Most Americans who oppose Donald Trump agree the threat to democracy is the major issue of the 2024 election. But what, precisely, constitutes the threat? To most Democrats, the danger is that the election will install into power a president who admires autocratic regimes and wishes to replicate their methods by encouraging violence, using the government to punish independent media and prosecute his political enemies.

But another, smaller group of people say the threat to democracy is that there will only be one candidate running against Trump. They define “democracy” as giving voters in the general election the choice of multiple non-Trump options.

At the moment, Biden is facing potential spoiler campaigns from the center (No Labels) and the left (Cornel West.) The substantive critiques those two spoiler campaigns have with President Biden and the Democratic party are ideologically diametrical, but their process argument is the same.

“There is no true democracy in America when two ruling parties actively work to prevent voters from having choices,” says Peter Daou, West’s campaign manager. “Would you accept a restaurant with only two (rotten) items on the menu? Of course not.”

“The attempt to shut down No Labels is not an attack on the organization. It’s an attack on America’s democracy,” claims Joe Lieberman, one of the organizers of the centrist third-party campaign.

Notably, West and Lieberman alike aren’t merely making a procedural case that they require ballot access. They are arguing that even to denounce their campaigns imperils democracy. Lieberman’s comments came in response to the Democratic Party merely instructing its officials to attack No Labels as a threat to democracy.

Daou, in an interview with The New Yorker’s Isaac Chotiner, complained that the very act of criticizing his campaign is undemocratic. “Let’s say this cycle we also say the same thing, which is, ‘Oh, my God, we have to stop Donald Trump or we have to stop whoever the Republican might be,’” he theorized. “And this happens the next cycle and the next cycle and the next cycle. Where is the so-called democracy that we’re supposedly protecting or saving? What we’re doing is we’re crushing third parties. We are stifling democracy itself, Isaac.”

Daou and Lieberman are not simply asserting that third parties must have the right to appear on the ballot. They are insisting democracy requires that they run and that the major parties refrain from denouncing them as spoilers.

At the risk of insulting the reader’s intelligence, apparently, it is necessary to point out that the choice construction of a presidential election is nothing like a restaurant menu. When you order from a restaurant, every diner gets to eat whichever dish they want. For that reason, it’s in the restaurant’s interest to provide them with as many options as the restaurant can competently supply. When I go to a restaurant, I want the menu to offer me something that caters to my individual tastes.

To continue with the restaurant analogy, a presidential election is like a restaurant where, even though we have different choices on the menu, every diner gets the dish that gets ordered the most. That changes the incentive completely. In that kind of restaurant, I would neither expect nor even want a menu with lots of choices. I would want a menu designed to give me the choice closest to my preference. I happen to love Indian food, but putting chicken tikka and lamb vindaloo and saag paneer on a winner-take-all menu ballot might well mean that I wind up eating a bologna sandwich.

If we could live in a world where everybody got the president of their choice, I am confident nobody would care how many presidential candidates jumped into the race. The reason Democrats are concerned about the proliferation of candidates is that the election is going to result in just one president.

The nature of the American presidential election system, which lacks both parliamentary coalitions and ranked-choice voting, is that multiple candidates make it easier for a candidate to win with a minority of the vote. Democrats believe that the intensity of opinion around Trump — and the Democrats’ need to win a strong majority of moderates in order to have a majority — means that having multiple non-Trump candidates increases the odds of a Trump victory.

Third- and fourth-party enthusiasts seem (or perhaps just pretend) not to comprehend this dynamic at all and instead insist putting more choices on the November election is tantamount to “democracy.” Of course, you could expand choices by running more candidates in the primaries, which are open and decided by the voters. But neither the No Labels faction nor the Cornel West faction are willing to actually compete for the Democratic nomination. (Daou, revealingly, originally managed the campaign for Democratic candidate Marianne Williamson before giving up when she went nowhere).

The Wall Street Journal has repeatedly argued that criticizing No Labels is unpatriotic and anti-democratic. “President Biden said in a rare recent interview that No Labels has ‘a democratic right’ to do this, but ‘it’s going to help the other guy,’” complains an editorial this week. “Now comes a Super Pac trying to raise millions of dollars to assail No Labels, according to a fundraising pitch to prospective donors. What do these folks have against democracy?”

The Journal used to insist that wealthy donors spending money on ads to promote their point of view was a freedom so vital that campaign donations couldn’t even be regulated. Now, apparently, it’s a threat to democracy.

The Journal also professes to have no idea why anybody would even object to a No Labels candidacy. “What we don’t understand is the obloquy heaped on No Labels. Its members are patriots who want to spare the country from a campaign that offers four more years of the last two polarizing Presidencies,” pleaded a July editorial.

Of course, the Journal understands perfectly well why Democrats object to a spoiler campaign. “Yes, this does pose a threat to them because it’s likely to drain votes away from the Biden side,” boasted a Journal editorial writer in a video segment praising No Labels.

Lieberman’s own motives are only slightly more opaque. In an interview with CT Insider this summer, he dismissed polling that found a No Labels candidacy would pull more votes from Biden than Trump by insisting, “I haven’t seen exactly that one, that’s not our poll.” (As the interviewer noted, those numbers actually did come from his organization.)

And while Lieberman has been publicly assuring Democrats that No Labels would stand down if its candidate isn’t in position to win the election, he told CT Insider he might stay in the race anyway:

Even if we don’t think we’re likely to win, is there a constructive role for third party, a third ticket, bipartisan in which the American people can say by voting for that by partisan ticket, “Hey, Republicans and Democrats, we’re not buying what you’re selling, we want a third choice and No Labels is offering it to us.” So we may decide to run even if it’s not so sure that we can win, if we think we can have that kind of positive effect on whichever of the two candidates gets elected next November.

If your primary motivation in life is to exact revenge on the Democratic Party over personal slights, it’s easy to talk yourself into believing that you’re following some higher principle. But nobody should indulge their self-delusions. Skipping an open primary system to instead flood a first-past-the-post ballot with competing candidates to lower the plurality threshold for a terrifying authoritarian to win power has nothing to do with “democracy.”

  • @logicbomb
    link
    English
    20
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The underlying problem is that the voting method we use is terrible, and forces people to vote strategically.

    When choosing a method of voting, one of the important things is to minimize voter disappointment in the result.

    If you and your spouse adore third-party candidate C, but are OK with candidate B, and you believe candidate A is the worst thing ever, and so you both “vote your conscience” and it turns out that A won by 1 vote over B, I think your disappointment in the result would register off the scales, and it’s a surefire thing that you’d begin voting strategically in the next election. That wouldn’t mean that you were bullying yourself.

    The point I’m making is that the people who are trying to convince people to vote against their conscience aren’t always trying to harm those people. They are trying to work around the First-Past-The-Post system that we have, which sometimes maximizes voter disappointment.

    We desperately need to reform and get something like ranked choice or approval ballots. Because that’s the real problem.

    Edit: @Mammal I noticed that this comment received a downvote so quickly after I posted it, that I don’t think it is possible for you to have even read it before downvoting. I presume that came from you. Very naughty.

    • Mammal
      link
      English
      11 year ago

      Here’s the thing: Arguing Biden vs 3rd party is stupid.

      My point is that trying to bully people into voting a certain way is counterproductive. It objectively does not work.

      If you can’t convince someone to support a candidate based on material conditions and life experience, you certainly aren’t going to change their mind by trying to convince them that voting a certain way will make other people vote that way.

      • @logicbomb
        link
        71 year ago

        My point is that you’re trying to blame people, saying what they’re doing is “bullying”.

        This is typical of garbage politics. Even though the real problem is the policy, the first thing you do is blame the people. It’s an old trick, meant to deceive people.

        Plastics industry doesn’t like how they were proven to be bad for the environment, and people are lobbying to ban plastics? “Let’s pretend that the problem is the people. We’ll say like the problem is that people aren’t recycling!”

        The only bullies are the ones who don’t want to change the policy in favor of what’s best for the constituents.

    • miak
      link
      -1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And what about when I find both candidate A and B to be incredibly distasteful? If I vote for C and terrible B wins over terrible A, I don’t feel disappointed in the way I voted because I voted my conscience. I know this from experience.

      I’ll agree that the voting system is a part of the problem, but then maybe Democrats should get a little more serious about reforming that process. I don’t see that as likely since that would challenge their duopoly privilege, but would love them to prove me wrong.

      In the meantime, if a party wants me to vote for their candidate, they should put up a candidate I can support. I will not vote for someone that doesn’t represent my values.

      • @logicbomb
        link
        71 year ago

        I’ll agree that the voting system is a part of the problem, but then maybe Democrats should get a little more serious about reforming that process.

        Based on this, you are saying that the choice is not between two equally terrible main parties. If I had the views you seem to be showing in your comment here, the first thing I’d do is support the Democrats over the Republicans, and once the Republican party has been destroyed, then I might start supporting somebody over the Democrats.

        But I have a suspicion that you’re intentionally trying to deceive us about your true views. Nobody who supports the Democrats today would say that the Democrats and Republicans are similarly terrible. And no clear-minded third party supporter would say that the party of insurrections, dictatorships, and treason is equally as bad as the Democrats.

        No, those are things that Republicans say when they are pretending to have other political views. Because it’s hard to see things from other peoples’ points of view, and it’s easy to trip yourself up like this.

        • Sybil
          link
          -51 year ago

          they don’t need to be equally terrible for them both to be unacceptable

          • @logicbomb
            link
            41 year ago

            They’d have to be in the same ballpark of equally terrible, which is not the situation we’re in in America. I’ll revisit this conclusion if someday the Democrats try to violently overthrow the government, but for now, the “both sides are bad” argument is simply a fantasy held by American conservatives.

            • Sybil
              link
              -11 year ago

              I’ll revisit this conclusion if someday the Democrats try to violently overthrow the government,

              fort Sumter

              • @logicbomb
                link
                21 year ago

                Ah. A point that wouldn’t convince anybody of anything. You didn’t even believe it was a good point when you wrote it.

                • Sybil
                  link
                  -11 year ago

                  i thought you would get on board when the democrats tried to violently overthrow the government.

                  • @logicbomb
                    link
                    21 year ago

                    No, I said I would reconsider if it happens in the future. There is nobody alive today who participated in the US Civil War, and nowadays it’s the Republicans who are waving the Confederate flag. The point you’re making is nothing but a weak troll.

      • pips
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        I’d like to note that in this situation where you’ve expressed you don’t like either major party, you only believe one of those parties should reform the situation (Democratic), which means that inherently you know one is acting more in good faith than the other. I doubt it even occurred to you that a Republican would want to reform the FPTP process because you know they won’t do it and have no incentive to.

        If you implictly know that there’s a lesser of two evils and yet choose to vote third party in the general, it’s just as much on you when the worse of the two evils wins.

        • Sybil
          link
          -51 year ago

          one is acting more in good faith than the other.

          wrong. one pretends to care about my values. the other doesn’t. neither of them do.

          • @logicbomb
            link
            41 year ago

            You’re judging perceived intentions on the same level as actual actions. This is comparing apples and oranges.

            There’s a reason why our criminal law punishes things that people have actually done, and there’s a reason why people who commit more serious offenses receive harsher punishments.

            • Sybil
              link
              -11 year ago

              whether the democrats mean to run prison plantations or they do it by accident, neither is acceptable.

              • @logicbomb
                link
                21 year ago

                Just because you can’t find some criminal act doesn’t mean that it makes sense to invent ones and then pretend they are real.

                • Sybil
                  link
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  haven’t read the 13th amendment, i see.

                  edit

                  slavery is legal as long as they convict you of a crime. Joe Biden wrote the re-enslavement crime bill but every politician, judge, and prosecutor cop is just as guilty of perpetuating the system whether they are an r or d

                  • @logicbomb
                    link
                    2
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Oh, you’re pretending like the long dead past is the present or the future. What a delightfully inventive mind you have!