In a democracy, are minority party candidates "bad"? Is Stein-Baraka "bad"? Is Johnson-Weld "bad"?

[Attorney in Texas]

Was Perot "bad" in 1992 or was he only "bad" in 1996?

Was Anderson "bad" in 1980?

Was T. Roosevelt "bad" in 1912?

Was Lincoln "bad" in 1860?

[brooklynite]

1. What do you mean by bad?

Bad for what I believe in?

Bad for the country?

[Attorney in Texas]

8. I keep seeking these threads that are saying "Stein is bad" or "Johnson is bad." Third parties are a

feature of democracy; they are not a bug in the system.

I don't understand the level of hostility toward third party candidates.

[seaglass]

11. Well, read the responses and then maybe you'll get it. n/t

[Demsrule86]

53. Yeah some actually vote for and support them...no idea why. nt

[politicaljunkie41910]

98. Jill Stein was on C-SPAN and basically basically parrotted the Democratic Platform.

She stated that she would provide free college for all. Free health care, etc. She then proceeded to blame Hillary and Obama for not doing enough to save the planet. She offered no plan on how she would do more than Clinton plans to or that Obama has done. At least the two of them have a constituency that they can draw from. She has not Congressional ties and she doesn't know her way around Congress any more than Trump does. So it's foolish to think that she is going to have any more support for her Green Party Agenda to save the planet than Obama has had or Hillary will have, and they don't have to start from scratch to learn How a Bill become law like she and Trump will.

As far as the Johnson and Wells go, they were bashed by their own party the other day after their Town Hall for not upholding Libertarian Party principals but merely stating that they would reach across both aisles and seek compromise from both parties. The Libertarian Party said that that IS NOT Libertarian philosophy to just go along to get along. The Party was not happy with their candidates performances. So if their own party did not like their performance in their Town Hall, why should we want them.

[Fla Dem]

104. This is Democratic Underground. You're not going to get a lot of support for 3rd party candidates

here. We're odd like that. We tend to support Democrats. The only thing "bad" about 3rd party candidates is they are losing causes wherever they fall on the political spectrum. By selling their brand of whatever they are postulating they may drain a handful of voters to their party. In a close race they MAY have an impact. In the greater sense, they are merely a distraction. In fact, the only reason they are even getting any press this year is because Jill Stein is actively recruiting Bernie Sander's supporters and the media needs something to talk about.

Jill Stein’s Ideas Are Terrible. She Is Not the Savior the Left Is Looking For.
Moneybox A BLOG ABOUT BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS.JULY 27 2016 1:37 PM

By Jordan Weissmann
Slate's senior business and economics correspondent.

Now that Hillary Clinton has officially won the Democratic presidential nomination, chances are we're going to hear a lot more about Jill Stein. The Green Party candidate, currently polling in the low single digits nationally, has been gunning for the support of disaffected Bernie Sanders fans, urging them to “keep the revolution going” by getting behind her own long-shot White House bid. Tuesday, she was on hand at the Democratic convention to meet aggrieved Sanders delegates, some of whom formed a small crowd around her to chant, “Bernie or Jill.” Thanks to progressive grassroots rage, she may well peel off a few percentage points of the vote come the fall, when she's expected to be on the ballot in about 47 states.

Which is a pity. Because even by the standards of protest candidates, Stein—whose press team did not respond to an interview request—is an absolutely awful torchbearer for the far left. She's a Harvard-trained physician who panders to pseudoscience. She mangles pet policy issues. And her cynical retelling of the past eight years has nothing to do with the reality of recorded history.

More>>>>>>>
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/07/27/jill_stein_is_not_the_savior_the_left_is_looking_for.html

[Tal Vez]

2. I would say that anything that furthers the candidacy of a candidate like Trump is bad.

[JCanete]

44. Or W or anybody worse than the going candidate, which means, people will always have a reason

to decry people who run as third party or vote for it, and to blame them when we get a republican in the white house. No doubt our system of government is broken. it doesn't allow 3rd parties to play any role but spoiler, and between our two-party establishment that owns congress and the Whitehouse, this is not likely to ever change. But I myself respect votes that are done on principle, even at the times when I think the strategy is wrong.

It seems like civil discussion of issues and consequences, and listening and finding common ground with these people and maybe even saying "I will help fight for that within the party" would go a lot further than bludgeoning with fear and shame. I would like to continue to enjoy an obvious contrast between the methodology and rhetoric of those of us at DU and the GOP, although that may be asking a lot.

[JoePhilly]

3. Anyone pushing a 3rd party candidate in THIS ...

... election, is helping Trump.

Given that. I have no time for the fools.

[Freddie]

5. ^^^this^^^

Thank you.
"The store is out of my favorite beer so I'll drink bleach instead."

[DemonGoddess]

69. ^^^This!!!

[Avalux]

4. Context is important. I'm sure they're not bad people....

but anyone who would take votes from Hillary and potentially help Trump win is the devil incarnate to Democrats. It's that way in this current political environment and history shows us that spoilers are not viewed favorably.

[Demsrule86]

56. And consider the bad outcomes

that 'spoilers' have caused for Democrats.

[MineralMan]

6. No. They're just irrelevant, except as possible spoilers.

Voting for a third-party candidate is really no different that staying at home on election day. You're not really participating in choosing those who will be in power. As a protest, it's a failure.

[Attorney in Texas]

14. Anderson '80, Perot '92, Nader '00, Johnson and Stein '16 did not (and will not) TAKE anyone's votes

Third parties build the democratic process by bringing in people who are dissatisfied with their major party choices.

Neither B. Clinton nor H.W. Bush owned the votes that went to Perot - his supporters were an odd bunch whose votes didn't BELONG to any major party candidate.

The same is true today.

Johnson isn't stealing Trump votes - Johnson is winning votes of people who neither support Trump nor support H. Clinton.

Likewise, Stein has a half (or less) of the support of Johnson; she's not taking any votes that belong to any other candidate - instead, she is bringing people into the democratic process and -- ultimately -- the people she brings into the process were (1) not going to vote for H. Clinton or Trump and (2) may be more likely to vote for Democrats down-ballot rather than voting for down-ballot Republicans.

[MineralMan]

21. I disagree with that argument.

I'm offering the same degree of evidence you offered. None.

[Attorney in Texas]

30. What evidence do you want? Are you asking for evidence that third parties do not steal votes from

the two dominant parties?

The Constitution is silent on whole idea of "political parties."

I'm not sure what sort of "evidence" beyond the Constitution you would cite to support the idea that democracy embraces candidates without regard to their dominant-party or third-party status?

[MineralMan]

31. Me? I don't want anything.

You make statements. I make statements. Nobody cares about our statements.

I follow elections, and have since 1956, when I was 11 years old. I have no idea what you do, nor does that interest me in any way.

[NNadir]

81. +1

[rjsquirrel]

85. Semantic games

No one says anyone "owns" votes, so "take" is obviously a common shorthand or euphemism for "win voters who would otherwise have voted for a major party option."

Simple. Obvious. Not complicated.

And yes all those third party candidates affected the outcome of their elections while leaving no lasting legacy of a strengthened third party. With the exception of libertarians, third parties are almost always a) committed to marginal and minority ideologies and b) vanity projects for charismatic would be leaders.

Your questions invoke a distinction without a difference. No one says third parties don't have a "right" to run or exist. Many of us see them as a stupid way to waste your vote or elect the worse of the two major party candidates.

Your OP is a semantic game and so is the comment to which I am replying. You create a straw man argument and then dare anyone to knock it down.

A vote for a third party candidate is always a vote against one of the major party candidates, or both of them in some cases. Since the early 20th century it has never been a vote FOR a plausible let alone possible winner as a third party. You are free to be a spoiler of course. But you're wasting your vote unless that's your goal.

As I always say, vote your conscience but not until you check your privilege.

[DemocraticWing]

42. It's a more useful protest than staying at home.

You're recorded as turning out, there's an official count as how many protested in this way, and plus you get to vote for other things.

I agree that it's nothing more than a protest though. If you want your vote to mean anything more than "the political system is bad" then voting third party isn't terribly helpful. But some people really do want to convey that message.

[Demsrule86]

58. Protest votes are for those who are privelged and can afford to deal with bad consequences

such as the ones caused by the Greens and Nader in 2000. I often feel the need to suggest that protest voters check their privilege and consider those their votes harm.

[DemocraticWing]

88. A lot of people from marginalized groups vote third party too.

It's not just privileged people, although that's certainly part of that electorate. But there's privileged people voting for Democrats who, for instance, don't have to bear the brunt of drone strikes or welfare reform or deportations. The issues raised by people who protest vote are worth listening to. We don't always have to agree but listening to people is far better than dismissing them in my opinion; who knows, we might convince more of them to vote for our candidate that way!

[Protalker]

7. Ralph Nader good/bad

He ran and got support. The country got W. Fact!

[Curtland1015]

9. I don't know about "bad", but they're still opponents.

Being on the same relative side of the meter doesn't mean they aren't still against the candidate our chosen party picked to run.

Dems are "left" and Greens are "left", but they're still two separate political parties. There is nothing wrong with third parties, but you seem to be implying we should be happy that our candidate has more opponents to take on, including ones that may drain votes away from our side. We aren't going to be.

I am in no way saying they shouldn't be "allowed" or they are "bad" or whatever. Of course anyone can run and people can vote for whomever they chose. Just don't expect people to be all excited that the person they've hung their hopes on has more opposition.

[onecaliberal]

10. They can't win, but they sure as hell can doom us all to a psycho POTUS who can't wait to use nukes

[JaneyVee]

12. Of course they're bad.

They're trying to take seats away from us.

[PeaceNikki]

13. Yes. Voting 3rd party is equivalent to sending "thoughts and prayers"

http://www.freepresshouston.com/voting-third-party-is-the-electoral-equivalent-of-sending-thoughts-and-prayers/

In a three way race, that does not mean the person who gets 34 percent is the president, nor in a four way race does it mean the person who gets 26 percent is president. Majority means “more than half,” not “more than the others.” In these latter two scenarios, the president would be decided by the Republican-led House of Representatives. That’s the law.

Which is why voting third party is mostly an empty gesture meant to telegraph a person’s own virtue without actually involving real work. If Stein really wanted to do some progressive good or even pass her bonkers woo ideas, she’d be a Democrat or at least an Independent who works with Democrats like Sanders. If Johnson actually cared about letting you smoke weed hassle-free, he should have done something about it when he was a Republican in actual power.

Nothing Stein or Johnson say matters. At all. Their platforms are meaningless because neither of them will ever be called to do any of it or have to answer for the promises that they made to voters. Theirs is a consequence-free existence. Politifact is never going to check them on the Johnsonmeter or the Steinmeter like they did for Barack Obama and will certainly do to whoever wins this long-ass trudge to the future of the country.

Saying, “I’m voting third party” in an election year (side note: maybe get off your butts in the mid-terms once in a while?) is meant to portray someone as free-thinking or too personally virtuous to stain their hands with the evil that is the “establishment” candidate, whatever the heck that means. They aren’t sheep like the rest of us who do the popular thing. It makes the question of franchise about how good a person that particular voter appears. It’s a matter of conscience, apparently, though I question the conscience of people who are that concerned about proving they’re smarter and better than all the rest of us.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. No not bad. What is bad are protest voters who vote against their own party.

Like disaffected Democrats voting for Stein. Not because they think Stein is great but because they think sticking a vote in Hillary's eye will "send a message". If Trump does get elected, it will probably be by a margin of the "protest vote".

If you want to send a message, write a telegram.

If a vote is actually cast for the person / party, then it has real power. If a third party candidate gets 10% of the vote legitimately, then that is 10% that needs to be listened to more than if it were 5%. Just like Bernie was listened to at the platform meetings and rule meetings and had an effect on the career of Wasserman-Schulz.

[baldguy]

16. Whoever gets a plurality of votes wins & it's a winner take all system.

So, yes. They are "bad" in that the election result may not represent the true wishes of the people if the winner doesn't reflect the majority.

Therefore fuck Ralph Nader & fuck Jill Stein.

[PeaceNikki]

18. Not true

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote.

In a three way race, that does not mean the person who gets 34 percent is the president, nor in a four way race does it mean the person who gets 26 percent is president. Majority means “more than half,” not “more than the others.” In these latter two scenarios, the president would be decided by the Republican-led House of Representatives. That’s the law.

[baldguy]

55. What are you talking about? This isn't about having the Presidency decided by Congress.

Which has never happened in our entire history.

This is about the candidate having the largest popular vote being denied victory. Which has happened - most recently in the infamous coup d'etat of 2000 - and is likely to happen again.

We don't have one big election where a deficit in votes in one part of the country can be made up for with an excess in another. We have 50 separate & independent elections, only 2 of which delegate their electors proportionally based on the popular vote. With the rest, it's winner take all.

[Demsrule86]

59. It could happen if the third parties got enough votes

and that would elect Trump.

[PeaceNikki]

67. I was responding to a specific word you used: "plurality"

[NurseJackie]

17. It sounds to me like you're DEFENDING Stein and Johnson in the most subtle ...

... and stealthy of ways by cleverly "comparing" them to people like Teddy and Abe. I'm probably wrong, but that's how it comes across, whether you intended it to or not.

[Attorney in Texas]

22. Let's be clear: Neither Stein nor Johnson are qualified to be president and neither has a snowball's

chance in hell of winning.

With that said, if we believe democracy is a good thing, then we ought to accept that third-party candidacies are a healthy part of that democratic process.

The Green Party voters and Libertarian voters and the Constitutional Party voters are tiny minorities. These are people who do not identify with the Republican or Democratic parties. I'd rather have them participate in our democracy than refuse to participate because I believe democracy and voting are good things. They are good despite the fact that I don't agree with those voters because that is how democracy works.

[NurseJackie]

32. You skate on thin ice and walk a razor's edge when you flatter these spoilers by making …

... comparisons that elevate their stature and importance. In my opinion.

[Attorney in Texas]

39. Defending the concept of democracy isn't flattering spoilers. Neither Johnson nor Stein is qualified

to be president. UNQUALIFIED. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

Neither Johnson nor Stein has a prayer of coming in second (much less winning) the election. ZERO CHANCE OF SUCCESS.

With that said, democracy allows for voters to support candidates who are unqualified and who have zero chance of being elected. That's how democracy works.

[NurseJackie]

74. Yet you choose to flatter the spoilers in your attempts to "defend the concept of democracy".

Whatever. There's more to this than meets the eye... in my opinion.

[Attorney in Texas]

78. If you think "UNQUALIFIED" and "ZERO CHANCE OF WINNING" is flattery, I hesitate to guess what you

consider an insult.

[NurseJackie]

99. Grouping them with Abe and Teddy ... but you knew that.

It's your way of legitimizing the spoilers, in my opinion.

[Ruby the Liberal]

19. There are times that I wish for coalition representation

Where we aren't held to 2 party philosophies where party is prioritized over principle. Right now, representatives are pilloried if they don't toe the party line as opposed to voting what is in the best interest of the constituents.

No clue as to how we would ever get there, but as our system exists today, 3rd parties only act as spoilers for the far left and far right under a 'burn it down to save it' mentality.

[DemocraticWing]

45. It would be much better that way. I wouldn't be a Democrat probably though.

[randome]

20. Jerks and buffoons are always bad.

A viable third-party candidate would be interesting but these two are not that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[Attorney in Texas]

26. A viable third-party candidate would be scary. Johnson-Weld and Stein-Baraka are no more than an

avenue for "minority report" voters to have a voice in our great democracy. Johnson isn't taking Trump's votes, and Stein isn't taking H. Clinton's votes. The Green and Libertarian voters are people who not going to vote for either Trump or H. Clinton and they are a tiny minority.

With the control of the Senate hanging in the balance, we should be focused on getting the down-ballot votes of those who are going to the ballot box with the intention of voting for Johnson-Weld and Stein-Baraka at the top of the ticket.

Demonizing third party voters brings us no benefit down-ballot.

[Demsrule86]

61. I don't believe Stein who somehow has the money to run ads in swing states

is harmless...she is the spawn of Satan...and a threat to Democrats.

[Zynx]

23. The Republicans were the main opposition to the Democrats in 1860 and 1856.

They weren't a fringe element. They were mainly just the reconstituted Whigs.

[dawg]

24. Under our system, they distort the will of the people.

We have a binary choice. We don't have a parliamentary system where like-minded parties can form coalitions and rule together.

Two strong progressive candidates results in a conservative victory under our system - even if 60% or more voted for the left.

That is a distortion and is bad for democracy.

If we had instant run-off voting, it would make third-party candidates valuable. As it stands now, however, they serve only to defeat their own stated policy preferences.

[Attorney in Texas]

28. How does voting for the candidate of one's choice distort the will of the people? Neither Stein nor

Johnson has a chance of winning.

I'm pretty sure the people who are voting for Johnson-Weld and Stein-Baraka are well aware that they are not voting for a candidate who will be occupying the White House in 2017.

WITH THE CONTROL OF THE SENATE HANGING IN THE BALANCE, WE OUGHT TO BE COURTING THE DOWN-BALLOT VOTES OF JOHNSON-WELD AND STEIN-BARAKA VOTERS RATHER THAN MOCKING THEM AS NUTJOBS.

[dawg]

29. Presumably Stein voters want the country to move leftward. But Stein won't win ...

and Clinton will receive one less vote and might not win because of that. The result is Trump winning and the country moving further to the right.

And, pretty much the inverse is true of Gary Johnson.

Under our system, you only have the *illusion* of more than two choices. Anything else is a forfeit of your vote.

[Attorney in Texas]

35. What if you want smaller government, less taxes, legal weed, and repeal of the Patriot Act? Neither

the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party promote your agenda.

I'm not sure why we should demonize such a voter from voting Libertarian - undoubtedly Libertarians know that Johnson-Weld is 100% certain to lose the election, but if they want their voice heard, I'm OK with that.

Instead, let's make sure that this voter DOESN'T vote Republican down-ballot; let's point out how our Democratic Senate candidates will work on criminal justice reform which head in the direction of marijuana decriminalization and will work on privacy issues that may soften the effect of the Patriot Act?

The same logic holds true for the Green Party - let's work to make sure that they vote Democratic on the down-ballot races.

[dawg]

36. They only have two realistic choices ... Trump or Clinton.

The only way their *voice* is really going to be heard is by voting for one of those two. If they consistently choose not to vote for a viable candidate, their *voice* can safely be ignored by both sides.


Edited to add: They aren't special snowflakes. We *all* must sacrifice some of our agenda in order to cast a meaningful vote. None of us agree with Secretary Clinton on everything. But we agree with her more than we do with her alternative.

That's the way our system works. I didn't design it. I think we should have instant run-off. But we don't.

[Attorney in Texas]

46. In Texas, you could argue that you "only have two realistic choices ... Republican or Tea Party" so

you had better vote in the Republican primary if you want to promote your agenda.

No thanks.

I'll vote Democratic despite the fact that I have not voted for a successful statewide candidate FOR OVER TWO DECADES.

When someone argues that I should vote in the Republican primary to support the moderate Republican against the radical Tea Party Nutjob (a/k/a Ted Cruz), I am unpersuaded despite the fact that there is some factual accuracy to the point that I might have more policy effect in Texas statewide politics by voting in the Republican primary.

How can I make that same argument which I have rejected to a Libertarian or a Green Party voter?

[dawg]

75. I sometimes vote in the Republican primary here in Georgia. :)

If their contest is close and ours is not, then I try to vote where I'll have the most influence. I always vote blue in November.

[TwilightZone]

77. That makes zero sense.

No one is suggesting that Democrats vote Republican or Tea Party, not even in Texas.

Further, your stereotype of Texas politics is woefully simplistic. The large cities and most of the Valley went to Obama in 2008 and 2012. They also, where gerrymandering hasn't completely closed them out, elect local and state-level Democrats. No one is suggesting that they should be voting in the GOP primaries, instead.

[emulatorloo]

103. Really appreciate your post. A dose of reality about Texas Dems, Texas Dem Candidates and

Texas Democratic party

[hrmjustin]

25. Yes I think they are bad candidates.

[stonecutter357]

27. fuck Ron Paul.

[WillyBrandt]

33. You're an intelligent person and your post is in bad faith

We have a binary outcome this election, and option B is a disaster. The logic here isn't hard: making option B more likely, actively or passively, is a bad move.

You're obviously smart enough to see that. But instead you choose non-sequitur and dubious analogy (Lincoln: you serious?). The effect of your post isn't to advance a debate, it's to muddy the obvious, and to the distract from the necessary.

You post in bad faith.

[Attorney in Texas]

65. Let's agree on ten points: 1. Trump, Stein and Johnson are all unqualified to be president;

2. Hillary is well qualified to be president;
3. Stein and Johnson have zero chance of being elected;
4. The presidential race is a binary election, but millions will nevertheless vote for a third party;
5. There is a long history of third parties in American democracy so we may as well acknowledge that fact;
6. Control of the Senate is critical to advancing our Democratic agenda;
7. There are many down-ballot races where the Greens or the Libertarians do not even have a candidate;
8. Regardless of their presidential vote, we want down-ballot votes from Greens and Libertarians;
9. Demonizing Libertarians and Greens is not the best strategy to win their down-ballot votes; and
10.Demonizing Libertarians and Greens will not persuade them to switch their presidential preference.

Which of these ten points do you disagree with?

Which of these ten points reflects bad faith?

How - exactly - does demonizing Green Party or Libertarian voters help us win the presidency or win back the control of the Senate or win any other down-ballot races?

[grossproffit]

34. I doubt you'd be posting this if someone else was our nominee.

[Attorney in Texas]

54. If Sanders was our nominee, I'd be even more concerned that mocking and disparaging third party

candidates is counter-productive to our down-ballot races.

Winning back control over the Senate is as important to the fulfillment of our shared agenda as winning the presidency; if Hillary wins (as I hope she does), she will not achieve much with a Republican-controlled House and Senate.

We should cast our net as widely as possible. That has nothing to do with our nominee (except that the need to cast our net widely might be even more critical if we had chosen a nominee from the left-wing of the party instead).

At some point, we need to see that this election is Trump versus America. The Greens and the Libertarians are against Trump. We're all against Trump. We need not waste our ammunition on any target other than Trump.

[Yavin4]

37. No, true 3rd parties are not bad.

However, when they only show up during presidential elections and not during off-year and other local elections, then they cannot be taken seriously.

[Demsrule86]

63. They do show up off year.

They are the ones (Greens) who called Obama a 'sell out' and wanted to primary him in 12. They demoralize the voters off- year by attacking the party. Third parties are bad, and Stein is really trying to elect Trump which makes her very very bad and perhaps evil is not too strong a word.

[DetlefK]

38. Short answer: Yes, because the US-election-system sucks.

The whole party-system in the US is geared towards two big parties, with winner-take-all. If two of three parties draw on the same voting-bloc, the third party will have plurality and will win.

[PeaceNikki]

40. Not true in the Presidentail election with the Electoral College

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote.

In a three way race, that does not mean the person who gets 34 percent is the president, nor in a four way race does it mean the person who gets 26 percent is president. Majority means “more than half,” not “more than the others.” In these latter two scenarios, the president would be decided by the Republican-led House of Representatives. That’s the law.

[DetlefK]

101. And what about House- and Senate-elections?

[geek tragedy]

41. They are our opponents in a zero-sum game nt

[Attorney in Texas]

47. Agreed. Greens and Libertarians are tiny minorities in a zero sum game. But in many races there are

no Green Party or Libertarian candidates.

Let's not alienate those voters from supporting our Democratic candidates in down-ballot races.

We do better (at the top of the ticket and below) by emphasizing our shared values that unite us with Green Party and Libertarian voters rather than mocking and disparaging those voters.

[geek tragedy]

49. The fact that they don't bother with local races

is precisely why a lot of us deride those parties.

Imagine what all of that energy could accomplish at the local level. Instead they blow it on vanity candidates.

[ismnotwasm]

43. Stein is a opportunistic wack job

Johnson is a fucking libertarian. So yes, they are "bad"--has nothing to do with her party and everything to do with leadership.

And my eyes can't roll high enough at the Lincoln comparison.

[etherealtruth]

50. "amen" to that!

[Nye Bevan]

48. Is the phrase "helping Trump by splitting the anti-Trump vote" in any way hard to understand? (nt)

[Attorney in Texas]

70. Johnson & Stein aren't splitting the anti-Trump vote any more than splitting the anti-Clinton vote

Hillary is doing very well in the polls and Trump is floundering.

The Libertarian vote is twice the size of the Green vote, and together with the other third parties they still only represent a little more than two million votes.

Those two million or so voters (a tiny fraction of the entire electorate) are voters who are pretty resolved to vote against Trump and against Hillary. This small segment of the voting population is not going to sway the election and their voters were never Trump's or Hillary's votes.

Let's work to make sure we are not pushing these voters to vote against our candidates in down-ballot races.

[KMOD]

51. Any person who is intentionally aiding tRump

is not only bad, they are atrocious.

Whack jobs like Stein and Johnson are just as much our opponents as tRump himself.

There is was too much at stake. Shame on anyone who peddles their nonsense.

[bluedye33139]

52. Some third-party candidates are hateful spoilers

There are third-party candidates who do not hope to win, but rather to make some kind of protest point. Think Ralphs Nader laughing and laughing and laughing 16 years ago.

By no means does this indicate that all third-party candidates are evil. Nor are they necessarily "bad" whatever that word means.

[emulatorloo]

57. You don't know a lot about history if you think Stein = Teddy Roosevelt

Or Anderson = Lincoln.

Stein and Anderson are poor candidates, I am sure they are wonderful people.

[Demsrule86]

62. And Teddy Roosevelt elected Woodrow Wilson a Democrat.

That is what spoilers do, they elect the other side's candidate.

[Agschmid]

60. Neither one of the third party candidates can really be compared to the others you listed.

Different times, different national moods, all kinds of things.

Anyone can run, no one is "bad", but they are somewhat irrelevant.

[liberal N proud]

64. I think it is all situational and subjective

[Doodley]

66. What kind of democracy is it that offers only two choices? It is the system that is bad. Imagine

Imagine only having the choice of two brands of car. You would want more choice. Choosing who is going to govern a nation is a little more important. It is time to start the process to get rid of this horrible divisive system that splits the nation in two and sets one side against the other, and leads to extremism in the mainstream, for example Trump. It is time for a system where all people are represented, in a proportional way.

[Maru Kitteh]

82. You're going to have to move to another country for that

But right now, I assume you live in this one, where either Trump or HRC will become the President.

Which one do you want?

[Doodley]

84. I want Trump

to lose and for his toxicity to bankrupt all his businesses and for him to be the butt of jokes forevermore.

[Maru Kitteh]

87. I want Trump

to be humiliated so badly that he slinks away from this country, never to stain our national psyche again.

Because the only candidate who can stop Trump from inhabiting the White House is HRC, I believe our collective well-being is absolutely dependent on working like hell to make certain HRC is elected President.

[TwilightZone]

68. They're a threat to our candidate winning in November.

This isn't complicated.

[Attorney in Texas]

71. In a change versus status quo election, they divide the change vote. Pretty sure that helps us.

[JoePhilly]

73. Bullshit.

Voting for anyone other than Hillary hurts the sane among us.

[Attorney in Texas]

76. OK - use your term. In a sane versus insane election, I'm pretty sure they divide the insane vote.

[JoePhilly]

79. I have no problem if crazy people vote for ...

... Hillary along with we sane people.

It's actually better for us if every single one of them does so as that would absolutely destroy the GOP.

Which would be even better than Hillary just beating him because the crazy vote split across trump, stein, and Johnson.

[emulatorloo]

83. Status-Quo = white male racist predatory capitalist

You continue to perpetuate this false framing of Trump v HRC election. You've been doing this for a while now. You are an intelligent person, surely you know this is bullshit.

You need to drop out of GD: P mode. It is pretty ironic to me that you are complaining Stein and Johnson are being 'demonized' when you've spent the last 10 months or so demonizing Clinton.

[MohRokTah]

72. Stein-Baraka are EVIL. Johnson-Weld are EVIL, They are also being pushed by Russia.

STAY OUT OF OUR ELECTIONS, VLADIMIR PUTIN!!!!!

[NCTraveler]

80. Smaller party candidates...

Have a history of making sure we stay a country dominated by two parties. The two parties simply broaden their platform to the point it marginalized smaller parties. Smaller parties don't broaden their appeal to the electorate. For that reason smaller parties can't get much traction.

[bananakabob]

86. Considering the Green Party isn't in it to win the election, they're in it to be professional

spoilers and boost their own ego. Yes, they are bad.

And Johnson-Weld is just as racist as Trump, they just hide it better in the attempt to dupe ignorant left voters.

[Attorney in Texas]

90. By the same logic, the Democratic Party is just a spoiler party in deep red states like Texas. Also,

I'm not sure Johnson-Weld is trying to dupe ignorant left voters. Aren't they pretty much weed-lovin' Republicans?

[bananakabob]

93. He's trying to dupe the Berniecrats.

And the Democratic Party isn't a spoiler in the south because they still attempt to run candidates at a local level.

The Green party doesn't. They exist only to come out every four years to try and spoil and split the Democratic Party.

[beachbumbob]

89. I noticed you conveniently forgot to list 2000 Ralph Nader...why? As it's the perfect

Example of a 3rd party run which had not a bad....but horrible effect on the future of America????......stein and Johnson would be 1000x worse if trump is allowed to win...As stein supporters view it as teaching America a lesson...just like Nader supporters in 2000

[JoePhilly]

91. Perhaps because that example ...

... hits just a little too close to home??

[TwilightZone]

94. And the only one even remotely comparable.

[JoePhilly]

95. +1

[La Lioness Priyanka]

92. no matter how many ways you guys try to defend this, Jill Stein is an irresponsible asshole. nt

[Rex]

96. Some folks are ultra-partisan and hate anything outside of the two parties.

Other folks, not so much. I am sure by now you can tell the two groups apart.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

97. In a democracy, the people are supposed to have choices.

Freedom for supporters of the government only, for members of one party only, no matter how big its membership may be is, no freedom at all. Freedom is always freedom for the man who thinks differently. Rosa Luxemburg

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[Throd]

100. No. The more choices, the better. I hate the current duopoly.

[Bucky]

102. The American propensity to turn into blithering idiots whenever the subject of race comes up

There are things that matter besides race when it comes to candidates. Like, everything else matters more.

[LexVegas]

105. Stein-Baraka & Johnson-Weld are idiots. I am sure you agree.

[LanternWaste]

106. I imagine there is a relevant difference between a moral absolute and a political opponent

I imagine there is a relevant difference between a moral absolute and a political opponent... which does not deny though, the possibility that a political opponent may be, in and of herself, bad (which I do not perceive in this case-- not bad, merely misguided and naive).

So we analyze the criticism-- is it directed against the opponent (I've read plenty of those) or is it criticism of the mere existence of additional parties (I've seen none of that), and from that (hopefully) realize the distinction between the person and/or the system.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

107. Depends entirely on the candidate and the election.

Minority party candidates, like majority party candidates, are a good thing if they increase the expected quality of the outcome of the election and a bad one if, like Jill Stein, they make it more likely that something bad will happen.

[CBGLuthier]

108. The 2 party "system" is the number one thing wrong with American politics. .

Two extremes, no nuances, and both parties know it is a game and a scam and they are screwing us into the ground and laughing about it.

[DanTex]

109. Not all of them. But Jill Stein and Ralph Nader are definitely bad.