(Un)official Democratic strategy: Prop up third-party candidates

[Former Moderate]

Interesting piece from Politico on how certain Democrats are promoting third-party candidates to try and siphon votes off from Republicans.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44231.html

"Democratic strategist David Plouffe, the architect of President Obama’s 2008 campaign, acknowledged the importance of third-party candidates in a briefing with reporters earlier this month—and said it means many Democrats could win with as little as 47 percent of the vote, “which in this year, is something we are happy about,” he said."

[Roma Caput Mundi]

Nothing illegal,right?
It's still up to the voters to decide who is worthy of their vote...
I consider much more damaging the "don't vote" ads directed to latinos,since they basically attack the bases of a democracy:the vote.

[I left.]

Nothing illegal,right?
It's still up to the voters to decide who is worthy of their vote...
I consider much more damaging the "don't vote" ads directed to latinos,since they basically attack the bases of a democracy:the vote.

which are also perfectly legal....if that's what's important.

[rob in cal]

If in fact these candidates lead to Democrat victories with a plurality of the vote, GOP needs to get behind the instant runoff or delayed runoff idea.

[perdedor]

*yawn* The GOP has been propping up the Greens in every cycle since 2000. This is a non-issue.

[Free Palestine]

Both parties do this.

[Meeker]

The Texas Republican Party completely financed the ballot access campaign for one of the Green nominees for a lower statewide office this year. This isn't a Democratic strategy; it's a common political one.

[Frink]

Its good strategy. Both parties do it all the time.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

It's why we should have runoff elections.

[memphis]

It's why we should have runoff elections.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Plurality elections suck big time.

[rob in cal]

Also, while the GOP does this as well, it seem that in all the close elections where a split vote helps the other side win, it seems that its usually the Dems benefiting.  Just look at how many Green and or Socialist type candidates there are out there, compared to conservative leaning independents, Libertarians, Constitution Party, independent Tea Party people etc. I'm thinking of Montana Senate 06, Alaska Senate 08 and Oregon Senate 08 and Washington Senate 04 (I might be wrong on date on that one) where a split right and center right won a majority of votes but lost the election.
       Of course, my argument is predicated on labeling the Libertarian (by far the leading third party provider of congressional candidates I believe) as right of center, which I understand is open to question.  In Governors races it doesn't seem you have this dynamic as much, (seems more often to have moderate independent candidates who appeal to all sided of political spectrum).

[Free Palestine]

It's why we should have runoff elections.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Plurality elections suck big time.