Skjellyfetti wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 8:25 am
GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:43 am
And he ran as the Reform Party candidate in 1996 and got 8.4% of the vote, again, well in excess of your self-proclaimed 5% is going to be "pretty yuge" standard. Is that good enough for you or do I need to further illuminate things for you? There's a reason why you crashed and burned so badly in that Russian thread - thinking and posting should go together - when you do the latter without the former you end up with posts like what you've recently just dumped into this thread.
That's better. Accuracy is important right, Professor Ganny?
A third party receiving 5% of the vote opens up public matching funds for your party. This not only helps presidential campaigns but state and other federal elections.
Unfortunately, the Reform Party imploded due to internal squabbles and couldn't maintain the momentum. The Libertarian Party has been around longer and would have more staying power, imo.
Wait, when did you start caring about accuracy? Who are you and what have you done with Skelly???
Regardless, the same idea exists - Perot had almost 20% of the vote in '92 and had more than 8% of the vote four years later. The idea of 5% being some magical window, especially considering the idea that they qualify for public funding, is just a fantasy. The important two things in politics are ideas (policies, plans, etc) and winning. On the former, history has shown us time and time again that when a 3rd party emerges, it quickly becomes absorbed into one of the major two parties and the ideas do as well - that's how parties change over time. The winning thing is just as important - no one like to lose. No one likes to have no shot at winning. At least in America. Third parties have no chance of immediate success in gaining control, or even partial control, of either elected branch of government. Therefore, the two parties who do have a chance are the ones that dominate. Even if a 3rd party would do so well as to win, it's very likely they would just consume one of the two parties and you'd be back with two again. Unless we change the structure of our government, that's how it's going to keep playing out. I'm sure if you did one of those Nash equilibrium's the game theory would prove that as well.