The Problem with Third Parties in America...

[Pototan]

...is very simple. The candidates who represent a third party or fourth party hurt the candidate that they are closer to in philosophy. The system, both electoral college and a single general election result may expand choices, but also may put us in danger of electing a tyrant, like Trump.

Without a simple change in our system, we'll be headed for a disaster. If not in 2024, sometime in the future. When I say a "simple solution", I don't mean it will be simple to institute, since it would take a Constitutional Amendment. I think it's simple to understand.

The parties, Democrat, Republican, Green, No-labels, any party that can attain ballot access in any state chooses a candidate to run in a popular vote election. Should no candidate receive greater than 50% of the vote, the top two finishers move to a run-off election. This empowers lesser parties to participate and then support (or not support) one of the finalists.

Without this change, our system makes third party candidates "spoilers" (i.e. 2000, 2016), working against their own (and our) interests.

[questionseverything]

1. We need ranked choice voting

[Ron Green]

2. Absolutely.

It’s taking hold in local elections here and there.

[Pototan]

5. I'd rather have a run-off for President...

...this way non-traditional parties whose candidate fails to qualify for the run-off can weigh in for the run-off and have more influence.

In the General, before run-off, candidates may not make clear which of the top two finishers best represents their views. Following the preliminary they then make an endorsement, or not.

[questionseverything]

6. Having a " run off" election is a huge change possibly needing a constitutional change

Ranked choice does basically the same thing, letting lesser parties participate w/o becoming spoilers with a simple counting adjustment

[Pototan]

8. Two issues...

...First. I stated in my OP that this would need a constitutional amendment. The simple part is that the change is easy to understand, not easy to achieve. Popular vote, run-off if no one get 50% +1.

Let's use a hypothetical. Let's say Cornell West runs third party. He criticizes both Trump and Biden. Let's say Manchin runs and does the same thing. A lot of their supporters may not place a "Number 2" next to Biden's name. They may be harsher on Biden than Trump, but not want Trump to win. They can then join the Biden campaign and "rally the troops" in Biden's favor, especially if Biden can satisfy one or two of their issues.

A run-off actually gives more power to the third and fourth party candidates without putting them in the place of spoilers.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Another challenge:

If a Third Party candidate wins the General Election and goes to the WH, both houses of Congress are still Democrats and Republicans.

How to govern when you don't represent any party in the Legislature . . . .

[Model35mech]

4. The problem with Third Parties is US politics are 'winner takes all'

We have no mechanism that provides for the power sharing that occurs in multi-party parlimentary systems.

If your party doesn't win it doesn't get any policy making power other than various incarnations of obstruction. And obstruction is now a goal of governance for conservatives, with the unelected nine of Scotus being an impedimentary firewall that blocks or reverses Democratic efforts to sustain social progress.

I don't see anything about rank-choice voting tht will change this basic feature of our system, it merely creates a different path for the various candidates to become the winner that takes all. Even if a 3rd party won everyone's 2nd or third choice vote, that party would still get all the power that goes along with winning.

We have many political parties, but only the parties that can regularly grab pluralities are rewarded with growth in power that provides for maintaining and growing influence over time. Without some form of power-sharing among the political blocs there is no reward that allows upstart parties sustained growth.

Game-theory always takes these fantastic excursions to the same ending, there is a winner that takes all and all others are NOT the winners. And, the losers only get to look forward to the next reshuffle of voter allegiances to try to gain a plurality that gives them all the power in the next election.

A system with this dichotomy of a winner and all others losers can't really take advantage of the intellectual diversity and philosophical variety that multi-party systems bring forward to address problems facing all of society. Wouldn't it be great if parties with interest and expertise, beyond ensuring that hegemonic capitalists get their return on investment, were in positions that could foster solutions for problems that come before our various administrative departments and legislative committees?

[betsuni]

7. I do not care for whining: "Well, other countries have lots of, like, other parties so, um, why

American doesn't?"

[Pototan]

9. Different systems...

...our extra parties create less Democracy instead of more. It encourages dark money to get a candidate in the race to split the vote.

My suggestion ends that. Third and fourth parties can be frustrating in my suggestion, but they would not be fatal.