You Should Know

If someone refuses to admit their political affiliation in the US you can basically guarantee they're right wing.

No Labels as a name isn't even going to appeal to left-leaning folks, it sounds nonsensical and oversimplified. Things need labels, a Nazi is a Nazi. Useful label, even if the Jewish-hating, strong ethno-state sorts don't like it.

It'll appeal to moderates, but that'll pull from both sides.

Unless they run an environmentalist or something? Like a Green Party type spoiler? Would have to be an idiot not to run under their own banner though, raising awareness is their whole thing.

Also their candidate RFK, is a lying moron who's been called out many times over the years by his supposed "sources".

Edit: please note that I made at least one mistake here (as well as some kind of boneheaded comments later). FPTP, even in the US, does not require a 50% majority, just more votes than anyone else (a "plurality"). It can still benefit parties to get to 50%, since it makes their winning more likely, and so in the absence of any drawbacks, most successful parties will still aim for it, but it isn't strictly necessary, as has been sometimes demonstrated in the UK. Thanks to squaresinger for linking a YouTube video that mentions this below. /Edit

I just want to share my thoughts on this. It started as a response to one comment, but I realized that there's a lot more that can (and I think should) be said, so here goes.

First, for those who don't know, FPTP stands for First Past The Post, meaning a system where everyone votes for a single candidate and whoever gets more than 50% (i.e. "past the post") wins the entire election (the losers get nothing). For many Americans, this might be so familiar that one would wonder how it could be any different (in a small-d democratic system), but there are in fact many alternatives: ranked voting, proportional representation, Condorcet method, etc.

They all have strengths and weaknesses, but for FPTP, and other similar systems, there's a result in political science called Duverger's law that says FPTP-like rules tend to cause a two-party system, essentially because because even if you don't team up with a larger party you may disagree with on many issues, to get a majority, others will, and then they'll win and you'll get nothing. And since getting significantly more than 50% consumes party resources that might better be used elsewhere, but gives no reward, 50% (plus a small "safety margin") is what all the successful parties will eventually aim for, and thus you get two roughly equally-successful parties. Tiny swings in voting then lead to massive differences in outcomes, which threatens the stability and security of everyone (even America's "enemies").

So saying "just vote for third parties" (like I see some calling for here) is tone-deaf at best, or part of a cynical ploy to fracture the opponent's party at worst. Even if a "third party" does win, the best that can be hoped for under FPTP is they just end up replacing one of the two parties, becoming one of the two parties in the "new" two-party system. And the two existing parties have likely spent far more time and effort researching ways to stop even that from happening than any of us ever will.

If we, as Americans, or others with a stake in what America decides to do, want to change this (and I personally do), then we need far more fundamental changes to how the system works. Just choosing a candidate we like (whether they have any chance of winning or not) won't cut it. I don't know what's the best voting system to use, but I know I'd like to scrap the Electoral College, for a couple reasons:

1. Even though one might argue that Congress and the Supreme Court are more essential to reform, it's hard to deny that the President has a very large leadership role today.

2. One might argue that relying on a convoluted/Byzantine method for choosing the President makes it harder to manipulate, and that's probably true, but the two parties have shown that it being difficult is not a deterrent to them doing so: in fact, they likely both benefit from it by keeping smaller parties that can't afford to do it out.

It reminds me of the fallacy in computer security of "security through obscurity": if it's possible to break into the system, and large numbers of people can benefit substantially from it, then someone eventually will, no matter how hard we make it to exploit. We need to change the system, not only so that it is prohibitively difficult for anyone to exploit the system, but also to get rid of a lot of the corruption that makes most people want to exploit it in the first place.

All of this is much easier said than done, I know, but we need to explain clearly to the public why "quick fixes" won't work, before we can convince them of the need for more fundamental changes. We still need to work on figuring out the details of the best changes, but unless we can show people the reality of the deep structural problems that acually exist, why they exist, and how we know we're right about what we're saying, we'll never convince most people to change anything.

Biden is doing a good job given the circumstances. If you don't want the total destruction of the United States, there is really only one choice for president... Joe Biden. All other roads lead to the Dark Lord Trumples, the Silly Piggy.

I feel like Trump will be running as a spoiler candidate in 2024 at this rate.

I mean, if you're a wage earner in this country, all the candidates are spoilers.

Forgot to mention, they have no Platform.

I remember reading an article that did a deep dive into them once, and I was absolutely astounded by just how much they embodied the "enlightened centrist". I didn't think there were an appreciable number of people who were actually like that.

They continue the trend really of there being no good third party in the US - largely because FPTP makes two large parties preferable.

I just want to live my life without being harassed tbh. I vote D, but they are largely all corporate shills at the presidential level. I don't know what else to say. The money involved in politics sort of makes the whole thing a farce imo.

When I see a name like No Labels, it tells me they don't want to be upfront about what their real platform is. So they should more straightforwardly be called Hidden Agenda.

Aw man, I kinda liked Mark Cuban.

If I was the the maga or republicans right now I would fund as many leftist third parties as possible as the best way to secure a trump victory

Other than the Wikipedia article in this thread, do you have other source material?
I would like to know more.