tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post258596791120100898..comments2023-10-20T05:51:51.625-04:00Comments on The THINK 3 INSTITUTE: In New York, less Independence than everSamuel Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-66821250235098289492011-08-04T14:26:29.745-04:002011-08-04T14:26:29.745-04:00I would add that, in such case where a major party...I would add that, in such case where a major party blames a third party for "throwing an election", their response should simply be <i>"No - you threw the election. By not representing our interest, you haven't earned our vote.</i><br /><br />But I still think any third party that refuses to run it's own candidate doesn't deserve the designation as a political party to begin with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-53425183073865914382011-08-04T13:29:57.253-04:002011-08-04T13:29:57.253-04:00Independent parties usually claim to represent und...Independent parties usually claim to represent underrepresented interests, but in most cases, especially in New York, they suffer from lesser-evil syndrome. For instance, Working Families members presumably feel that Democrats don't do enough for the people for whom they name themselves. But they remain absolutely convinced that the Republicans would do even less. As a result, they intend their party as a way to pressure Democrats into doing more without throwing elections to Republicans. The obvious problem is that, unless they're willing to risk just that, and accept the consequences, they actually have no leverage with Democrats at all. Third parties should take such risks unapologetically; if a Democrat blames them for "electing" a Republican, the result should not change the independents' conviction, which should be affirmed as loudly as possible, that <i>their</i> party, not the Democrats, is the only real alternative to Republicanism.Samuel Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-86099674676414075072011-08-04T09:09:55.835-04:002011-08-04T09:09:55.835-04:00But when you have 2 politicians from 2 opposing pa...But when you have 2 politicians from 2 opposing parties fighting for the same third party line, that third party stands for nothing except to put "power" into hands of some party boss who stands for nothing but him or herself. That is symptomatic of the problems with our political system. That is not "reasonable" by any definition of the word that I am aware of.<br /><br />It seems logical to me that a third party comes into existence because they represent an "interest" or platform that they feel is not being represented by any other party. This being the case, any third party that wants a line on the polls should be obligated to put forth their own candidate.<br /><br />If your explanation is correct, then the major parties - in the interest of honest politics - should simply ignore third parties or let them know that as long as they are not a party member, their voice and interests will not be represented by the party.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-70826879059509019882011-08-03T16:41:29.311-04:002011-08-03T16:41:29.311-04:00The reasoning is that if people vote for a popular...The reasoning is that if people vote for a popular gubernatorial candidate on a third-party line, the party will earn a guaranteed ballot line for the next election cycle. The party then uses the number of votes the successful candidate earns on their line to argue that the candidate depends on those third-party votes and should adjust his policies to retain their support. But the history of the Working Families party shows that this strategy leaves the third party dependent on the popular candidate if they want to retain their guaranteed ballot line. As a result, the candidate can dictate to the party rather than vice versa. The guaranteed ballot line is the incentive for cross-endorsing -- another instance of the tyranny of the party-line ballot.Samuel Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-37562528297558386662011-08-03T15:45:37.940-04:002011-08-03T15:45:37.940-04:00It seems to me that cross nomination is a negative...It seems to me that cross nomination is a negative for a third party anyway. If people prefer the dem candidate, why would they vote for him on the "ind" line, rather than the "dem" line? And if the "ind" line fails to get a certain percentage of the votes, there won't be an "ind" line for long. It seems to me it would be in their own best interest to put forward their own candidate who more closely is tied to their platform. Although in this particular case, one must question whether the "ind" party even has a platform.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com