Thanks for the response! I agree that “Reasonable chance of success” is kinda a vague claim that people might take as an attempt to guarantee immediate electoral success. However a major point of this essay is that a third party doesn’t need to actually win any elections to have a substantial impact (although I think the ability to get a sitting senator to run under your ticket is not the best predictor for electoral success). I agree that If one narrowly focuses on long term electoral success, this project loses a ton of its value, but I reject that framing.
Ross Perot never won, and I think few people would deny his campaign had major impacts on US policy, or at least public discourse. RFK Jr also did not win, but he got to take over the DHS by leveraging his political support. The US Green Party never won, but their influence I think has still been substantial given the democratic party’s embrace of environmental policies.
I think maybe reposting this on a weekend is a better idea, as people will have more time to read it, but I agree this post might be too long. After you read more of it, could you tell me which parts you think I should cut?
Also, any other reasons you think this post might be so downvoted? I might understand why it would not receive upvotes due to its length but the subject seems somewhat novel, topical, and covers a wide range of possible? Are there any blatant writing flaws you see?
I bounced off it exactly at that point so editing only that in its current form is worth it. I’m not sure what view people take of just reposting repeatedly; it isn’t usually done so might be considered a bit gauche.
Ummm how did the green party fare in terms of getting their agenda forwarded, as of right now?
My primary concern with political involvement is getting your issue polarized like environmental concerns were. If one party raises your banner the other will want to tear it down by fair means or foul, and suddenly even an obvious concern is debated and gridlocked.
I mean, the Green New Deal was widely influential? Sure it did not pass, but I think it’s pretty easy to argue the Green Party had an effect on US environmental policy. Did you read the section on that which included a study which demonstrated Green Party candidates entering into competitive elections had an effect on Democratic Party platforms? It’s not an airtight case, but little is in politics and it’s not a stretch to think the Democratic Party being very supportive of environmental policies is at least partially due to the influence of the US Green Party.
On the issue of politicization, that is one of the reasons I propose a third party that has generally moderate positions. However, even if the issue does get politicized before the party is able to influence policy, I don’t see how that is a bad thing compared to the status quo? I’d rather have one party support AI safety and another party oppose it than both parties ignoring the issue.
On reposting, I am not sure what I am supposed to do when nobody leaves any comments? The point of this essay was not so much to convince people as to figure out why people have not vigorously pursued this option before. This is the biggest platform for serious discussion on AI safety, and this essay is written for an audience that already takes AI somewhat seriously, so I do not know what else to do with this.
Thanks for the response! I agree that “Reasonable chance of success” is kinda a vague claim that people might take as an attempt to guarantee immediate electoral success. However a major point of this essay is that a third party doesn’t need to actually win any elections to have a substantial impact (although I think the ability to get a sitting senator to run under your ticket is not the best predictor for electoral success). I agree that If one narrowly focuses on long term electoral success, this project loses a ton of its value, but I reject that framing.
Ross Perot never won, and I think few people would deny his campaign had major impacts on US policy, or at least public discourse. RFK Jr also did not win, but he got to take over the DHS by leveraging his political support. The US Green Party never won, but their influence I think has still been substantial given the democratic party’s embrace of environmental policies.
I think maybe reposting this on a weekend is a better idea, as people will have more time to read it, but I agree this post might be too long. After you read more of it, could you tell me which parts you think I should cut?
Also, any other reasons you think this post might be so downvoted? I might understand why it would not receive upvotes due to its length but the subject seems somewhat novel, topical, and covers a wide range of possible? Are there any blatant writing flaws you see?
I bounced off it exactly at that point so editing only that in its current form is worth it. I’m not sure what view people take of just reposting repeatedly; it isn’t usually done so might be considered a bit gauche.
Ummm how did the green party fare in terms of getting their agenda forwarded, as of right now?
My primary concern with political involvement is getting your issue polarized like environmental concerns were. If one party raises your banner the other will want to tear it down by fair means or foul, and suddenly even an obvious concern is debated and gridlocked.
I mean, the Green New Deal was widely influential? Sure it did not pass, but I think it’s pretty easy to argue the Green Party had an effect on US environmental policy. Did you read the section on that which included a study which demonstrated Green Party candidates entering into competitive elections had an effect on Democratic Party platforms? It’s not an airtight case, but little is in politics and it’s not a stretch to think the Democratic Party being very supportive of environmental policies is at least partially due to the influence of the US Green Party.
On the issue of politicization, that is one of the reasons I propose a third party that has generally moderate positions. However, even if the issue does get politicized before the party is able to influence policy, I don’t see how that is a bad thing compared to the status quo? I’d rather have one party support AI safety and another party oppose it than both parties ignoring the issue.
On reposting, I am not sure what I am supposed to do when nobody leaves any comments? The point of this essay was not so much to convince people as to figure out why people have not vigorously pursued this option before. This is the biggest platform for serious discussion on AI safety, and this essay is written for an audience that already takes AI somewhat seriously, so I do not know what else to do with this.
Anyways thanks for the feedback.