The USA is the opposite of pluralistic. No third party has managed to build any serious political infrastructure at the local level and expand it regionally or nationally. That's why there are so many frivolous third party candidates for president; they're desperate to get a percentage of votes that will generate some federal funding to sustain organizational growth, and running for President is one of the few ways to get sufficient attention for that nationally.
with the voting system present in the US, it is essentially impossible for a 3rd party to come into existence that has any hope of significant federal or even state level power.
The third party in the US is an amalgamation of the leftover scraps of losers that couldn't make it in the other parties. Because that's exactly what the Greens and to a lesser extent Libertarians are. To be fair it is wonderful that Howie Hawkins has managed to get the Greens on the ballot in 36 or so states. Its crazy that you can't even vote for this party in all states.
But the vote count is horrendous. The best this country has ever done in recent memory was Ralph Nader and he was a someone famous that could move the needle....he still only got 2.74% of the vote.
That didn’t really answer my question. Let me make it more clear: let’s say two things are true: 1. Your vote for president does matter, so you’re not in a state where it’s almost certainly decided before the vote happens; and, 2. You agree that there are really two parties you can vote for. If you think Party A is really bad or dangerous, would you vote for Party B even if they don’t give a decent candidate, or would you just not vote?
I would vote for a third party. I am not going to vote for a person who is not a decent candidate. That's how you continue to get shit shoved down your throat.
