The parties are already there or you couldn’t vote them, this example is stupid. Supporting parties with blood in their hands is endorsing evil.
Voting for a third party, like trying to walk through a third door, is an indication of intent. Going through the door would be getting them elected to office.
And yes, supporting a party would be endorsing whatever evil policies the party supports—but voting isn’t an act of endorsement. Nobody knows how you vote; it has no meaning as a personal statement. Its only meaning is in the differential effects of the policies of the two candidates your vote decides between, in the most likely scenario in which it is the deciding vote.
You absolutely should support and endorse a party you believe in, but don’t mistake voting in a presidential election for either of those things.
Voting is a direct act of endorsement
Its only meaning is in the differential effects of the policies of the two candidates your vote decides between
There aren’t only two candidates.
You absolutely should support and endorse a party you believe in, but don’t mistake voting in a presidential election for either of those things.
There’s no confusion, a party perpetrating war and genocide is evil and if you support them you are evil too.
Voting is a direct act of endorsement
endorse | verb [with object]
to declare one’s public approval or support of.Your vote is expressly not public—you’re prohibited from keeping or sharing any proof of your vote. In part this is to prevent people from using their votes as signals of anything outside the immediate issue.
There aren’t only two candidates.
In the event that your vote actually decides the election, it does so by giving the winner one more vote than the runner-up; at that point those are the only two candidates at issue. And that’s the only event in which your vote matters.
Spin it as much as you want. Anyone supporting, endorsing, or voting for a party with blood in his hand fueling a genocide is directly complicit in the crime
This post was reported for disinformation. To me this post reads like an opinion and hyperbole.
If we do assume that the post is making a factual claim; I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know if voting has ever been used to claim that someone is complicit in a crime. Im open to being pointed to evidence.
I blame the Armenian genocide on you and you alone.
Deny it all you want, you were complicit AF.
how so?
Go ahead and feel morally superior as your protest vote enables someone way worse to hurt way more people. All the women dying of ectopic pregnancies or sepsis from stillbirths they cannot abort are on you. The GOP will let Russia have Ukraine where they will rape and murder anyone who resists, and they will unconditionally increase funding for Israel’s genocidal land grab.
And you will think, “that’s not my fault, I voted for the not evil one.”
But that’s not true, because you could have voted for the person who is willing to negotiate on those things, but you chose to feel better about yourself instead of actually help anyone.
Supporting and voting a party complicit in a genocide is not just a “feeling”. Dozens of kids are being murdered daily in gaza, this is already the worst scenario.
All the women dying of ectopic pregnancies or sepsis from stillbirths they cannot abort are on you.
Wrong, these are on people voting for the red and blue party which for a century have been cycling in power promoting the same authoritarian politics.
The GOP will let Russia have Ukraine where they will rape and murder anyone who resists
I encourage you to read about the cold war and check how many military bases the us has spread all over the world. I also encourage you to read about ukraine government corruption and their authoritarian measures and lastly i encourage you to check who usa and russia are in partnership with.
And if Trump wins because of your “morally superior” choice you’ll have only succeeded in helping Israel exterminate them faster. There will not be any discussions about whether to pause or halt shipments of arms.
Look, you’re either saying america is a functional democracy or no citizens are on the hook for the crimes of the government.
Which is it again?
“Why would I vote for a primary party candidate who supports ranked choice voting when I can just throw my vote away on a third-party candidate that will never be elected? I’ve got principles!”
Third parties are mathematically impossible until we ditch first past the post voting:
We need our vote to be a list, not a checkbox.
Who’s we?
The working class I guess? Certainly no one with power.
Americans. “We” already have preferential voting.
Math doesn’t decide what people vote, they are free to vote anything they want. Parties don’t automatically side with each others because another is most likely to win. This video is rooted in the mindset that politics and elections are a horse race between left and right.
What’s preventing third parties from winning it’s not math but the propaganda and the power of the red and blue party. The ruling parties didn’t become this powerful mathematically. Over decades and centuries the ruling class paved their way and ensured their power with violence and repression.
If third parties aren’t mathematically impossible, where are all members of third party during midterms? Local elections? The work it takes to make real lasting change is done down ballot, where are they at those times? Why do they only creep up during presidential races? The above analogy may not be perfect, but it’s pretty damned close… but we could also compare third party to all the lazy animals in the story of the little red hen…
The government spend billions of dollars to make sure third parties are nowhere to be seen. This post being evidence. You got a fascist party and one involved in a genocide yet you see warnings about not voting for anyone else.
It doesn’t take a whole lot of money to run for city council, local officials, sherif, alderman. It takes a bit, but not millions to run for state government positions. Are you saying the federal government is quashing local and state third parties? That is where you make your sweeping electoral reforms for federal elections. Why don’t we ever hear about them making moves in those races? Where are they when I go to vote for my city council? My county commissioners? Are you telling me the federal government is coming down and removing them from ballots?
That’s a pretty serious accusation, and I’d love to see some sources on that, because I’m with you all the way if that’s the case.
But when you’ve got someone who was wined and dined by an impotent dictator, and a half dozen of his cronies and yes men coming in and trying to split the vote for the best chance of preventing a take over by the impotent dictator’s choice clown… and then suddenly you’ve got people toting her banner when she’s been largely silent the past 3.5 years… it kind of makes you wonder, or it should… assuming you’ve got more than 3 braincells reenacting the DVD screen saver.
Why don’t we ever hear about them making moves in those races?
Because mass media are own by government and rich people. If you try to compete with them they take you down
I see a few bits of information about it happening at the presidential election level, but I’m not finding anything at the state and local level. Can you provide some sources on that?
FPTP is not real democracy for this reason.
In Australia government funding is distributed to political parties based on the number of first preference votes they get as well so even if your first choice doesn’t get in, you still helped them by putting them first.
Removed by mod
This is the way. It is possible and unlikely to have a third party win under the right conditions, like with how the Republican Party became a national party after Lincoln was elected as a third party candidate. But ultimately there will always only be two parties with the outdated FPTP voting method. If only George Washington knew about and pushed for a better voting system than FPTP.
IMO, it’s not the full story to say the Republican party was a third party that year. The previous opposition to the Democrats had a rift and came apart. I think you are underselling what “the right conditions” are. This is more like a new party filling a void.
That year the Democrats themselves (regressives as this was well before Southern Strategy) split into two. Running both a candidate for “states’ rights” style slavery and another for “fuck you, slavery everywhere” style slavery.
All it takes is a bunch of celebrities endorsing third parties and it’s done. At some point in your lifetime you will probably see a third party winning in the usa and it will simply happen with media and celebrities redirecting everyone vote. It happens all the time in other countries: people get tired of the local rulers and to keep protests and disorder at bay the government through mass media redirects attentions to a new and fresh party that already got bribed and corrupted by the ruling class.
I don’t think they really existed yet in his era. You’ve got to remember that Australia, a much younger country, invented the secret ballot. It was known as the “Australian Ballot” for a long time.
I don’t think they really existed yet in his era
In 1294-1621 the election of the Pope used Approval voting. Venice also used it.
Australia, a much younger country, invented the secret ballot
The election of the Pope required secret ballot since 1621. And the concept existed since Ancient Greece and was used in elections and courts of Roman Republic.
Better systems existed but to your point, they were not well known.
Leaders today, with access to Wikipedia if not researchers with Nobel prizes, do NOT have this excuse.
Well yes, obviously. The issue with today is that the incumbency of the system makes it hard to change
I like CGP Grey and all, but power dynamics is an important aspect of poltics. An aspect he completely ignores in favour of spreadsheet thinking.
Yeah so proportional representation systems kinda suck. Israel has one and it ended up with a conservative party making concessions to far right crazies to form a coalition. Sure minorities are in the parliament, but they have zero power because the only thing that matters is the backroom negotiations between parties to form a coalition.
The biggest problem with FPTP is the name. Really we should call it a community representation system (which is what it is) and call proportional representation system a “party coalition” system, which is what it actually is. In a party coalition system the negotiations between party leaders to form coalitions is all that matters, everyone else is just there to fill seats which are owned by the parties.
In a community representation system each seat is own by a representative of the community who can vote against their party or leave their party. Parties are incentivized to keep the community leaders happy or they could lose seats.
If you want third parties, it’s better to go with a ranked choice system. That gives people more choice over who represents their community, and allow them to have compromise options in case their top choice doesn’t get enough votes. You don’t actually have to give parties full ownership of the seats (making them redundant) to have more options.
Yeah so proportional representation systems kinda suck. Israel has one
If you’re going to use a genocidal cult as your counter-example to democracy, why not just talk about the nazis?
I also generally prefer a Condorcet Method (ranked choice, single winner) over mixed-member-proportional, but either one would be a massive improvement over our current system.
I’ll take Approval voting, even.
Switzerland has a good system, just copy it. (Yes, not the same country, size difference and so on and on but its still a thousand times better than the US system)
An aspect he completely ignores in favour of spreadsheet thinking.
That’s bc he explains each concept mostly in isolation of others, leaving other concepts for separate videos themselves. But in e.g. Rules for Rulers, he very much discusses power dynamics. And I thought he had another one - in addition to the more mathematical one - illustrating FPTP using the animal kingdom, where technically people might assume one thing to be true, but based on power dynamics in practice it never is.
So watch Rules for Rulers yet if you haven’t - it may change literally everything about your understanding, as it did mine.
Edit - references:
-
rules for Rulers, outlining necessary considerations involved with any path forward - i.e. it works against anyone and especially those who ignore this principle
Yeah I’ve seen all of these videos before. Problem is, these aren’t isolated concepts. There are very specific power dynamics within a proportional representation system that aren’t the same as the power dynamics in a community representation system. He doesn’t go into those details in the rules for rulers videos, only the broad concept of democracy is mentioned. He only goes into a some math on the FPTP video but doesn’t discuss the differences power dynamics for those different systems.
Basically in a community representation system (called FPTP by people trying to make it sound arbritrary an unfair) the power flows up from the communities. In a proportional representation system the power flows down from the party leadership.
Considering the “rules for rulers” video it seems CGP Grey thinks all government has to be top down, so he doesn’t seem to have even considered the possibility of power flowing upwards from a community. This is what happens in the system he thinks is bad, so I’d say he hasn’t adequately considered everything about the subject.
We don’t actually elect rulers we elect people to represent our communities. Sure they’re usually part of a party but because we elect representatives, not parties, that representative has the option of leaving the party if it serves the interests of the community they represent. Since parties can lose seats between elections they have to listen to the the elected representatives (community leaders) to avoid losing seats. People in a community put pressure on their representative, the reps but pressure on the party leadership, power flows upwards from the people.
Proportional representation only seems better if you think as CGP does and believe we can only be ruled over and we need to find a better way to select rulers. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of representative democracy.
Removed by mod
He seems to think like a mathematician or philosopher and enjoyed considering each of those items separately, in isolation from one another - plus as a YouTuber, he needs to release moar content, moar often, so multiple videos helps him maintain his existence that way as opposed to a single, larger video, especially on a complex topic that since it is >1 minute long, the vast majority of people are not going to watch anyway.:-P
But anyway, if he’s already mathematically proved certain things about e.g. ranked-choice, and how it differs from whatever else, then why should he bother going further into the weeds, that the vast majority of people don’t care the tiniest bit about? After all, a look at basically every election ever, especially recently, reveals that the common people know next to nothing about how the system works. e.g. people voting against Hillary Clinton in 2016, either by voting 3rd party, or switching to the “Never Hillary” movement to actively vote for Trump, but then being shocked - shocked I tell you! SHOOKETH! - when he won. So if we can’t figure out that 1+1=2, then differential calculus, much less simple algebra, is going to be beyond us (collectively) as well.
So, I took it as not that he refused to consider those other possibilities, just that he was focusing his description to explain one thing in isolation of other concepts, as much as possible at least. e.g. regardless of whether he should have been talking about (or naming it as) FPTP, that’s what he was aiming to do, so that’s what he did.
About the Rules for Rulers I think similarly as above but also: the “rulers” there aren’t necessarily the ones in charge, as is true for the monarchies & totalitarian regimes, but rather the “voters” who put those people in charge. In that formulation, why should the non-voters (e.g. literal children, people who are mentally disabled, etc.) have power over & above that of the voters, i.e. the responsible “rulers”?
Although that is exactly what always ends up happening… eventually, in any such system. Imagine a person who votes, individually, but then also is responsible for gerrymandering a district of lets say a million people. So they should have had power equal to 1/1000000, though instead they overturned the decisions of those million people and single-handedly altered the election, FAR in excess of their individual voting power. They cannot overturn the collective weight of a full million voters all speaking with a single unified voice… but they could make a vote for e.g. 1/10th vs. 9/10ths end up with the former rather than the latter being in charge, which is pretty damn powerful (it doesn’t have to be “perfect”, it just has to work - possibly in conjunction with other things like removing certain classes of people as voters). So here, irl rather than in pure theory in isolation of irl considerations, “rulers” end up NOT being the voters, but rather those in charge b/c they are willing to cheat the system, to keep themselves in charge or at least others exactly like them, using non-voting schemes. i.e. it is the True Rulers™ who are “in charge” rather than the voting ones, who were put into place by non-voting systems, so the entire system gets turned upon its head and does if not 100% then still effectively the opposite of what it was originally intended to - that is, it ignores/overturns votes rather than uses them to determine the outcomes of elections.
So if we, the aspiring rulers i.e. voters, wish to actually rule, then we need to know what we are up against. And if others cheat… well then that does not mean that we have to as well, but we should at least be aware that that is what is going on!?! To some degree at least, even if not 100%, hence it is “biased” and “unfair” and “rigged”. That is what I took from those videos, collectively.
It seems you are mixing the concepts of voting systems and candidate selection. FPP nor FPTP should not sound scary. As a voting systems, FPP works well enough more often than many want to admit. The name just describes it in more detail: First Preference Plurality.
Every voting system is as bottom-up or top-down as the candidate selection process. The voting system itself doesn’t really affect whether it is top down or bottom up. Requiring approval/voting from the current rulers would be top-down. Only requiring ten signatures on a community petition is more bottom up.
The voting systems don’t care about the candidate selection process. Some require precordination for a “party”, but that could also be a party of 1. A party of 1 might not be able to get as much representation as one with more people: but that’s also the case for every voting system that selects the same number of candidates.
Voting systems don’t even need to be used for representation systems. If a group of friends are voting on where to eat, one problem might be selecting the places to vote on, but that’s before the vote. With the vote, FPP might have 70% prefer pizza over Indian food, but the Indian food vote might still win because the pizza voters had another first choice. Having more candidates often leads to minority rule/choice, and that’s not very good for food choice nor community representation.
except that you could end up with a 3rd entrance by doing that … eventually
No you won’t.
But if you put the door in while building the house (local and primary elections) you’ll have installed it at the right time.I think you’d have brain damage way before you get to that point
so not only would you have an extra door you’d still be smarter than people voting 3rd party in a first past the post system. Win/Win
Depends on how cheap the drywall is.
You may avoid brain damage, but your get cancer form the dust on the way through.
You’ll get a boatload of spoiler effect elections until people start voting tactically again. Third parties need to start locally and not participate in the presidential elections for a long time.
There is a path to voter reform by creating hung parliament and require voter reform in a coalition agreement. Once dominant running for governor or a senator becomes possible.
Especially if you ram that not-door long, hard, deep, and strong enough, really get up in there and penetrate that wall. If you run out of steam you could even switch to an electric appliance, but in that case be gentle (though not too gentle…).
Um… I’m not sure where this is going, and at this point I’m afraid to continue? 😔
I’m here for it
Vote me again, daddy!
All this anti-third party logic fails as soon as the goal is outcomes regardless of which political party ends up taking credit. Just 5% of the GE puts another platform on every ballot in the next cycle. And, that immediately places immense pressure upon the duopoly.
It’s so simple there’s now a massive amount of state-sponsored propaganda trying to prevent too many from figuring it out.
The problem is that any third party that manages to eventually displace a member of the duopoly immediately replaces that party in the new duopoly.
Because the duopoly is a result of First Past the Post (FPTP) voting. As long as we use FPTP the duopoly will persist, just with different parties filling the two roles.
Anything short of switching away from FPTP for some form of Rank Choice is going to be a band-aid, mere temporary relief, and not even a very good one.
There you go again caring about which political party takes credit. Repeating the same fallacy over and over again only works on idiots, meaning the vast majority of humanity. See: The Engineering of Consent (1947), The Manufacturing of Consent (1988).
Which is the point. Voting third party won’t fix the system, certainly not at the presidential level. So work with what you have now, and work towards something better in the areas where it’s actually possible.
The presence of minor parties on the ballot doesn’t “place immense pressure on the duopoly”—it just tips the balance toward one or the other component of the duopoly. Which is why either party will actively encourage it when it suits them.
Edit: There’s a historically-proven method of forming new parties in the U.S., which is why we don’t still have the Whigs or the Federalists. In the past, distinct factions would form within one of the dominant parties, until the parent party imploded and two or more new parties emerged. That process of internal fission was suppressed after the Civil War, and that’s how the “duopoly” now maintains its power.
Of course, a different voting system would serve the same purpose (arguably better), and the suppression of alternate voting methods is also duopolistic. But the existence of minor parties under the current system just reenforces the duopoly by channeling dissent away from internal factions.
Think more, reactionary. It’s not rocket science. It’s not even algebra.
Yes however it will always be a two party system with first past the post.
that’s not what duverger’s “law” says.
Sorry I wrote the wrong response initially
This is the same tone set by the people who whined that we were refusing to vote for Biden and oh look now Biden isn’t in the race anymore because we refused to accept him.
Keep accepting the one candidate that they spoon in front of us without asking if we actually want that one
It’s a little different because people complained, Pelosi (aka the party listened) acted.
I our current political system, the game theory just doesn’t work for much besides a two party system.
Those same morons didn’t vote in the primary to oust him.
What primary? No alternative was offered, no debates happened.
Biden didn’t drop out because some online leftists refused to vote for him, he dropped out because big donors that back the Democrats wanted him to.
This is the same tone set by the people who whined that we were refusing to vote for Gore and oh look Nader didn’t win Bush did.
Gore won the vote. The election was stolen by the supreme court and Roger Stone it was not the fault of a 3rd party at all if the law had been followed gore would have been given Florida https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot
Biden being forced out is a great example.
Democrats will only appeal to people not voting for them already. People showing them they won’t vote for Genocide you already changes policy.
When the pressure gets too high Democrats will cave. If they want your vote make them work for it never let them fearmonger you into giving it for free. Jill Stein 2024 baby.
Exactly.
Its applying leverage to the party saying meet these criteria or get spoiled. It’s basically a union for protest votes, and it’s effective. Which makes it extremely important in the current two party system because it’s the only way certain issues will get addressed.
Yeah absolutely how can I ever vote against war and imperialism if both parties are in favor of giving endless money to defense contractors? You’re basically saying I have to force myself to vote for the American military death machine in every single election or I’m a bad person and maybe you have a point but if you have to make that argument I think you should have a long look in the mirror
You know Democrats are cooked when they start attacking third party voters instead of Trump voters.
Especially now people really start paying attention to the third parties.
Removed by mod
why u mad tho
Are you 12…?
I try to generally be civil. but you? eat shit from a dyesenterous rat.
Yes🤡
If only people like you were as emotional about genocide as they were about third parties, the world might be a better place.
Most civil Lemmy user
Gee I wonder why they reacted to you like that. You’re just a freedom fighter
For what its worth I agree. The Democrats are killing themselves from within. Say what you want about Trump but they are smart enough to target the moderate crowd. Meanwhile Harris is busy dodging hard questions about her political stance. The liberal media likes to brag about how good the Democrats are doing but the reality is they have lost a lot of ground and Harris is too far left for most of the swing voters. People have not been happy with the way Biden is running things and it shows.
I also find it funny that Harris is adapting the Trump strategy. She is increasingly responding with insults and slander instead of being a cool collected alternative to Trump. Her association with Biden is also not doing her favors and many people just don’t know her well enough to support her.
I suppose Lemmy isn’t the place for political discussion. Lemmy as a whole is far left and it shows. This might be a shock but social media isn’t a good representation of the bigger political views. If you go on a platform dominated by the right you will end up with people calling you far left because you don’t believe in racism.
Democrats would rather get really mad at people who don’t want to support Genocide than just stop supporting Genocide.
If Democrats truly believe Trump is the next Hitler you’d think they would try to appeal to voters a little harder. Maybe the Democratic party is not as scared of Trump as their fearmongering suggests.
If it’s easier to reason with third party voters than trump voters, it seems like the logical thing to do.
EDIT: also worth pointing out the difference between “attacking” trump voters as individuals, because they have proven themselves to truly be deplorable, and “attacking” third party voting as a decision.
There’s not much reasoning going on. Only dishonest claims about how Democrats actually stand for things they don’t stand for such as “Biden is actually the biggest ally of Palestinians”, and screaming insults.
Democrats have done far more to reason with Republicans this election cycle than they have with third party voters on the left who at least don’t want genocide but know that the duopoly is never going to budge on their undying support of Israel. Let alone other actually progressive policies.
On top of that, I’d say there’s some nuance - nationally, you’ll see Democrats reasoning with Republicans, targeting the non-maga conservatives.
However here on Lemmy, there are very few conservatives as well as a disproportionate number of third party folks, so you’ll see a lot more discussion centered around third parties.
Note: Linkerbean is a republican pretending to be left leaning, here just to dissuade left-leaning folk from voting dem.
I said so to them a while back and their reply, since deleted, was “Cope.” https://lemmy.world/comment/12097015
Downvote and move on, but you’ll get only nonsense if you engage.
You got some links to support this?
Dude shills anti genocide position based on my experience
Only in order to pursuade folks not to vote democratic (which is bizarre because Trump and his party are pretty rabidly on favour of “finish them” outcomes in Gaza).
Link: https://lemmy.world/comment/12097015 I can only see the reply “cope” in my inbox. On the website the 1 more reply never expands for me.
This comment got reported. And while trolling is not allowed. Attacking an individual is also not allowed. So I’m not sure if attacking them for being a troll is allowed.
If you think a post is trolling (ie: just trying to stir up anger rather than trying to make an argument for something), please report it. If you think a poster is serial trolling please point it out in the report.
I’m open to feedback.
I’ve edited it to make it more factual and perhaps less emotive by replacing the phrase “republican troll” with “republican pretending to be left leaning” and provided a link to where they replied “cope” when I pointed this out to them previously. I don’t know if you can see the reply, it won’t expand for me, but I promise you that’s what it said. I don’t know whether you count arguing in bad faith just to persuade your political opponents not to vote as trolling, but I certainly feel it’s not good behaviour and worth pointing out to folks who are taken in.
Thank you, I really appreciate the effort to tone things down.
I want people to have the freedom be passionate in their comments and posts, and I think the community rules do a good job of allow the freedom to argue passionately. The rules do aim to avoid attacks against people themselves and groups of people.
So, while toning things down is not the primary goal, when things get aggressive it’s harder for everyone to avoid ad hominem attacks.
I’ve never voted for a major party presidential candidate in my life. It has never cost anyone anything, because I used to live in a deep red state and now live in a deep blue state. There’s a better chance of helping a candidate hit thresholds that would qualify them for things like campaign funding, then there is of Tennessee or Illinois being the pivotal swing state. The vast majority of Americans are in similar situations, there’s only a handful of states where your presidential vote matters at all.
Despite this, and the fact that I’ve voted for Democrats down ballot, liberals hate me, and are always trying to fight me over it. Why? Because the presidential race is the only thing anybody cares about. For all the countless, identical debates over the presidential race, I’ve seen virtually no discussion on here of other elections. Culturally, your take on the presidential race is how your political identity is defined. That cultural tendency is so powerful that it can even bleed into foreign countries.
The more people focus on my presidential voting behavior, which has no potential to affect anything, the more it reaffirms that such behavior is important. The reason that people care so much about my vote is not because they care about the outcome, it’s because they want me to display a sign of loyalty, to bend the knee, to conform to their norms. But if everyone’s going to treat it as an expression of identity, then, all else being equal regarding the outcome, it would be better to define myself according to what I actually believe. The fact that people get big mad over someone voting third party even in an extremely solid red or blue state is all the more reason to do it. My vote doesn’t affect your life at all since it’s totally irrelevant to the outcome, so stop obsessing over what amounts to a personal decision.
American shower thoughts
Want to build a viable third party for presidential elections? Start small at the city/county level and eventually you will have candidates at the state/federal level. Today’s city council is tomorrow’s senator/president. Does it really surprise anyone that a relatively unknown and unproven candidate outside of the two major parties doesn’t get any traction in a federal election?
Oh it’s that easy eh?
I think you might need to reread my post, I didn’t say it was easy. It’s reality, which generally isn’t easy.
That takes money, lots of it and the 2 main parties have huge corporate donors who will never give money to an environmental party
That’s already the goal of state chairs for third parties.
we aint getting elected viable third party until the two party regime is denied legitimacy which is done by not voting for either party. deny them engagement by voting third party, anyone really.
So you don’t agree that starting from the ground up won’t work? Why not? Too much effort or takes too much time?
If you are talking about viable third party candidate, then my position is: current political stage has no room for one hence why i shill more a narrower scope goal of “deny the two-party regime legitimacy”
Something that people can get behind, act upon individually and directly while avoiding getting sucked into political left/right circle jerk.
Bigger picture would obviously involve a proper 3 third party candidates to upset the duopoly. Either by winning outright or forcing the two parties to provide concessions to the voters instead of current “get fucked peasants, I am serving my corpo daddies”
These 3p candidates need for voting public set the stage for them by making third vote a viable path for a politician/movement.
My original thesis enables this while not getting into the political weeds but it does not stop others from building on it. If people got their 3p, then they should shill it! Even if every person votes for their own guy but sufficient amount of people do it, then it would still lead to awkward situation why are there 9% of voters who did not chose “regime”
Just keep smashing yourself into the bricks to “deny the wall legitimacy” or whatever. I’m sure it will work this time.
let me keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result 🤡
let me keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result 🤡
Says the people who keep voting 3rd party in federal elections and are certain that this time the result will be different.
*all elections
Some of these third party people could get elected to the senate if they tried, but have to try for the top job with no experience because their ego can’t take that they don’t know everything.
I could get elected to senate probably, if I was willing to spend fifteen years doing local and state office first. Ain’t nobody got that kind of time I got hospital bills
Politicians have that kind of time. It’s paid for by their owners.
Yeah and their corporate owners aren’t going to back an environmental anti war candidate
I’m pro- turning food into compost. I’d like to help our constituents and anyone who does that.
Tbf, they have before. Ron Paul for instance was a Libertarian who ran as a Republican and won, and they do run for local offices a lot (at least the Libertarians, never seen a local Green on the ballot), they just also put forth a presidential candidate because if they can get like 5% or 15% of the vote (I can’t remember which) they get federal funding and have to get included in the next debates instead of the debates only being R vs D.
Idk about the other third parties, but the Libertarians are doing exactly that.
768 votes wth is wrong with Americans bruh
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Tehreek-e-Insaf
If you can create a successful grassroots political party in an environment where your party members and constituents are constantly attacked, murdered, bombed, jailed, tortured, votes faked, votes destroyed, and vote miscounts, you can definitely pull it off in the USA.
It took Pakistan only 20 years to cause a collapse of their corrupt 2 party system and challenge the military dictatorship. People never believed PTI would mount any sort of challenge, but they did by building a solid populist movement, despite facing all of the above.
The “you must vote the lesser evil” is a fallacy that both parties in the USA perpetuate in an attempt to convince you to believe 3rd party voting is a waste of time.
You can’t just sit back and complain about the rigged system like “but muh first past the poll voting” as if either Democrats or Republicans will change the system in any way to make it easier for their rivals.
This is exactly why I dislike the Democratic party in particular so much. They are a corporate monolith that pretends to care about your leftist demands by handing out pennies worth of change to get your vote, then the second they refuse to actually significantly change something you demand, they have the audacity to blame you, the voter, for not sucking up to their shitty policies when they inevitably lose the election.
Current case in point: "There is no genocide in Gaza, and we believe we can win without our constituents because our opponent is a mentally insane baby ".
Shittiest take on this community by far.
There will never be an acceptable time to vote third party according to liberals. Unless you’re fine with an infinite state of groveling towards people in power. If we can’t even push them left on genocide when it could cost the election, we can’t move them left on anything. The status quo is fine for people who have the resources to deal with it and people not effected by Police brutality and other negative effects.
The wall will wear down eventually. I think.
Why do you care if the person you voted for wins?
Outside of “not letting the other person win”, you should vote for who you align with, or who represents you best.
If more people stopped caring about voting for “the viable candidate”, we’d probably see a third party in American politics…
we’d probably see a third party in American politics…
No, we wouldn’t. There are still people who’s closest candidate is one of the two main parties.
Why do you care if the person you voted for wins?
Because it’s an election with consequences, not an online fandom.
Because it’s an election with consequences, not an online fandom.
Not to most of these people pushing third-parties.
All elections have consequences. I know that Americans like to be dramatic (especially on Lemmy, Reddit is far more tame in this regard), but voting for someone that wants to promote policies that you support is how those policies are promoted.
I say this time and time again on here, but America isn’t special. Many countries have two main parties, but while third parties don’t always see power, they maintain Influence everywhere. Hell, you can argue that the Tea Party, Brexit, Irish Unification, MAGA, Immigration reform in Germany, all of this is due to influence outside of the main parties.
Why are you in this thread if you’re not even American? This is obviously about the US elections.
Because Lemmy isn’t a US-only social network?
This post is obviously about US politics.
Ok?
Disregard these gatekeepers.
This is an online discussion forum for public discussions.
I see these comments around here, like wtf people getting policing what and where people are commenting.
Childish behavior.
I personally care because most of my family is American and because Canadian politics often echo what’s going on in the U.S. Pierre Polievre wouldn’t be seeing as much success if he didn’t have Trump’s culture war nonsense to use as inspiration. A lot of people outside of America still care very much about U.S. politics because it does have an effect on global affairs.
I hear you on that.
Because the policies those people put into effect have very real consequences for citizens. Especially when one candidate is openly hostile towards significant marginalized groups in society and wishes to bring them harm. This isn’t a team sport. This is a struggle for survival for many who stand to lose a lot of rights and freedoms for simply being who they were born as.
So yes, we should care who wins. Those two people are your options. Third party is not.
This is the dumbest thing I’ve seen anyone say here yet. Congratulations.
