United States | News & Politics

7209 readers

351 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-2

Why Senate Dems are prepared to swallow a border policy compromise (www.politico.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A growing number of Senate Democrats appear open to making it harder for migrants to seek asylum in order to secure Republican support for aiding Ukraine and Israel.

This is what the democrats stand for. Unlimited funding for the MIC and border-control, but social issues are not a priority.

Stop voting for the parties of Capital.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Let's be honest, "signals" mean exactly two things. Jack and shit. A viable progressive is just not gonna appear on thoughts and prayers because someone signals hard enough. The only way to move the needle is by choosing the viable party that doesn't actively campaign on the notion of eradicating "vermin".

In a functional society, we would have options like ranked choice, but functional is not a great word to explain the current situation in the U.S. So you bite the bullet, and make the less evil choice. Then you do it over and over again until the party that is actively trying to destroy democracy no longer exists, and you can potentially make effective voting reform.

There are two ways to fix this, slowly with every election over potentially decades, or quickly. And doing it quickly almost certainly involves people in the streets and ugliness on a scale you really cannot comprehend. But no amount of "signaling" is gonna work because honestly close to half the electorate just doesn't fucking care.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

So you bite the bullet, and make the less evil choice

Only if it actually matters. If the election will go to the same party every year, then it literally doesn't matter if you vote for or against them, so you might as well vote for a candidate you actually like. Every position on my ballot has a 20%+ spread, with some >30%, so there's no benefit to voting for the minority party over a third party.

So I change my party affiliation to the dominant party every election so I can vote in the only primaries that matter, then I vote for whatever candidate I actually like in the general election. If third parties get enough percentage of the vote, they get reliable ballot access, and that helps give them more visibility. If a particularly good candidate polls well enough, they'll be invited to debate. That's the dream, and I'm hopeful electoral reform would be a key part of such a debate. If you have a strong third party candidate in the debates, maybe that'll get the public to care.

Then you do it over and over again until the party that is actively trying to destroy democracy no longer exists

That isn't how that works. Both major parties thinks the other is actively trying to destroy democracy, so they're very likely to retain their base.

The solution, IMO, is a grassroots movement where a bunch of candidates all run on the same platform, and pair that with peaceful protests. That's how you get visibility into issues like electoral reform (again, ideally Approval or STAR, not ranked choice; I think ranked choice would still result in a 2-party system). Ideally run those candidates within the two-party system, but running them as third parties is better than nothing IMO, they'll still get some visibility.