I can’t stand this faux leftist bullshit. There’s a reason why I call this right wing nonsense: it impedes the improvement of people’s material lives. We don’t have to like the Democrats in order to reject this absolute nonsense.
And your attitude in turn is why there’s no party who represents the views of most people. You’ve already decided it’s impossible without trying, even though the majority of democracies in the developed world today are not trapped in two-party systems.
Most modern democracies don’t enforce First Past the Post by law, and don’t have a winner-takes-all system. A better strategy is to primary democratic representatives as much as possible, and take over down-ballot positions as soon as possible. That way we can make steps towards dismatling Citizen’s United, repealing all the laws that prevent moving away from FPTP, and implement RCV.
I am more than willing to try, if not for the fact that splitting the left would cede electoral victories to the right for several cycles while people figure out what “the new left” is. If we do this in our current era, Republicans will actually kill us while we sit on our ass and convince ourselves to split our vote (as has been shown with the most recent administration)…
This has been shown in history-- every time a third party tries to get made, the opposition party wins for several cycles. The most notable of which is (imo) Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive party in 1912. It got 27% of the vote (2nd in terms of popular vote and won several downstream races). But, the left vote was split by 27%, so the right won by a very large majority. They decided to ultimately dissolve and infiltrate the left wing party.
You are 100% correct, but I fear this is too complex for most Americans to understand and too much of a “long game” thing for the rest to be willing to get onboard with. I have very little faith in our electorate.
There are two paths, an inside and an outside strategy. The inside strategy is far simpler, has far greater potential for success, and will harm the least people along the way. Acknowledging that isn’t “giving up”, it’s picking strategy like a grown-up, not some kid afraid to turn down a dare.
without trying
This is the most idiotic thing about third party advocates. There have been third parties running consistently for decades, and we are somehow supposed to pretend that that lengthy record of dismal failure doesn’t exist. Meanwhile, inside strategists haven’t won everything yet, so we are supposed to switch to a strategy with a far worse track record.
This is the most idiotic thing about third party advocates.
One interesting thing I’ve noticed in these discussions is how quickly the two-party advocates will bring out words like “idiotic” and attack the person not the argument… it really is a movement driven by fear.
Yeah it’s fear. Fear that fuckwits are going to drive the country into the hands of fascists. Is that not worth a bit of concern, or is that just too far fetched an outcome?
And don’t act like it’s one sided mate. Calling me a coward by coming at it sideways doesn’t change your meaning.
Maybe we want a 3rd party to start actually doing something and winning local/state elections instead of randomly showing up every 4 years to try to win a national election.
The smart move, which we just got a hard lesson on, is to vote Democrat until a 3rd party becomes viable, because the other option is Republican fascism, which is what we got.
I can’t stand this faux leftist bullshit. There’s a reason why I call this right wing nonsense: it impedes the improvement of people’s material lives. We don’t have to like the Democrats in order to reject this absolute nonsense.
And your attitude in turn is why there’s no party who represents the views of most people. You’ve already decided it’s impossible without trying, even though the majority of democracies in the developed world today are not trapped in two-party systems.
No, not the attitude is the problem, the problem is, that the president has mot to win having an absolute majority.
A d I think, US people would have had bigger chances achieving such rule in the voting system, if dems are in power, vs when trumpist are in power 🤗
But proof me wrong 😁 maybe it needs this dictator-shock in order to mobilise enough people to build enough pressure to get such a rule
That’s the literal opposite of what I believe.
Most modern democracies don’t enforce First Past the Post by law, and don’t have a winner-takes-all system. A better strategy is to primary democratic representatives as much as possible, and take over down-ballot positions as soon as possible. That way we can make steps towards dismatling Citizen’s United, repealing all the laws that prevent moving away from FPTP, and implement RCV.
I am more than willing to try, if not for the fact that splitting the left would cede electoral victories to the right for several cycles while people figure out what “the new left” is. If we do this in our current era, Republicans will actually kill us while we sit on our ass and convince ourselves to split our vote (as has been shown with the most recent administration)…
This has been shown in history-- every time a third party tries to get made, the opposition party wins for several cycles. The most notable of which is (imo) Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive party in 1912. It got 27% of the vote (2nd in terms of popular vote and won several downstream races). But, the left vote was split by 27%, so the right won by a very large majority. They decided to ultimately dissolve and infiltrate the left wing party.
You are 100% correct, but I fear this is too complex for most Americans to understand and too much of a “long game” thing for the rest to be willing to get onboard with. I have very little faith in our electorate.
There are two paths, an inside and an outside strategy. The inside strategy is far simpler, has far greater potential for success, and will harm the least people along the way. Acknowledging that isn’t “giving up”, it’s picking strategy like a grown-up, not some kid afraid to turn down a dare.
This is the most idiotic thing about third party advocates. There have been third parties running consistently for decades, and we are somehow supposed to pretend that that lengthy record of dismal failure doesn’t exist. Meanwhile, inside strategists haven’t won everything yet, so we are supposed to switch to a strategy with a far worse track record.
One interesting thing I’ve noticed in these discussions is how quickly the two-party advocates will bring out words like “idiotic” and attack the person not the argument… it really is a movement driven by fear.
Yeah it’s fear. Fear that fuckwits are going to drive the country into the hands of fascists. Is that not worth a bit of concern, or is that just too far fetched an outcome?
And don’t act like it’s one sided mate. Calling me a coward by coming at it sideways doesn’t change your meaning.
Maybe we want a 3rd party to start actually doing something and winning local/state elections instead of randomly showing up every 4 years to try to win a national election.
The smart move, which we just got a hard lesson on, is to vote Democrat until a 3rd party becomes viable, because the other option is Republican fascism, which is what we got.
If THAT’S what you got out of this then I guess the US are fucked