[quote]Right now the two parties take the attitude of "piss off and accept our corrupt politics-as-usual, after all your only other choice is the other party's corrupt politics-as-usual candidate".[/quote]I agree with George here. Third part candidates are important. And if people have such an issue with them why not campaign for instant-runoff?

Also, Ernst, I think your apportioning the 32% undecided in NH is unreasonable. The 47/21 expressed a preference in the absence of Nader. More than likely the 32% would have stayed at home. So, Florida yes but NH no way!

Also, while agreeing with George about Gore should have done a better job appealing to the people - he was just way too stiff in the first 3/4 of the campaign - kinda like Hillary has been with Obama - the aura of inevitability will elect me - I'd also like to say there were many irregularities in Florida including hanging chads, Katherine Harris, this that and the other. So, any of those things could have tipped the scales. To blame only Nader is wrong.

[quote=Mini-Geek;127184]We have a two-party system because it's still working, simple as that.[/quote]Not that simple -- the two major parties actively work to inhibit third-party challenges. That's why the nationally-televised presidential debates are now run not by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (which was more receptive to participation by longshot candidates) as it was in the distant past, but instead by a "bi"-partisan organization set up by the two major parties so that they could exclude Nader-like candidates!

- - -

I also agree with George here:

[quote=Prime95;127182]I think we'd be better off in the long run with several healthy alternative parties with decent candidates. Voters are then free to choose a candidate for whatever reason - the two major parties are then confronted with working a lot harder to earn my vote. Right now the two parties take the attitude of "piss off and accept our corrupt politics-as-usual, after all your only other choice is the other party's corrupt politics-as-usual candidate".[/quote]

[quote]Would Gore have won if Nader hadn't run? Yes, but so what. He'd also have won if he'd appealed to voters better, or was "himself" more rather than the canned image his handlers recommended, or if he'd had better debate performances, or....[/quote]

[quote=garo;127204]I agree with George here. Third part candidates are important. And if people have such an issue with them why not campaign for instant-runoff?[/quote]Are you referring to a system whereby the top two vote getters have a runoff a week or two later if neither receives at least 50% of the vote? (Dominican Republic has this system, and I imagine many other countries as well)

It would be moot here in the USA since we have the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College"]electoral college[/URL] system, but there have been two years (1800 & 1824) in which there was not a majority of the electors for one candidate or another. When there is not a >50% majority, the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Contingent_Presidential_election_by_House"]House of Representatives makes the choice[/URL] between the top three candidates.

So, we have a system, but it might not be as directly democratic as some might like. The "problem" with third party candidates is that they syphon off votes that are entirely "wasted" since they don't result in a difference in the electoral college.

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;127184]We have a two-party system because it's still working, simple as that. If it wasn't working, the voters would look for an alternative and find third parties to vote for.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Have you heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma?

[QUOTE=tallguy;127174]
I don't buy for a second that somehow liberal voters are going to blindly shoot themselves in the foot and usher in McCain simply because Nader is on the ballot. Maybe I give people too much credit?[/QUOTE]

You're making a mistake that is all too common in politics: treating a collection of people as if it were a single person. For a more obvious example, consider the question: "Are people less than 2 meters tall"? The answer is not a single yes or no, but a distribution that assigns to each individual a yes or a no. Of course, it may happen that the answer is the same for all the people that you are considering; but a priori you cannot assume that.

[QUOTE=tallguy;127207]The "problem" with third party candidates is that they syphon off votes that are entirely "wasted" since they don't result in a difference in the electoral college.[/QUOTE]By the same argument you could say that a vote for the candidate placed second is also "wasted"... Casting a vote is not the same as betting about the winner of a race.

Jacob

[QUOTE] instant-runoff?[/QUOTE]

I think you missed the instant bit in there. Instant means that each voter can put in a second (and third if they like) preference and if their first choice candidate is eliminated, his/her votes go to the second choice. This way you can keep the (flawed) electoral college system and let votes to third party candidates not go to waste.

[quote=S485122;127224]By the same argument you could say that a vote for the candidate placed second is also "wasted"... Casting a vote is not the same as betting about the winner of a race.[/quote]It's not [I]my[/I] argument, note the quotation marks around "problem" -- I don't think it is a problem at all.
[quote=jinydu;127221]Of course, it may happen that the answer is the same for all the people that you are considering; but a priori you cannot assume that.[/quote]I guess that's what I was pushing back against in the first place -- the assumption that the majority of third party voters were thoughtless regarding the impact of their vote, and that all 3rd party voters would otherwise vote for one of the two major candidates. I think both assumptions are specious.
[quote=garo;127255]I think you missed the instant bit in there. Instant means that each voter can put in a second (and third if they like) preference and if their first choice candidate is eliminated, his/her votes go to the second choice. This way you can keep the (flawed) electoral college system and let votes to third party candidates not go to waste.[/quote]First, I wouldn't say that the electoral college is flawed -- it functions as intended. My favorite aspect of it is that if there is an extremely close vote (e.g. Florida 2000), we are not counting hanging chads across the entire country.

Second, it would mean that those 3rd party votes truly would be wasted, since the major party candidates would then have less to fear from the 3rd party siphoning off "their" votes.

It can function as intended but still be flawed if the intentions are flawed. "Flawed" is my personal and definitely a controversial opinion. So let's leave it at that.

[quote]Second, it would mean that those 3rd party votes truly would be wasted, since the major party candidates would then have less to fear from the 3rd party siphoning off "their" votes.[/quote]

Not necessarily. You don't have to put a second choice if you don't want to. But it is only fair that if someone wants to vote for Nader but does not want McCain in, he/she should have the option of seeing that vote go to a Democrat next instead of seeing it wasted. And I don't see how third party votes are truly wasted in a preferential system. Your logic escapes me.

While there is no perfect solution, I think curbing "waste" is more important. There is a fair amount of literature on fair voting systems out there. And some good wikipedia pages on this. AFAICR, there is no Nash equilibrium.

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;127184]If the Republicans and Democrats ever both pick truly horrible and/or corrupt candidates, I think a lot of people will vote third party, and the third party will win.
.[/QUOTE]


You must be joking! I think that you may have taken one too many quaaludes last night!

It will be a cold day in hell before a 3rd party candidate wins in the U.S.

Note that I am not arguing whether it should be this way.

[quote=R.D. Silverman;127270]You must be joking! I think that you may have taken one too many quaaludes last night!

It will be a cold day in hell before a 3rd party candidate wins in the U.S.

Note that I am not arguing whether it should be this way.[/quote]
Do you really think people would vote for a candidate they hate (even if, in their opinion, he/she is the lesser of the two evils), just because they're not informed that there's a 3rd party? Do you think enough people would be like that that a 3rd party will never win?

[QUOTE=garo;127268]I think curbing "waste" is more important.[/QUOTE]

The 3 or 4 times I've voted for a third party candidate I wanted to waste my vote. My goal was to send a message to my party: "If you want my vote back, nominate a more palatable candidate next time".

IMO, the only way voters can send a wake-up message to their party is to let the other party win an election - a short-term loss for a hoped-for long-term gain.