>>941162803
>Yes but as a cohesive party
Okay. Let's play this out. I'm truly curious.
Say Indies have 20% of the seats.
The issue is this "health insurance for illegals" shutdown.
How would this party vote? Let's just say on the side of Rs this time.
Now we look at 10 other bills. They side with Rs 7 times and Ds 3 times, because they're fiscal issues.
80 years go by. Rs have been diminished to 10%, Ds are at 45%, and Indies are at 45%
Another shutdown/CR bill shows up.
Indies vote on the side that doesn't allow expansion of health services
What is the difference?
>a 3rd party means a 50% increase in available viable options for voters
I understand what you're saying, and it sounds like a good idea, but will it really shift anything when those voters are still yelling for free healthcare and more school daycare/meal plans? If the Indies say "No, we're not spending on those things", they're going to lose constituents and you'll see another party from the left saying, "sure, we'll give you that stuff for free". And now we're right back where we were.
Keep in mind that the Democratic party was created to overthrow the existing government through the promise of "free stuff" and an unachievable utopia. That stuff always appeals to the low-effort, low-IQ voter, and that's why there will always be a party of gibs, regardless of their name. That's why I suggested maybe we restrict who votes. Ending suffrage would be a huge positive benefit by itself.
