Who would you support in this three-party US system?

[Hoosier_Nick]

Party 1, but I'd be willing to vote for Party 3 under the right circumstances (ex. Clinton vs Kasich vs Sanders in the general would make me vote for them.) But any party with Trump, Milo and Stein would be a disaster.

[Higgs]

I would support 2 regularly but may support an individual from 3 if their views lined up better with mine than the party 2 candidate.

How can anyone say they would support party 3? There's no ideological consistency, you'd be making a commitment to Milo Yiannopolous and Bernie Sanders.

[Lechasseur]

I would support 2 regularly but may support an individual from 3 if their views lined up better with mine than the party 2 candidate.

How can anyone say they would support party 3? There's no ideological consistency, you'd be making a commitment to Milo Yiannopolous and Bernie Sanders.

This definately makes sense. This would probably be my position too. And yeah I agree I don't know how you would support a party with no consistency.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Yeah; party three would be unable to get anything done except on some bipartisan issues, like foreign policy.

[freefair]

Party 1 & 2 swing voter- would not touch the "Just fluck my shlit up fam"party with a crowbar. It would soon implode and split anyhow.

[Lachi]

None of the above, but if I was forced to choose, None

[Antonio the Sixth]

Parties 1 and 2 have more in common than the people within party 3.

[Lechasseur]

Parties 1 and 2 have more in common than the people within party 3.

True enough. That's why it would be very hard to support party 3.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Party 3 isn't a party, but just a collection of independents. Obviously I'd support the reasonable members of that "party".

[Leinad]

all three are too gross for me to vote for as a party.  I'm sure I could find individuals in each I could vote for though....and since I don't vote for party I find this all rather silly.

[Maxwell]

I can't support any party that's associated with Milo or Jill Stein. I'd be an extremely left wing version of the party 1 crowd. Also, party 3 would crumble quickly with that glaring lack of ideological continuity.

tell the italians that with that ridiculous Five Star Movement they have over there.

but yes Party 1 because Party 3 is ridicolously odious and Party 2 is a normal right-wing party and i'm not right-wing.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I can't support any party that's associated with Milo or Jill Stein. I'd be an extremely left wing version of the party 1 crowd. Also, party 3 would crumble quickly with that glaring lack of ideological continuity.

tell the italians that with that ridiculous Five Star Movement they have over there.

M5S doesn't really have any personality with its own voice beyond Grillo, and anyone who goes against Gillo in any way gets axed immediately, so I'd say it's pretty damn cohesive.

[kyc0705]

I would probably be a swing voter between Party 1 and Party 2.

[bagelman]

Party 3, though not universally.

I used to approve of party 1, now I'd prefer party 2 against 1 in some matchups.

[Dr. MB]

So, 1 – the Democratic establishment, 2 – the Republican establishment, and 3 – the entire anti-establishment?

Honestly, I would have to say 3, but the ideological differences are so great that it would almost instantly collapse.

[MAINEiac4434]

Party 1 unquestionably. Can't support the lunacy of Party 3.