Some Evangelicals Want a Third-Party Option, Even Without a Chance at Winning

I know, I know, it’s an exercise in futility… until enough people do it. Then suddenly it’s not.

So, who will be first? Nothing improves until enough people are willing to engage in “exercises in futility.”

I’m not going to commit to voting for this party, but voting for some kind of “other”? Sign me up.

We kind of have a 3rd party. We have the Democrats, the far-right Republicans and the moderate Republicans. We just need someone to take the stamina and step out.

I've voted 3rd party or independent last two presidential elections. 3rd parties can be a powerful message that the Big Two currently aren't serving voters' needs, thereby spurring reform. So even a loss can be a "win."

Trouble is, I don't know if either party is listening at this point. I also don't know if enough voters can be summoned to send a coherent message.

It does seem to me like there should be some serious, bipartisan issues that a gifted leader could build a platform around, however. But of course it's the hot-button social issues that build the energy.

You have to think about why. Why do you want a third party? What do you want it to stand for and do?

You have to think about why. Why do you want a third party? What do you want it to stand for and do?

There are already a lot of 3rd parties, but it is not like there is unity among those 3rd parties. The Constitution Party and the Green Party have had candidates nearly every Presidential election I have voted in, yet they are farther apart than the Democrats and Republicans. Voting 3rd party is always an option. I did just that in the 2016 presidential election, but I did not expect my vote to change the outcome. Perhaps some day it will, but this time around there does not seem to be any consensus candidate from any 3rd party that most independents and a large amount of both democrats and republicans would support. The independents make up a very large voting block, but it is not like the independents are unified in what they believe.

I've voted 3rd party or independent last two presidential elections. 3rd parties can be a powerful message that the Big Two currently aren't serving voters' needs, thereby spurring reform. So even a loss can be a "win."

No. I don't think so. Nothing is stopping Biden from aiming our country at the cliff and pressing the gas pedal to the floor. Not the other party voters and certainly not the 3rd party voters.

I know, I know, it’s an exercise in futility… until enough people do it. Then suddenly it’s not.

The question is whether enough people will get behind it for "suddenly it's not." I think a Convention of States is more likely to work slightly less futile.

The main issues I would like are:

1. Balanced Budget Amendment.
2. Elected and appointed federal officials prohibited from playing stock market. (Everything must go in Index, or something similar).
3. Term limits for Congress.
4. Mandatory Voter ID for US Citizens only, paper ballots, and mandatory oversight by both parties.

Dan Miller said:

You have to think about why. Why do you want a third party? What do you want it to stand for and do?

I subscribe to National Review, which gives me access to occasional Zoom forums with the editors and guests. I've only done it once, a few weeks ago, when Henry Olsen was Rich Lowry's guest. Henry Olsen is a columnist with the Washington Post, an elections analyst, and the host of a podcast I follow, Beyond the Polls. From my perspective, he really understands the way polling works and how to read the polls.

I asked a question in this Zoom forum which Rich took up with Henry. The question was along the lines of this, "Aren't there enough people mad at both Biden and Trump to mount a successful run up the middle through some kind of third party?"

Olsen's answer was along these lines: First, even though it is true there are centrist Democrats who are mad at Biden, and Never Trumpers who are mad at Trump, you can't mount a successful campaign just on negatives. You have to be for something.

Second, the problem with No Labels and other such efforts, there is no coherent "this is what we are for message." Not only that, no one of any stature has been willing to announce a third party run, especially on the No Labels idea of one Democrat and one Republican forming a "unity ticket." The moderate Dems, though mad at Biden, wouldn't support the positives that a Non-Trump Republican would support. The moderate Republicans likewise wouldn't support the positive program a centrist Dem would support.

Hence, there is NO UNIFYING MESSAGE that a third party can rally around. There is nothing to run on.

I'm afraid we are stuck with Biden vs. Trump, unless something catastrophic happens to one of them. Those are your choices.

If you want to vote third party as a protest, that's your option, but it won't register any protest (my opinion) as it will be so insignificant as to make no difference.

I'm not rejoicing in any of this. I think it is a terrible situation.

This is a perennial issue on SI and I always raise this issue that I myself rejected for the first 20 years of my voting life. There is another reason to vote third party besides a protest vote which is to vote for good policy. Or at least candidates that are not maniacs or criminals. It’s a grand thing to be able to legitimately say that you voted for something good.

I know, I know, “but you didn’t do anything!” I would rather do nothing than put the leftist republican clown shows in office that the Republican Party keeps feeding us. Until people decide to stop voting for garbage candidates, they will get more of them.

Why do I want a third party? To drive compromise. Both parties are to engrained in ideologies. Every little thing is a fight on an ideology, instead of a broader view on things. In addition, both parties are just running on a platform that is against the other party. More times than not, it is not about what they are bringing to the table, but just an attack on the other party. Everyone hits Biden on immigration or Trump on immigration, but immigration is an issue for Congress to resolve not the president, and frankly congress can't get a single thing done, nor have they ever been willing to address. They just want a leader in the White House to lead by fiat. Lets not address immigration reform, lets get a president who rules by executive decisions. With that said, it would be great that if a third party would gain momentum, that now everything has to be more consensus driven. Neither the Republicans or the Democrats could elect a Speaker by themselves, they would have to drive a consensus. It allows the country to deemphasize the fringe. The fringe in both parties carry significantly more weight than their numbers should support.

Everyone hits Biden on immigration or Trump on immigration, but immigration is an issue for Congress to resolve not the president, and frankly congress can't get a single thing done, nor have they ever been willing to address.

They just want a leader in the White House to lead by fiat. Lets not address immigration reform, lets get a president who rules by executive decisions.

I think you are confusing a call for the president to enforce the laws that congress has already passed a long time ago with expecting a president to lead by fiat.

Same Issue. The Republicans feel that the Executive branch under the Democrats is not enforcing existing laws, and the Democrats feel that the Republicans are not following the current laws. There is a lot of leeway in interpretations of some laws (thus why you have conflicting court rulings on them). At the end of the day, they are both following a level of fiat based on how the Executive branch wants to interpret the law. The fact is that the law is not sufficient. It is allowing both parties to interpret as they please and the other party to complain about it. Congress has not had meaningful legislation in this area for decades.

My feeling is that we bring them in, quickly make sure they are not a criminal, and then give them as quick of a path to citizenship as possible. Allow them a path to work and pay taxes legally as quickly as we can.

Why do I want a third party? To drive compromise. Both parties are to engrained in ideologies. Every little thing is a fight on an ideology, instead of a broader view on things. In addition, both parties are just running on a platform that is against the other party. More times than not, it is not about what they are bringing to the table, but just an attack on the other party.

Agree. I think ideology matters. A lot. But ideology is theoretical—not automatically well-connected to realities on the ground. So I would say both parties have become too distracted from reality and practical solutions—to the degree they have any interest in solutions at all. If you solve a problem, you can no longer blame the other side for it, and blaming seems to be where all the passion is.

We need a new crew of leaders who are passionate about solutions vs. passionate about “winning” (aka defeating opponents at any cost, regardless of real-world points of agreement, and real-world consequences.)

We need a new crew of leaders who are passionate about solutions vs. passionate about “winning” (aka defeating opponents at any cost, regardless of real-world points of agreement, and real-world consequences.)

Politics is about power. It has almost always been so since the rise of the Greek city-state. That is where we meet our first demagogues. Certainly, a few leaders have risen who can unite a divided country by seeking the welfare of the people and country instead of themselves (e.g. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, etc.), but those leaders are rare. Honestly, that type of person is probably not running for elected office in today's political environment. They would never be elected by their respective party in today's political environment.

The fact is that the law is not sufficient. It is allowing both parties to interpret as they please and the other party to complain about it. Congress has not had meaningful legislation in this area for decades.

I would question the use of the word "fact" in the above statement. Mayorkas was impeached for not upholding the laws on the books. If the Senate had allowed the trial to take place, then we all could have heard the details of what laws were violated and of how detailed and clear those laws were. Of course, those who call the other side "dictators" ended up silencing the opposition rather than letting the people know what was going on and stopped the trial from taking place in the Senate. (For those who are confused about the complicated process of civics, the House votes on impeachment, but removal from office does not take place until there has been a trial in the Senate. Then the Senate has to vote to either uphold the impeachment and remove the individual or vote to acquit and leave the person in office. The Senate in this case declined to even take up the issue).

BTW, just to clarify the confusion and misinformation that was not a "fact" in an earlier thread, it was Mayorkas, not Biden who was impeached. Beware that those who claim to have the facts, may actually be a bit confused.

The Biden administration recently proposed a further law change. The propaganda presented by progressives was that such a law change would solve the border problem. I would suggest that anyone who believes that is quite confused as well.

Speaking of "law change"... This Title IX rewrite... I'm in awe.

I just don't see how any committed American can vote for Biden at this point. 3rd party, whatever, but this....

All the people screaming about Trump "undermining democracy" just want to cover for their own coup.

We live in a dictatorship by bureaucracy.