I welcome diversity in the political area (to the extent a stage of old upper-middle class and/or wealthy white men and women can be called diverse). And so long as we avoid the insanity of a dozen voices shouting at one another à la the early GOP debates, a “big tent” for televised debates seems like a wonderful idea.
But I hope no one mistakes strong showing by alternative candidates as a chance for a pluralist system. I’m not sure that a magical combination of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and Ronald Reagan would be able to successfully run as a third-party candidate. The structural impediments to third parties are virtually insurmountable.
That’s not to say change isn’t possible. But in this country’s national politics, the likely way to make change is by dragging one of the two major parties in the direction you’d like to go. For this reason, I think Sanders backers were right to support an unlikely candidate who far outperformed expectations. In both the short and long term, the party will be forced to co-opt the positions that most resonated with voters. This is how political change happens.
But this is also why I’m troubled by Sanders supporters (or Johnson supporters, or Stein supporters) who indicate they won’t vote, or will disperse their votes among candidates from lesser parties. You didn’t drag the Democrats as far as you’d like, but if the party perceives that your progressive votes aren’t available to it, the party will (perfectly rationally) decided that it should pursue voters it might win — such as moderate/conservatives who are upset by Trump.
Feel free to vote your conscience — there’s nothing improper about that. But understand that if you abandon the Democratic party, it’s hard to imagine why you’d be surprised when the Democratic party abandons you, too.
CNN: Invite Gary Johnson and Jill Stein To Your Presidential Forum