Not voting or voting third party for POTUS does nothing.
While that’s a popular and oft-repeated opinion, it’s heterodox among academic historians.
"Let a third party once demonstrate that votes are to be made by adopting a certain demand, then one of the other parties can be trusted to absorb it. Ultimately, if the demand has merit, it will probably be translated into law or practice by the major party that has taken it up…The chronic supporter of third party tickets need not worry, therefore, when he is told, as he surely will be told, that he is “throwing away his vote.” [A] glance through American history would seem to indicate that his kind of vote is after all probably he most powerful vote that has ever been cast."
John D. Hicks, Professor Emeritus of American history at Berkeley
When one of the two major parties becomes tired of losing elections, they adopt policies from a third party to attract their voters.
The impact of third parties on American politics extends far beyond their capacity to attract votes. Minor parties, historically, have been a source of important policy innovations. Women’s suffrage, the graduated income tax, and the direct election of senators, to name a few, were all issues that third parties espoused first.
So, it didn’t solve the problem? I’m not sure what you’re driving at here. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be multiple parties, I’m saying the vote during our presidential election, under our current system, is a strategic one, not one to throw away on a third party.
The point that the American historians quoted above are making is that if you enjoy certain policies, like being able to vote for senators, women’s rights, or progressive taxation, thank a third party voter.
Your quote talks about how third parties brought about some changes. At no point did I say third parties have no place in us politics, nor did I say never vote for third parties.
So, you don’t understand that the POTUS election is not the entirety of the us political system? I’m not sure what I’m supposed to say here, you quoted two very obviously different things.
While that’s a popular and oft-repeated opinion, it’s heterodox among academic historians.
"Let a third party once demonstrate that votes are to be made by adopting a certain demand, then one of the other parties can be trusted to absorb it. Ultimately, if the demand has merit, it will probably be translated into law or practice by the major party that has taken it up…The chronic supporter of third party tickets need not worry, therefore, when he is told, as he surely will be told, that he is “throwing away his vote.” [A] glance through American history would seem to indicate that his kind of vote is after all probably he most powerful vote that has ever been cast."
Except we have 2 parties still. How did voting third party in the past solve that problem? Proof is in the pudding.
When one of the two major parties becomes tired of losing elections, they adopt policies from a third party to attract their voters.
So, it didn’t solve the problem? I’m not sure what you’re driving at here. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be multiple parties, I’m saying the vote during our presidential election, under our current system, is a strategic one, not one to throw away on a third party.
It’s solved many problems.
The point that the American historians quoted above are making is that if you enjoy certain policies, like being able to vote for senators, women’s rights, or progressive taxation, thank a third party voter.
Your quote talks about how third parties brought about some changes. At no point did I say third parties have no place in us politics, nor did I say never vote for third parties.
So, you don’t understand that the POTUS election is not the entirety of the us political system? I’m not sure what I’m supposed to say here, you quoted two very obviously different things.
The examples I gave, 17th amendment, women’s suffrage, progressive taxation, were pushed by third party POTUS candidates.