would be most beneficial. It is absolutely insane we call this a democracy, and then politicians can be bought and bribed.

Exactly!

Public funding of elections

The two parties are largely owned by the same corporate interests, and they exist now less to offer different directions than to serve as tools to keep us divided and to give the illusion of choice.

The propaganda works very hard to keep us focused on beating the other guy, rather than focusing on what would be best for the country.

It is a slick strategy by oligarchs, and we have to break it.

folks every election cycle... It's much less tiring to say "it never has worked and never will" and go about voting for the least shitty candidate.

At least, thats what I hear...

I would hate to see a third party that split the democrats and let Republicans ruin this country more than they have already.

The roughly one third of the voters who support republican wannabee Harper have been in charge for 10 years because the middle-of-the-road and progressive 2/3 of voters split their votes between 3 parties. Sigh.

every time I think of 3rd parties.
We desperately need some kind of proportional representation system, but screwing with the Constitution that much would be a non starter I would think.

Did stuff like peace instead of war. Believed "People trump property" for a change. You know, what real Democrats are about. Instead, both parties work to make Ronald Reagan's droolcatcher Roger Ailes happy.

that there is fundamentally and inherently wrong with a system that can not be fixed democratically by even the insertion of a third party into the present political process without changing that system at its rudimentary level into a more just and democratic parliamentary structure. Be it left or right both see something is wrong at its present structure.

things have to change, though.

Two on the left, two on the right.

Based on social and fiscal views.

Liberal - Liberal
Liberal - Conservative
Conservative - Liberal
Conservative - Conservative

I could see myself splitting between the first two, since I can be a little conservative on some fiscal issues.

The establishment has a lock on the system that only allows two points of view. Capitalism and Capitalism.

Personally I think if there were a real populist candidate, a person truly looking out for the people of the nation, it would bring out people who don't bother to vote.

The fact is, this is a liberal nation, in spite of what Fox news says. The American people all want basically the same thing, a decent job, health care, good education, and a better life for their kids. All liberal ideas.

I was one of those non voters. The only reason I started voting was not because there was someone I liked but someone I didn't. I have yet to cast a vote "FOR" a candidate, every election I have participated in has been to vote against someone.

And, 3 of those 4 were 3rd party candidates.

The one, was McGovern.

(though BC experimented twice)--but we have no Tommy Douglas and the NDP is now teetering towards whitewashed neoliberalism no less than the other parties

but note the excuse that something *sixty percent of Americans want* would be considered a "spoiler": but of course 70-80% of Americans want peace, non-extortionate education, less speculation, high-speed rail, single payer, gun control and nobody listens to them, either ...

Latin America was *plagued* by duopolies that had a lock on politics and refused to represent any but a tiny political class: they're not in charge any more (except in Colombia and Honduras) and do you know why? THE PEOPLE STOPPED VOTING FOR THEM

that you dislike the least.

Anything else is throwing ones vote away!

many of them support things like ending Govt funding for many programs.

Rs, Teabaggers, Democrats and Independents each one thinking about their own type of third party. This survey does not really tell us anything.

I'm shocked.

roll!

Mostly because they give the impression that there is a silent majority out there praying for some moderate third party Messiah to come along. The truth is that most of those people that say they want a third party are life-time straight ticket voters that are upset their party doesn't go far enough.

Just look at how many tea baggers call themselves independent voters. They are essentially the Republican base, but still want a party that is even closer in lock step with them.

there is a silent majority who really don't even care anymore and don't give voting a second thought because they know at the end of the day their paychecks get smaller and smaller no matter what party is in power.

... and most independents in general. If a person is checked out of politics enough to not see that there is a huge difference in the goals of the two parties, their opinion is not one that should be respected.

Polls about a generic third party are useless because it allows people to fill in the blanks with their own imagination. The generic third party gets twisted into "something I like better", or "something that will split the opposition to what I want". There isn't a platform in mind just fantasy not based on anything concrete.

Incomes have been declining for decades. CEOs make hundreds of times more than the average worker. We as a country have decided that war is our first priority, instead of education, wages, and social safety net programs. The democratic party is doing absolutely nothing to change these things. I have voted straight democratic ticket for 20 years and it has gotten me nowhere. I will no longer blindly vote for a democrat. They will have to earn my vote, quite frankly the only kind of democrat that has any chance of getting my vote is a social democrat. If there aren't any candidates worth voting for I may consider a third party probably the socialist party.

... and the Democratic party probably isn't the best place for you.

more candidates like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warrens, so that I could vote for a democrat. I would love to see the democratic party fight for the people again like in the old days.

parties start representing the people.

This isn't the ONLY poll taken recently that shows both parties are losing members, with many voters identifying now as Independents. A sign of the times. The biggest voting bloc now is Independent.

Maybe it has come to a point where people have decided their COUNTRY comes first before any party. That is what the polls are showing.

Ignoring all the statistics that have come out over the past number of years, isn't a good idea for a Political Party.

In 2008 eg, the Democrats captured that Independent vote but lost it again in 2010. Obviously that vote went to the Candidate who was promising Liberal policies, protecting SS, no Mandated Ins, a PO at least if not Single Payer, an end to the wars, closing Guantanamo Bay. Voters decided this is what they wanted.

But by 2010 many of them were disappointed. It was NOT Dems who stayed home, it was that critical bloc of voters who identify as Independent.

Shifts in political parties have occurred before throughout our history.

If Dems want to get back those voters who no longer register as Dems, they need to start listening to the people, they need to stop denying that the voters, many of them lifelong Dems, are not happy at all with how they are being represented.

And MOST OF ALL, they need to STOP BLAMING THE VOTERS. THAT more than everything else demonstrates a total lack of interest in what their loyal voters actually care about and will only drive MORE away.

You sound as though being a member of an Internet Forum requires setting aside deep and sincere concerns about the direction this country is going.

What is more important to YOU? Posting on an internet forum or this country?

The solution is simple, the Dem Party needs to start catering to those who put them in POWER rather than Corporations, many of whom are corrupt and are destroying this country.

... then you should probably support Democrats. That just a simple fact. Being a part of a Democratic forum doesn't mean you have to set any ideals aside. What it does mean is that you will take part in the stated goals for the forum which are supporting Democrats and helping to elect Democrats. If you are going to advocate for a 3rd party or voting for an independent over a Democrat, you shouldn't be on here.

On to the rest of your post...

Polls about independents are worth about as much as a wet shit. Independents usually break down into two camps: 1. Low-information voters that base their judgement on stupid shit (who would you rather have a beer with) 2. People that are full of shit that claim they are independent but vote straight party line 99.9% of the time. One group is full of idiots. The other group are either lying to themselves or like to pretend.

Let's not pretend that the independents in 2008 and 2010 were the same people. The independent voters in 2008 were first time voters and people too ashamed to admit they were Republican after the Bush years. The independents in 2010 were Tea baggers caught up in a marketing blitz that were pretending they weren't the Republican base. They were completely different sets of voters, which is why you got two completely different results. We lost 2010 for two reasons: 1. the political neophytes that were excited about voting for Obama couldn't be bothered to show up for a mid-term election. 2. The media willingly took part in a marketing blitz to maximize Republican/Tea bagger turn-out.

Voter SHOULD take some of the blame for the direction of the country. They are the people that elect their representatives. If they can't be bothered to show up for primaries, mid-terms, or general elections then they deserve the representation they receive. If voters want politicians to respect their will they need to exercise a little influence.

Not for me or anyone else I know.

Dems could not have won in 2008 without the Independent vote. Which is why the lost in 2010. The continued attempts to deny this reality simply proves WHY they lost it. THEY DIDN'T LISTEN TO THE VOTERS, AGAIN!

You just made my point. YOU know better than all those actual people who explained WHY they stayed home. But hey, who listen to voters? We have Corporations to worry about.

When someone responds to a voter's concerns with 'you realize you're on a Dem Forum', what that says is 'you need to set aside your concerns about issues and just stfu.

The fact that you don't get that using where someone is posting a threat is just sad frankly.

The internet is full of forums, maybe people should get out around the internet more to see what people actually are mostly concerned about, and it isn't posting on any particular forum.

It is about their children's futures, their civil liberties, their jobs and homes, their health etc.

I'll leave you to worrying about what people must do to post on an internet forum.

AND OTHER PROGRESSIVES. That's the part of the "mission statement" of DU the cheerleaders always want to leave out.

<snip>

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Plainly stated, if you aren't going to support Democratic candidates or push third party bullshit, go somewhere else.

and you'll never find me supporting a right-winger. That includes Democratic candidates that are right-wing too. I just don't contribute to threads where I would have to put candidacy above principles.

In threads talking about political philosophy, I advocate for a Progressive Workers' Party. IOW, a political party that unabashedly is on the side of workers. If that's the Dems, fine, but since they've always claimed to be a party for all classes, they're not there yet. In a zero-sum game like class struggle, you can't serve two Masters.

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

Now, on to the rest of your stream of consciousness post...

Democrats won in 2008 because it was a presidential election year and Obama had enormous coat-tails. Obama had crushing majorities in African American, Hispanic, and the youth vote. These are ALL traditionally Democratic voters. Obama's GOTV team did a great job pulling in these voters. The independents in 2008 were first time voters (which broke for Obama) and Republicans that were embarrassed by 8 years of Bush. You basically had a voting population comprised of groups that only turn out in Presidential election years and a group that was by nature Republican.
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html

The Republicans won in 2010 because African Americans, Hispanics, and the youth vote (all solidly Democratic voters) stayed at home, and old, white, and rich people (all SOLIDLY Republican voters) showed up.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/22/104144_the-2010-electorate-old-white.html?rh=1

As I have stated earlier, independent voters actually aren't independent. They are people that lean one direction politically and vote that direction almost always. More than 75% of "independent" voters are actually solidly vote for one party or the other. Usually their voting patterns more closely resemble people that strongly favor a particular party. For some reason though, they don't identify themselves with that party (read Tea Party).
http://cookpolitical.com/story/6608

Perhaps, you should cut back on the sanctimony and read up a little bit before you make uninformed statements again.

Again and again when tabling on a local issue.

And folks are really sick of the "lesser of two evils" manta as well.

primaries. They care what happens in their daily lives, and right now neither party cares what happens in an average person's daily life.

no? The candidates are elected by the people. State committees are elected by the people. People can't be bothered to show up and vote for good people, then they complain about the lack of them.

We're in a democracy. We get the politicians we elect. We also get the people we elect. A third party isn't going to overcome entrenched apathy and learned helplessness.

And then vote for the person with the nicest hair.

They like the way things are and don't have political passions because of that.

of the percentage who want one, some percent want one further right than the Rs and some other percent want one further left than the Ds and some percent something else.

There are parties out there too, but they don't join them or vote for them.

We should upgrade to Democratic Republic 2.0 or newer, which is what the majority of European Democracies use.

--imm

and no real campaign finance reform. As long as corporations are people is what controls our politics and have more rights than citizens and even if we get a viable third party nothing will change as long as the money buys candidates who only represents the interest of the donors. This vicious circle will eventually destroy our democracy.

Corporatists, others know they aren't. Now some wants to grab their toys out of the sand box and run home and play, it never ends.

of democrats don't fight for unions, wages, education, the environment, peace, or social safety net programs. Democrats are welcome to fight for whatever they want. They just don't stand for the same things I stand for anymore. The socialists are the ones fighting for those things now, so that is what I am.

Sacrifice any pain to get gain. I worked for a corporation, we had a union, we had to work to get benefits but we were winners. Actually corporations wants unions, it save them problems and working agreements works on both sides. Our old union leaders are gone but surely someone can step up to the plate.

There were some good and bad things to come out of it. During one of the many, many mergers part of the merger agreement was that they would grandfather in the disability packages, so my husband receives 70% of his previous paycheck until the age of 65. Thank you unions. It was not all sunshine and roses though. During contract talks with the part of the company that was unionized the company mandated every non union employee take cross training so that they could take on the duties of striking employees if a strike took place. Also during one of the other many mergers the executives of the company being bought out were given a certain amount of money for their company stock. Were the employees afford such a luxury? No. Average employees lost millions. Their company stock was worth nothing. Also when my husband became disabled his health insurance was dropped immediately. I guess that wasn't part of the union deal. I will always sing the praises of unions and will always fight for unions, but no I do not believe that corporations want unions. Too much evidence to the contrary. Unions are all but extinct in this country not to mention pensions. I also don't believe that democrats care if unions and pensions disappear.

Conditions was much better. I know about the replacement workers, had to walk picket lines several times but compared to others we had it better. I have a pension and though I would have liked to see more effort placed towards the pension I am happy to have it. We were able to negotiate to purchase stocks, also had a savings plan with a match paid in company stock. I retired after 30 years and was entitled to retain my medical and dental insurance.

The DNC has most favorable recommendations for their candidates from unions so it would be an advantage to push for unions. This is a great downfall, the union leaders and members sacrificed to get unions going but do not see the younger folks willing to fight for this privilege. Ergo, low pay and no benefits, it will be hard to retire on SS alone if still available.

A third party challenge has the potential benefit of cleansing the status quo of a political party and keeping it vibrant. Agitating it, forcing it to examine its goals, and to consider minority voices thus forcing inclusion.
To not be willing to listen to third party challenges or to change or to evolve. To demand lockstep loyalty to the party is the death of the party. (they don't actually die, they become conservatives)
And when we get to the other side of the bridge and the republicans have won the election will the democrats be content to blame the disaffected left, or will they ask themselves were they so focused on winning that they forgot to listen?

The difference is that in a normal runoff system we'd have the top two winners compete, where as in the current system we have the winners of the Left face off against the winners on the Right. I'm not sure why it'd be useful to have people sit out the first round of voting and jump in during the runoff.

Much more useful in my mind would be having slates within a party. Progressives (at least here) often split their votes during the primary.

to the left of the Democrats, 1/3 would want one to the right of the Republicans, and 1/3 would want a squishy centrist party.

Which is why we are stuck with 2.

Arise out of the clouds and come to them?

I live in Montana, so no matter which Presidential candidate I vote for, my electoral vote will go to the Republican. That's the opposite of how I want to vote! Oh well. Another viable party may be a good thing, but I would rather have my vote go the Presidential candidate of my choosing.

I am from Oregon and a democrat has won the state's electoral votes there for the last 8 elections (1988). If we could just divorce ourselves from Eastern and Southern Oregon everything would be chipper and dandy. Maybe sell them to Eastern Oregon to Idaho and Southern Oregon to California.

Note: there is a bit of irony that I actually grew up in Southern Oregon, I still HATE the place!

somehow never vote that way.

The only way it will happen is if all these people who supposedly are dying for another party actually vote for one. They should put their money where their mouths are.

That also goes for the people here on DU who complain about how terrible Democrats are but vote for the same candidates they can't stand anyway. If HRC is so bad, no better than any Republican, then don't vote for her in the general in 2016 and vote for the person you do want.

...the electoral college goes away

Then there's the 20% who want a new far-right wackadoodle party which would be closely aligned with the GOP, and the 10% far-left who want a new party to promote a utopian fantasy which would be aligned with nobody.

A new party on the right would just the same stinking bullshit in a new package, and so wouldn't change anything.

A new party on the left would break the historic Democratic coalition, and cripple the century-long drive for a more just society enough so that it would never recover.

I am NEVER voting for one as President.

Some want it to be ultra conservative, some like libertarian, others green, and still other's socialist. Some would like to see it be a moderating voice between the two parties, others want to see it be an anchor that pulls BOTH parties to the left or right.

Though many on either side are too divided on other issues to see the big picture yet, I think they are gravitating towards that global issue and just don't realize it that much yet.