<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 7:18 AM spike jones via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">From: efc@swisscows.email <efc@swisscows.email> <br>>...Wow, that would be something! Maybe the timing is good and maybe people<br>
are getting tired of the endless democrat vs republican fights and want to<br>
do something finally?<br><br>If it is ever going to happen Daniel, it will be next year. Both mainstream<br>
parties are heading towards nominating extremely unpopular candidates, one<br>
of which might be in the depths of impeachment hearings and the other one in<br>
court or in jail. The current civil war in US government isn't going to<br>
settle down by Nov 2024. There are compelling candidates out there who can<br>
beat both of them. Sure would be nice to see the duopoly broken.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>They've already effectively quashed it for next year. See the bipartisan maneuvers, across many states, against the No Labels attempt. 2028 remains possible at this time, though.</div><div><br></div><div>I suspect that a far more viable way to break the duopoly starts with state legislatures and Congressional candidates, and does not try to field a Presidential candidate until after it has a significant number of elected officials in enough states to have a mathematical chance of winning the Electoral College. Not "run a Presidential candidate as well as state candidates" (because the Presidential campaign will drain so much resources and attention that effective state campaigns won't be run), not "endorse those who are also Democrats or Republicans" (because they are Democrats or Republicans first and, for most purposes, only - regardless of any third party endorsement).</div><div><br></div><div>Such a party might usefully start by targeting districts where the incumbent was unopposed - or virtually so - in the previous cycle, particularly Republican ones since they seem to deliver on less promises (to the majority of voters) than Democratic ones. Have each candidate focus on the still-unmet demands of their local voters (which any non-country-wide campaign should do, another reason to take the initial focus off a Presidential run).</div><div><br></div><div>The third party would be at a major fundraising disadvantage, but there are many proven tricks to get votes without lots of money: elections aren't literally purchased by the highest bidder. There are tricks to effective monetary deployment, and what matters in the end is votes, not dollars. Even getting to just 10 Representatives who identify as the same third party - and not as Democrat or Republican - would get enough attention to start offsetting that fundraising disadvantage.</div><div><br></div><div>Besides, to truly break the logjam, a third party would need Congress more than the Presidency. Congress makes the laws - and with enough of a majority, Congress can override Presidential vetoes.</div></div></div>