There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Kolanaki ,
@Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

If I run hard enough, I’ll put a me shaped hole in the wall though.

Stern ,
@Stern@lemmy.world avatar

Okay Wile E. Coyote.

randon31415 ,

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.

HeyThisIsntTheYMCA ,
@HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world avatar

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

Fox ,

These snarky jabs are missing the point. I’m not a major party prodigal son casting a spite vote, I am actually not interested in either of their platforms and want to force them slowly over time to change.

mashbooq ,

That’s laudable, but the way to do that is to vote in primaries, not to vote third party in the general election

Skates , (edited )

i don’t agree with what you say

well, you should tell everyone that you agree so that the public thinks you’re associated with me, and then try to change me whenever we’re alone

How about you get a fucking therapist and work on your own issues like the rest of us, thx.

sunzu2 ,

Deny the two party regime legitimacy.

SirDerpy ,

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.

AbouBenAdhem OP , (edited )

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.

SirDerpy ,

Think more, reactionary. It’s not rocket science. It’s not even algebra.

aodhsishaj ,

Yes however it will always be a two party system with first past the post.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

minnow ,

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.

SirDerpy ,

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).

GreyEyedGhost ,

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.

hakase ,
Blackbeard ,
@Blackbeard@lemmy.world avatar
_thebrain_ ,

I have high hopes but my logical side says they can just be pandering like any of the other politicians: they know people support it, they know it will fail. They look good for backing it even tho they aren’t worried about changing the status quo either

minnow ,

IIRC two states and several major cities have also successfully implemented rank choice, and in every case it’s been because of Democrats.

As more and more local governments make the change, it’ll become more popular and gain more support on the national level.

Blackbeard ,
@Blackbeard@lemmy.world avatar

Lemmy is such a fickle place. Just a few days ago people were clamoring for Democrats to make a purely performative abortion vote that would be doomed to fail, merely because it would send an important signal to voters. Now people are skeptical that performative signal votes are sincere because they won’t go anywhere. Not saying you, specifically, but the whiplash is really frustrating.

Second, sure, it’s a low risk bill because they know it won’t go anywhere, but damn isn’t it good news that somebody is putting their money where their mouth is? Maybe we just need to primary in more Dems who will sign on and help push it through?

_thebrain_ ,

My point (i.e. the “high hopes” part) is that this sounds legit and awesome. I do my best to be an optimist, but I have been burned way to many times to not concede that there may be ulterior motivation afoot.

Blackbeard ,
@Blackbeard@lemmy.world avatar

I hear you. Didn’t mean for that to come across as an attack on you.

barsquid ,

Apologies, in my previous comment I hadn’t read clearly enough and misunderstood. I have deleted it.

SpaceCowboy ,
@SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

Why wouldn’t Democrats want ranked choice?

Right wing people tend to be subservient and just fall in line and vote Republican. People on the left tend to be less pragmatic and can be enticed to vote for Green or whatever even when it’s obvious they won’t win “because of my principles!” Someone voting Green or whatever will be very likely to choose the Democrat candidate down the list of choice before the GOP candidate. When the votes are tallied they will end up with more votes with a ranked choice system than they’d have with the current system.

The real reason why this won’t happen is if the GOP have a majority since it is very much against their interests.

sin_free_for_00_days ,

The DNC exists to protect incumbents. Don’t be fooled, the Dems (elected officials, not voters) don’t want ranked choice.

SpaceCowboy ,
@SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

Well someone is being fooled, that’s true.

Objection ,

Right wing people tend to be subservient and just fall in line and vote Republican. People on the left tend to be less pragmatic

People are always saying this, but is there actually evidence that it’s true? The Libertarian Party regularly gets more votes than the Greens, so if anything it seems like the opposite is true. Ross Perot got the most votes of any third party candidate in history, and in both the elections he ran in, Bill Clinton won. In 2016, Trump refused to rule out the possibility of a third party run if he didn’t get the nomination, and it appeared to be a serious possibility.

So is this claim just based on vibes or what?

SpaceCowboy ,
@SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

It’s been a long time since Ross Perot.

I’m basing it on trends. We saw with RFK being offered whatever he wanted as soon as it looked like he was going to take more votes from Trump than Harris. He dropped out and backed Trump. While not all of his supporters might not automatically go vote for Trump (just as not all Libertarians won’t pick R for their second choice) it probably helped.

The Libertarians got what? 1/3 of the votes in 2020 than they did in 2016? Seems like they’re on the decline to me.

We’re seeing more of a push by various internet influencers (who knows who’s paying them, LOL) to push people on the left towards voting third party. And maybe I’ve spent too much time on lemmy, but it seems to be working. People want to vote for Cornel West or Jill Stein.

It’s probably exhausting for campaign workers to have to constantly explain they shouldn’t vote third party as it might result in Trump getting in. It would be far easier to say “sure I kinda like [Third Party Candidate] too, but I like [Democratic Candidate] more because blah blah blah, but the most important thing is you go out and vote!” and be fairly confident that vote will cascade down to their candidate. The whole “don’t vote third party” schtick that’s going on now may just result in that person not voting at all.

A lot of emphasis now is in getting turnout. If a third party candidate can energize some turnout whose votes will cascade down to the Dem candidate, that means the third parties are helping them instead of hurting them. And what people think now about how voting third party will push the Dems more towards that position would actually be true. Right now it’s not true but the internet is teaching them otherwise.

Lauchs ,

If people vote in the primaries for candidates who support ranked choice voting, then yes.

Dagwood222 ,

Look up The Moral Majority and Jerry Falwell.

Falwell made himself a big deal in the GOP by getting his troops to show up at every single local Republican event with enough votes to make sure that they got everything they wanted. It started small with sheriffs and county clerks, and then Congress members.

njm1314 ,

Exactly. Anytime a small party runs a presidential campaign it’s not only a waste of time but it’s a waste of money and resources that could have gone to actual races that could affect actual change. Plus they help to delegitimize and demoralize the movements.

Dagwood222 ,

The GOP pushed both the Greens and the Libertarians to siphon votes from the Dems.

bostonglobe.com/…/jill-stein-new-hampshire-ballot…

sin_free_for_00_days ,

I’ve yet to meet a Libertarian who wasn’t just a lazy Republican.

njm1314 ,

I knew a few back in college but good Lord they were naive. He was a sweet kid but one of them thought we can get rid of the military and just use mercenaries.

Zerlyna ,
@Zerlyna@lemmy.world avatar

I was a youth at that time and my only memory of the Moral Majority is the boob scene in Airplane! 🤷‍♀️

scytale ,

There’s a caveat: That statement only applies to a house that’s designed to only have 2 viable doors.

AbouBenAdhem OP ,

It applies to any house that isn’t designed to infer your intended goal and automatically rebuild itself to suit.

jaggedrobotpubes ,

Third parties are mathematically impossible until we ditch first past the post voting:

youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

We need our vote to be a list, not a checkbox.

bradinutah ,

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.

princessnorah ,
@princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

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.

bradinutah ,

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.

princessnorah ,
@princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Well yes, obviously. The issue with today is that the incumbency of the system makes it hard to change

barsquid ,

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.

barsquid ,

FPTP is not real democracy for this reason.

SpaceCowboy ,
@SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

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.

bss03 ,

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.

eestileib ,

Primary elections are how parties change. Primary elections are how the Republican party became what it is today. They are often the highest-leverage vote you can cast if you’re in a solid district.

NuXCOM_90Percent ,

Yup. People don’t realize there is already a not horrible approximation of runoff voting that still avoids the spoiler effect.

And just look at what happened when Sanders realized that. He went from being a meme about how nobody watches C-SPAN to one of the more influential politicians on the Left.

NewNewAccount ,

Remind me who won in 2016? How do you think all those Bernie supporters felt about the election that was still very much influenced by FPTP dynamics.

sin_free_for_00_days ,

More voters went from Hillary Clinton to John McCain in 2008 than went from Sanders to Trump in 2016 -Source

SpaceCowboy ,
@SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

Well I’d say it’s still pretty bad with the super delegates and such. But yeah it’s runoff system of sorts and people should pay more attention to it.

But a lot of the “system is broken” angst comes from people being not happy over who the majority of people vote for. But that’s just democracy, baby.

But the Electoral College, yeah that shit is broken.

sgibson5150 ,

I’m going to hold my nose and vote for Kamala but I won’t shame people who can’t bring themselves to do it.

jonne , (edited )

And this criticism of ‘the greens only show up every 4 years’ is in bad faith. The greens run in other elections as well, you just only hear about the presidential elections because that’s the only time they get some media attention.

This list has a bunch of school board members, city councillors, even a mayor on it. They do run in local elections, and even win sometimes.

ShinkanTrain , (edited )

Noooo you must enjoy voting for our designated ghoul and voice your full throated support every day until November or else it’s basically a vote for Trump. Also, you can’t ask us to change any platforms whatsoever cause that’s divisive and a vote for Trump.

someguy3 , (edited )

And even if the candidate wins, then what? They have no say in Congress. It’s the House of Reps and the Senate that passes legislation. Your new third party candidate can only choose to sign or to veto bills passed by the House and Senate.

Beau on it youtu.be/-KX8xddKfeM

metaStatic ,

except that you could end up with a 3rd entrance by doing that ... eventually

TachyonTele , (edited )

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.

OpenStars ,
@OpenStars@discuss.online avatar

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? 😔

metaStatic ,

I'm here for it

OpenStars ,
@OpenStars@discuss.online avatar

img

TachyonTele ,

Vote me again, daddy!

njm1314 ,

I think you’d have brain damage way before you get to that point

metaStatic ,

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

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines