So, people are not interested in voting their principles, they just want to vote for a winner.
People should just be honest about that and save us this rigamarole about 3rd parties. They should say "I know that I don't agree with either of those 2 candidates but I'd rather claim to have supported the winner rather than the person who I do agree with." Followed by "Sure, if my 3rd party candidate had a good showing but still lost, it might strengthen our ability to win other elections in future. But I don't care about the future of my 3rd party, I care about being able to claim I elected the 'winner'."
That would save us a lot of work and typing.
Jokes aside - think about how it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
No one votes for their 3rd party candidate because they don't think the candidate can win. Without votes the 3rd party candidate definitely doesn't win. All the people who didn't vote for that candidate use the loss to justify not voting for the candidate at the next election either. Naturally, he loses again. Then everyone whines about why there are no 3rd party candidates, completely oblivious to the fact that their lack of support for the 3rd party candidate unless he's guaranteed to win effectively guarantees that he will always lose.
Not at all. I think the only part you're right about is that it's a self fulfilling prophecy, only you're wrong about the how.
People aren't going to vote third party when they know the result of voting third party is them not having a say in who ultimately represents them.
The first past the post system actively punishes anybody who votes third party by not allowing them to choose their preference between the two major parties.
Do you understand how your voting system works?
Do you not understand that other countries have different (superior) voting systems?
Let's make up a scenario.
The year is 2000 and there is an election between a guy called Bush and another called Gore
Purely hypothetical example.
Lets say I prefer Gore to be the president over Bush.
But what I really want is a third party candidate, let's just make up a name for him/her. I'll call this imaginary person Ralph Nader.
Now with the first past the post voting system I understand that if I vote for this imaginary Ralph Nader fellow and he doesn't get in what in essence what I have done is actually just subtracted my vote from Gore.
Instead of voting between the two major candidates i vote for the person I think would best represent me with this Ralph Nader fellow.
Only he doesn't get in. Maybe he doesn't have enough support, maybe because no one with a brain is willing to vote third party because they know that all they're doing is relinquishing their say between the two candidates from the major party.
Let's just say it was real close in my area. So close that they have to do a recount.
Let's say this hypothetical Bush fellow wins in part because me and other people like me voted for our preferred candidate Ralph and not for the Gore fellow.
Now let's say this hypothetical bush fellow hypothetically invades two countries resulting trillions of dollars spent on the MIC and millions of people dead. Great, i'm now complicit with a mass murdering piece of shit just because I decided to be principled and vote third party.
Now lets try it again with a different voting system. A system where I number people according to my preference for them to be leader.
1 Nader
2 Gore
3 Bush
4 person x
5 person y
6 person z
If my vote for 1 doesn't result in that person winning the seat then my vote is shifted to who i voted in at number 2, aka my second preference.
I'm unlucky that my first preference doesn't win but my vote goes to the second person. The Gore fellow, who wins because my vote WASN'T thrown in the garbage after voting for an unsuccessful candidate.
Which system do you think hamstrings third party candidates?
Which system do you think results in more people voting third party?
Which system do you think...
Results in a self fulfilling prophecy?