I couldn't think of another word for 'viable,' for what I wanted to say. And although I have been recently unhappy with Google search results that now seem to favor ads and 'reviews' by anyman, a surprising number of articles comes up with the search "Is a third party candidate viable for President in 2016?"
I will choose one to comment on here because it too surprised me by going more in depth into the difficulties of overcoming a two- party system, where that system comes from, and interesting psychological studies. Finally, the writer found sound changes a-brewing!
The source is Newsweek on-line: Why Third-Party Candidates Are Doomed—At Least This Year
By
I know, the title doesn't exactly ooze with optimism...nor does it have my word 'viable'. And it's long, but worth finishing, as there is more and more information, instead of more and more repetition (another pet peeve of mine as of late).
One item that is an aside, but surprised me is that Democrats tend to be more urban and Republicans more rural. I guess the bias I have is where I personally come from rather than where the parties as a whole come from, but it is interesting in the context that the stances of the parties, over the long term, have 'switched' several times. The most obvious, and seemingly forgotten, that it was the Republican Party that fought for the abolition of slavery, and the Democratic Governor Wallace of Alabama who set the fire hoses and dogs on Martin Luther King and his partners in non-violence was a Democrat. And now many people of color consider it the Democratic party that speaks for and represents them. With surprising voting choices of both parties in these primaries, perhaps some kind of change is in the not so distant future.
Let me throw out another aside from PBS's American Experience - George Wallace both started out and ended as a "Liberal" embracing integration, but saw it wouldn't win during the Civil Rights era. An opportunist? A Flip flopper? Who knows,but in a history I NEVER heard about, he apologized to African Americans - after an assassination attempt and partial paralysis - and got much of their vote. WOW! People and Events: George Wallace http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/peopleevents/pande05.html
Back to the original article commentary by yours truly. Much of voter behavior decision making is tied to a combination of WINNING and SELF - ESTEEM and not what is best for the country overall. They never use the term 'voting your conscience,' possibly because, so the research goes, it rarely happens because psychologically, and especially in more polarized environments - like now - there is a fear of throwing votes away. How 'sad' that my own conscience repeatedly has tossed away votes, apparently in a psychologically aberrant manner with no regard for my own esteem, LOL!
The following paragraphs all the way near the end stood out as really saying something new and indicate and exciting movement! first a process is described that could get us at least not 'afraid' to throw away a vote, and instead vote more with what we believe, or at the very least against what makes us uncomfortable (or cringe). I confess to not being a huge consumer of news, but the following does not seem to be out there and known. In fact even in ths article it is way at the end. Yet, promising for the future.
"There are changes afoot to break down some of these barriers at the
state and local level. Cities like Minneapolis, St. Paul, Minnesota; San
Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley California, now select some local
officials via what’s known as “rank choice voting,”
where each voter ranks their top three choices for an office, and if no
candidate win a majority of first choice votes on the first ballot,
then the number of second and possibly third choices are added in, until
someone reaches a majority. That eliminates the concern about “wasting”
a vote on an independent candidate, because if they lose in the first
round, your votes goes to your second choice pick."
What is nice is that it is not just a 'concept" but being tried in a few places, though not enough to make a difference in 2016.
"This November, Maine will vote on a ballot initiative that would implement rank choice voting
statewide. California, meanwhile, has begun using a nonpartisan voting
system for state and congressional contests, in which the top two
finishers in the primary, regardless of party, compete in the general
election. Other states, like Louisiana, hold run-off elections for state
office if no candidate wins a majority in the first round."
The ultimate conclusion is probably true, but not to my liking (do I confess to much...this constant vote thower-wayer?). "“I think that the dam will break at a certain point,” says Ritchie. “I don’t think it will do it this year.”
Even if the change does not come about this year, perhaps the unhappiness with the results of the current two-party powerhouse, or the surprising power of the supposed outliers (Sanders and Trump), will be exactly what is needed to make the change happen in the future.
P.S. A resource that goes more into detail on the specifics of trying to create another valid candidate outside of the two party system, even given the green and Libertarian parties existence.
Sorry, Conservatives, It’s Likely Too Late for a Viable Third-Party Candidate. Here's why.
By Carl Zeitz,www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/2016-donald-trump-third-party-213743
And for a FASCINATING (yet complex) out of the box thinking sayin it IS possible, let's look to The Federalist, though this article is a little older and may no longer be as valid,These Numbers Say A Third Party Can Win The Presidency by Josiah Peterson http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/16/these-numbers-say-a-third-party-can-win-the-presidency/Heather J. Kirk
Art by Heather J. Kirk www.heather-kirk.artistwebsites.com
Literature by Heather J. Kirk http://www.photographicartistry.citymax.com/Books.html
Posts
