This is partisan drivel that is meaningless and without merit. Don't buy into it. A vote for any candidate is simply a +1 in their column and a +0 in the other columns. By voting for a Third Party, my vote does not magically end up in the septic tank of either Repubs or Dems (as alluded to by the authors). One of the duties of being a citizen in this nation is the charge to use the power of our votes for the betterment of the nation, based upon our beliefs and views. That vote is not owed to nor owned by any one party. I own my vote and it goes where I want. If I vote Third Party, it isn't because I somehow expect that candidate to win, but to show that I do not like what the other two major parties are offering, nothing more. I will not choose to vote for either Trump or Hillary in some sort of appeal to a lesser evil. I consider both to be bad for this nation and want no part of either. I don't want your lesser evil! We deserve better than both of these candidates and I see virtually no distinction between them or what they will bring about. Considering how both like to flip flop around from day to day, who knows what they will stand for once they actually attain the office of President.
Granted, I do not see any way that a Third Party will win this particular election, but I am not voting for instant gratification by picking the "winner". I am voting because I hold out hope that enough people share a similar distaste for the bitter teas on offer by the two major parties. People who are growing sick and tired of the same old bullshit that has plagued this nation for decades and want something better for ourselves or future generations. If enough of them vote 3rd party, maybe it will inspire even more to take a stand. Maybe, just maybe, qualified and worthy people will see this as an opportunity to start getting involved in politics themselves. Who knows? A few election cycles down the road, we might end up with a Third Party candidate worthy of the office of President of the United States and have enough voters to get them there.
Oh, that line about how Trump was an existential threat to the first world and Hillary is just a mere politician? Please. You couldn't fill a tea pot with the differences between the two. But, if you could, it'd be a bitter brew.
Stands for ideology are great and all, and you can go to bed feeling good about yourself that you didn't vote for lesser evil, but it's small consolation if the great evil wins and turns out to be outside the boundaries of "ordinary evil," especially if the alternative is more evil in portrayal than in reality, which may be the case here.
However, therein lies the problem. Mathematics are great when it comes to patterns or statistical analysis. What they fall short on is understanding and accounting for outside variables that effect voting results. For every Third Party voter, there are dozens of normal voters that choose to stay home or are dissatisfied with their normal party, leading them to vote elsewhere.
Let's take the great (and over-used) example of Bush-Gore-Nader of 2000.
Everyone wants to blame Nader for Gore's loss. After all, Gore only lost Florida by 543 votes! If only a fraction of the 97,488 Nader-Green Party voters had voted Gore, he would have taken the Presidency, right? What that theory (and Duverger's Law) fails to account for are a few small, very critical details:
1) It completely overlooks the 200,000+ registered Democrats who were disenfranchised by the Democratic party and voted for Bush. Even 1% of that would have propelled Gore to victory. Is that Nader's or any of the 3rd Party candidates' fault? Nope, that's a Democrat and Gore problem.
2) The Butterfly ballot and the Florida voting procedures led to many issues that were confusing. An entire district's votes ended up being cast out. Buchanan himself said those ballots were majority Gore. Did 3rd Party voters cause that? Nope, that's a Florida problem.
3) The party line votes of the Supreme Court. Once again, proof positive that having only 2 major parties in this nation lead to biased decisions or gridlock, helping no one. Are 3rd Party voters to blame there? How does that variable factor into the equation?
4) Democrat voters who were disenfranchised, but just decided to stay home and not bother at all. Only about 52% of registered democrats made it to the polls to vote and 200k of those voted for Bush! Once again, how is that a 3rd Party voter's fault?
5) Nader and the Green Party. Strangely enough, Nader is always the scape-goat here, yet, he was only 1 of 8 3rd Party candidates on the ballot to get votes. Why do the other 7 not get blamed? After all, any single one of them had enough votes to push Gore over the top. It doesn't matter, however. Gore couldn't even win his own home state. Once again, a Democrat party caused problem, not a 3rd Party voter problem.
The entire idea begins to lose weight once the party bases lose faith. Disenfranchised voters, unmotivated voters, and ultimately, the candidate and their platform is what loses elections. Duverger's Law only works in hindsight, using poll closing numbers and then making analysis of what could have been, what might have happened, and what should have happened if people only voted the way "I" wanted to them to vote complaints. Every attempt at using those types of formulas as predictors have failed. Why? Because voters aren't always predicable and the Law only measures correlation after the fact. It has no clue on the actual causation.
Looking around, we can clearly see that the party bases are unstable and millions of voters are on the edge. How will they vote? Will they remain loyal to party or will they revolt, fleeing to the opponent or even to a 3rd party? Or, just perhaps, they are so disgusted, they will just stay home. Either way, the idea that 3rd Party votes steal votes away is nonsense, unless you somehow believe that they are owned by the two parties and shouldn't go elsewhere. No, if the candidate loses, it is solely because of their failure to convince voters to vote for them and it rests upon their shoulders alone.
Don't blame the voters, blame the candidate.
A "plague unto man". "Magma enema". "Shit scorpions". "Fascism fuckery". The "Actual Devil". Endless "BUH BUH BUH" like it's some kind of Beavis and Butthead cartoon.
Is this guy supposed to be a bona fide political commentator or a nine-year-old in a school playground?
As a side-note, I've got some first-hand experience with clearances, classified info, and the institutional paranoia that surrounds them. If any of us had done a fraction of what HRC did with her server, we'd be going to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for the rest of our natural lives. Hillary got a pass for no other reason than that she's Hillary Clinton, and she's too well-connected to prosecute.
Since I'm assuming we didn't defeat to the USSR so we could create our own nomenklatura, so I can sleep easy knowing I'm going to vote for anyone but her.