Huffy Flounce

Why the hell not?

I've noticed this cycle's third-party candidates sticking to their very specific guns and seeming almost willfully ignorant of some of the US's larger concerns. I've noticed this, in the past, with other cycle's third-party candidates.

My guess is that third-party candidates press hard on their platforms of choice--some of which may matter little to the public at large--and remain blissfully uninformed of popular concerns because they've yet to have to shoulder the burden of obtaining, and having to maintain, something approaching mass appeal. I suppose there's good and bad in their not necessarily having to shoulder such a burden. They're rarely forced to waver, ideologically, to continue to appeal to their base. This only makes their base stump harder for them. Unfortunately, there's also an air of privilege to this. It keeps them and their base ill-prepared for compromise or for seeing the bigger picture as it is seen by others.

I think you can see a hint of this inability with Stein. It has been pointed out often that Stein and Sanders are ideologically pretty close. If you look at both of their campaigns, though, you'll see differences in the way they've approached them. Sanders was clearly tasked with having a more sophisticated understanding of the concerns of the people at large. There was more vetting and prepping on his end. He was expected to know as much about global concerns as domestic concerns. He was also, as we have seen with the Clinton endorsement, forced to compromise. Stein has had to do little of this.

I've seen some claim that third-party voting is the height of white privilege. While I think that's a potentially hasty blanket dismissal, and while I also think maybe "white" can be removed in some cases, I also think it can apply (and has applied) to specific third parties and specific third party candidates.

Third parties are always in danger of making mountains of molehills. Their concerns tend to be incredibly specific, and those concerns don't necessarily apply to all--or even to the majority.

Despite the specificity of these parties' concerns, it can be good for those concerns to be heard. There are many groups whose concerns would otherwise receive little-to-no representation.

The most valid criticism I've seen of the third-party candidates this race, in my opinion, is that they are trying to change things from the top down, when the most effective way things change in our system is from grass-roots up. There's all this publicity for their presidential candidates, when they should be trying to get in on the local level first, then build their way up.

That is a very valid criticism. The cart has been put well before the horse.

We had a so-called third party in the U.K. for a long time in the Liberal Democrats. Potentially soon to be overtaken by UKIP.

Problem is, knowing they are generally miles from power they can say anything, so become a protest party.