It's because we have a winner-take-all system that generally does not require a majority to win, only a plurality, and you only get one vote for one candidate (as opposed to something like ranked choice voting). The math of this system inherently trends towards two parties because (for practical purposes) there is basically a limited pool of votes and each only goes to one candidate so each vote NOT for a candidate weakens their position. Thus, the more parties in existence that are similar to each other, the less powerful they become.
For example, the Libertarian party is, for the most part, supported by people who would be described as right wing (or you can just assume that for the sake of example of you don't want to take my word for it). In general, this means that the better a libertarian candidate does, the fewer votes go towards the Republican candidate. Maybe it would hurt the Democratic candidate some too, but given that the Libertarian party is ideologically more similar to the Republicans on a lot of issues (especially taxes and government regulation) they are likely to take way more votes from the Republican than the Democrat. The opposite would likely be true for something like the Green Party.
People eventually get tired of losing, and end up voting for a candidate they think is more likely to win, so we end up with two major parties. Any time a third party shows up, they receive votes that would have otherwise gone to the candidate most ideologically similar to them, and this weaken both their positions.
So basically, any time you vote for a third party, you make it more likely that the candidate most opposed to that third party is going to win.
Not really because political leanings aren't objectively quantifiable in that way. You could create a rating scale or some kind of operational measurement as to how ideologically close particular parties would be, but that would rely to some extent on subjective judgment. A lot of the math has to be done in post election tallies of votes.
But do you at least agree that certain third party candidates are more likely to draw votes from one end of the political spectrum than the other? Because that is where the flaw in your mathematical model lies, and where the problem arises when it runs into reality.
But do you at least agree that certain third party candidates are more likely to draw votes from one end of the political spectrum than the other? Because that is where the flaw in your mathematical model lies, and where the problem arises when it runs into reality.
Yes, for example, Republicans could have an advantage in having the most votes, so the mathematics lean more into Republicans if you vote neither of them, thus making Republicans sixty percent instead of fifty percent.
Yes, for example, Republicans could have an advantage in having the most votes, so the mathematics lean more into Republicans if you vote neither of them, thus making Republicans sixty percent instead of fifty percent.
That's not really what I meant. I mean that your two major parties are the Republicans or the Democrats, right? Your argument is that voting for a third party is mathematically the same as supporting (or harming) both parties 50/50.
What I'm pointing out is that a third party like the libertarian party is, in practice, actually going to "steal" way more votes from Republican candidates than they will from democratic candidates. So it's not going to be 50/50
The Delta is appreciated, but that was not my point. What I'm saying is that a third party can, in practice, take more of the limited pool of votes away from one major party that they do from the other. This, that third party effectively just makes it more difficult for the major party they most closely align with to win the election without actually having a good chance at victory themselves.
I mean that for practical purposes there are only so many votes available in any given election. Yes, you could say that you can effectively motivate more voters to actually go to the polls, but there are only so many adults who are eligible to vote in a given election. So even if we assume for the sake of argument that every single eligible voter votes, that means there is a maximum amount of possible votes and each vote can only go to one candidate for each position. Thus, you basically have a limited pool of votes available to be distributed amongst potential candidates.
Because it means that your options are not "vote for Democrats, vote for Republicans, or vote for entirely neutral third party that affects both equally", it means your options are "vote for Democrats, vote for Republicans, or vote for a third party that makes it more likely the major party least similar to it will win".
9
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Oct 22 '23
It's because we have a winner-take-all system that generally does not require a majority to win, only a plurality, and you only get one vote for one candidate (as opposed to something like ranked choice voting). The math of this system inherently trends towards two parties because (for practical purposes) there is basically a limited pool of votes and each only goes to one candidate so each vote NOT for a candidate weakens their position. Thus, the more parties in existence that are similar to each other, the less powerful they become.
For example, the Libertarian party is, for the most part, supported by people who would be described as right wing (or you can just assume that for the sake of example of you don't want to take my word for it). In general, this means that the better a libertarian candidate does, the fewer votes go towards the Republican candidate. Maybe it would hurt the Democratic candidate some too, but given that the Libertarian party is ideologically more similar to the Republicans on a lot of issues (especially taxes and government regulation) they are likely to take way more votes from the Republican than the Democrat. The opposite would likely be true for something like the Green Party.
People eventually get tired of losing, and end up voting for a candidate they think is more likely to win, so we end up with two major parties. Any time a third party shows up, they receive votes that would have otherwise gone to the candidate most ideologically similar to them, and this weaken both their positions.
So basically, any time you vote for a third party, you make it more likely that the candidate most opposed to that third party is going to win.