Political Crossfire Forums

Why do the most predominant third party alternatives - the Libertarians and Greens - spend so much time and effort on the presidential race when they each know their pursuits are fruitless? Is it a display of crass disobedience or empty idealism? For the purpose of this thread I'm going to ignore less significant parties like the Constitutionalists, Socialists, etc.

I realize the Greens originated as independent networks that eventually consolidated into one political party. That's fine, but since the 1990s it has pretty much adopted the Libertarian Party's model of dumping money into the presidential race. Gary Johnson explicitly stated that his goal was not to win but instead achieve 5% of the popular vote so that in upcoming elections the party has a much more significant presence in debates and ballot access. Again, a fine proposition, but clearly that was not attained. As a percentage of the entire voting bloc, the Libertarians barely increased their share even with a more significant name attached to the ticket.

In the history of the United States third party alternatives have only been successful when they:
- Originated as significant factions from within the D's or R's (Dixiecrats), or;
- Started out competitive in state races.

Neither libertarians nor greens are competitive in even local elections. Shouldn't their main focus be growing from the bottom up? Why even put forward a presidential candidate when the time, effort, and money could go towards winning actual elections? Compete in cities, school districts, and counties, then expand into state levels. Fill up the state legislatures. After all, most decisions are still decided on by the states. If you're a libertarian, why not focus first on state-level income taxes? Or state regulations? Or if you're a green, push forward marriage equality and legalizing cannabis. Push forward cutting-edge policies that ween your state off of oil.

The cost of presidential and national races is increasing exponentially. (Okay, an exaggeration). Oftentimes the two parties neglect smaller candidates, especially in safe states. This gives rise to an opportunity. Root out local businesses and millionaires. Invest in your ideas.

i feel like they martyr themselves in the hopes that election rules regarding debates and funding will change so they can take advantage of it. not that it will help them win the presidency.

but this is why they aren't taken serious. win a local election or SOMETHING first. i think the green party holds like one county position somewhere. it's just pathetic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

3rd parties are inherently screwed. HTH

Assuming no losses from ideological impurity, which is dubious, if Stein and Johnson had ran together they still would have pulled in less than 1.5% of the total vote. It's truly pathetic.

I know it would be 'beneath him,' but Johnson could run for New Mexico's state legislature as a libertarian and probably win. He has the name behind him to even skip over all the municipality stuff and bring a strong presence to the state.

I think for the most part, these 3 party candidates are just trying to get a little bit of attention for their issues in the hopes that it will force the Democrats and Republicans to address those issues.

A lot of big-L libertarians have been saying this for years, and I generally agree with it. The presidency shouldn't even be a goal for them until they start to win a real presence in local and state politics. Even in a state like Texas, where you could reasonably conceive some party Libertarians being elected to major positions, it's not even close to happening yet.

My own personal opinion of why these significant third parties fail is that they necessarily become these vacuums for any and all fringe weirdos outside the two major parties. I think most serious Greens and Libertarians have a pretty good idea about what their core philosophy is, and what they want to project to the world, but the reality is that for every card-carrying sober-minded Green and Libertarian, there's 800,000 crazy Uncle Bills using those labels and poisoning the well with all their jumbled insanity and misinformation. I mean, so many intelligent people voted for Gary Johnson for incredibly lucid reasons...............but so did a lot of Alex Jones listeners. Or whatever. That's the overarching perception that sticks. There are some patently insane Democrats and Republicans out there, but the parties are established enough, with media machines that are effective enough that no amount of screaming on street corners about "Obama phones" can trump the respectable perception of the party itself. That is just not the case with the third parties. Their torches are pretty much fair game to be carried by any Dale Gribble in arms length.

Good point, Sandman. Another problem is that in out system, parties rigidly based on ideology pretty much fail. Democrats and Republicans both have their core ideologies that help guide them but they're also very flexible with it. They weigh feasibility and public sentiment as well. Libertarians just basically answer any issue with whatever they think is the "most libertarian" solution. Won't work.