27
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
27 points (72.9% liked)
politics
18928 readers
3213 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Sorry but that's an absolute shit take. I didn't mention any individual candidate or party. I didn't say voting for a third party is a vote for opposite major party candidate. It's just basic math that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in a state wins that state. If you think there is a state where any third party candidate has a chance of winning please show me the polling that backs it up. Otherwise, just admit that the winner will be the nominee from one of the two major party candidates, and admitting that acknowledge that basic math says the more 3rd party votes are cast, the fewer votes there are between the 2 major party candidates for one of them to overcome. You can be pissed off about it all you want, but it's reality.
Unfortunately that is just idealist naivete. I vote in the major party primaries to try and get either the least crazy republican (gerrymandered districts) or the most progressive democratic candidate on the ballot. The only thing that will break the duopoly is to get RCV in every state, and the presidential election has fuck-all to do with accomplishing that.
It’s the very duopoly you’re stuck with that makes real change impossible without challenging it. While ranked-choice voting (RCV) is important, dismissing third-party voting as useless only keeps the system locked in place. Voting for a third party is part of pushing for bigger reforms like RCV—it’s a step towards showing there's demand for alternatives outside the same old two-party narrative.
Indeed. But no 3rd party candidate has received a single EC vote since 1968. Voting 3rd party for president in the general clearly isn't doing a god damn thing to shift the parties.
I never said it was useless. But it's true that voting for a less popular left-leaning is going to reduce the number of votes that the most popular right-leaning candidate needs to receive to beat the most popular left-leaning candidate.
I don't think you will get the ear of the Democratic party by skipping the primaries or voting in a 3rd party primary. They don't know how you vote in a general, so you showing up in their primary is the only way they know reliably that you have opinions for their direction. Bernie succeeded in shifting the Democratic party left by running in the Democratic primary. Lets do that at the local levels, especially for primary candidates who support RCV. There's pretty much no chance we can get RCV as a federal law, SCOTUS would absolutely knock it down as unconstitutional, so that fight has to come through the state legislatures.
And look how bad they screwed him by choosing Hilary. How'd that work out?! lol
I liked Bernie and would have voted for him too.
But I am not listening to the duopoly any longer. I'm voting third party. Proudly.
She won more votes. There was non super-delegate rat fuckery thwarting the popular vote. Put that on the voters. But his campaign was popular enough that the party platform adopted some of his campaign goals:
Also after his campaign we saw more progressives running and winning around the country. Just because he didn't win the nomination doesn't mean he utterly failed to achieve anything. And that's what I'm talking about with winning state races in the Democratic primaries to fight for RCV and force the party left.
Fair point!
But I don't think after a Harris win we are going to magically have RCV. How many fucking years have they had to change the system? I just don't share your faith they will.
So I'm not voting for them.
I never claimed electing Harris will get us RCV. I've said pretty consistently that the presidential election is in no way connected to us getting RCV. We will only get RCV from a bottom-up effort to shift individual state legislatures.
And I am saying that Democrats (and Republicans) don't really want that to happen, or they would have made it happen already.
The Tea Party successfully shifted the Republican party farther right by running and winning in their primaries. Why is it inconceivable that progressives can do the same in the Democratic primaries?
It's not inconceivable, but I think it's improbable. So I'm not voting for them. Why haven't they done it yet?
Because there haven't been primary candidates winning their primaries on that issue. They won't do it as a party.