Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Egan_BW]

Mind-free meat.

no thoughts head empty meat

[Micro102]

Gosh, I hope you're right.  And as I've pointed out ad nauseam:  A vote for a hopeless third party like the Greens is a vote for a multi-party system.  It *is* throwing your vote away, but it's more like spitting it on their feet than being indistinguishable from the shrugging checked-out demographic.

It is not a vote for a multi-party system. It's a vote for a 1 party system. if Green got, say, 10% the vote in all states, they would come from people  who would otherwise vote for democrats. Meaning republicans would have full control of government until either the Green party or the Democratic party shriveled up. The only way it could become a multi party system is if somehow, the Green party focuses on a state at a time, and won it. Preferably without giving republicans victories. But even then, democrats and Green would have to stop fighting over it, otherwise it will split the vote later and give republicans control. It's just not sustainable.

There is a much better way to get something like a multi-party system here. AOC should be in a different party from Biden, but they are in the same party, and anyone paying attention knows how different they are. There are already negotiations happening within the democratic party, just like there would be if it was two parties working separately. A vote for democrats is a vote for a multi-party system, because the way our system is structured right now, forces 2 parties. It needs to be changed. And any method to changing it is infinitely more likely to be done with democrats, than republicans, who are currently trying to prevent certain people from voting, and are creating coups in an attempt to undo an election they claim was stolen. Many right-wing talking heads refuse to say that Trump lost. They will absolutely attempt another coup if they get the chance.

And as for the Green party. I have no faith in them. After Jill Stein met with Putin and Flynn, the Green party decided that instead of gathering as many voters it could to bring it above the 5% line so they could get federal funding, by campaigning in heavy blue states (states with people that would likely vote for them), they instead decided to campaign in swing states that Hillary Clinton needed to beat Donald Trump. It's obvious sabotage. The Green Party would harm themselves to hurt the democrats more, for the benefit of republicans (and whatever that talk included).

[Rolan7]

That's a really good explanation of the vote splitting effect, thanks.

I'm glad there are people trying to change the Democrat party from within, but it's such a difficult route.  By design.  A progressive candidate doesn't just have to win the people's support through the Democrat primary, they obviously need the support of the Democrat establishment to have a chance.  We have a few exceptionally charismatic individuals who have pulled this off with decent progressive agendas, but the establishment agenda obviously predominates. 

That would be fine, they literally own the party, except for our de facto 2-party system.  The Democrat party gets my vote because it's pointing at a wolf and saying "Do everything I say, or I'll let the wolf eat both of us".  Or maybe "I'll throw the wolf this minority group, though I promise to be very sad about it".  It's a shitty racket but it still works to get my vote.  It doesn't work to get everyone's vote though, and I 100% sympathize with people refusing to play along.  They're the ones that force the Democrats to enact good policy, ever, in order to earn those votes.

Anyway I was talking about voting third party instead of not voting at all, which is a much simpler issue.  I'm convinced that fully abstaining gets people written off as unengaged whereas actively voting for a progressive party means that your vote is in play.  It also directly raises the chances of a third party actually having a chance in the future, which would result in actual democracy - for whatever that's worth.  Finally, local politics are still super important, and people should be voting in them *anyway* so they might as well vote against the two-party system while they're at it.

[Micro102]

I would prefer people vote third party than not at all, but my dream-scenario is that democrats win hard enough that republican donors don't see a future in them anymore, which caused them to bail on funding them, which causes all the people who joined for that money to leave, causing more losses which causes more defunding, etc. etc. Then they reverse snowball into a group small enough that there is room for another party to emerge. It will then be safe to vote for a third party, because the republican party won't be relevant enough to win.

[Kagus]

So, in order to become a multi-party system... First we must become a one-party system?

[Starver]

I'm betting that there's an equal chance of someone dreaming of republicans winning hard enough so that democrat donors don't see a future, etc, etc...

Well, those who want to vote R seem to so closely equal the numbers who want to vote D[1], or else there wouldn't be bickering (and a few too many times where the gap between total votes and the total sub-precincts won on their individual balances caused grief for the maximum number of people, which might indicate the size of the 'approximation error bar' this vote-bundling creates).


Or maybe the equivalent Republican-inclined have their own 'dream-scenario', such as every Democrat Donor being rounded up and... made irrelevent. (Well, I'm sure that sort of scenario also sits in the minds of people in both flavours, actually. Maybe from different starting points, but equally determined in it being a necessary 'balancing act' for political slights either perceived or actual...)


[1] Yes, maybe there's differences in how much there is of "My Party, right or wrong", "My Grandpappy always voted My Party, my Pappy always voted My Party, I've always voted My Party...", "I only voted My Party because I hate Their Party more", and "I'll throw a vote to a third party/I won't vote at all because I, alone, am not going to change the My Party vs Their Party sure-thing contest" applies for respective My/Their(/Third) Party natural-supporters.

[Micro102]

Like I said, the democrats are already functioning as a multi-party system. There is already negotiation happening within it. They may have a D next to their name, but that is not the same as the cultish behavior of the republican party. Progressives will vote for progressive candidates, and the more conservative democrats will vote for people like Biden.

Well, those who want to vote R seem to so closely equal the numbers who want to vote D[1]

This in particular is wrong. The republican party has been relying on voter suppression (and probably election fraud too) for a long time now. They gerrymander harder than democrats, and pretty much all suppression comes from them, which has led them to winning more seats with less votes. If we had a functioning democracy right now, the republican party would already be dead.

[martinuzz]

Biden is accusing Facebook and other social media of murder, because they allow the spreading of misinformation about Covid.

[voliol]

As strange as the question sounds, how bad would becoming a one party system be for the democracy of the US, if at all? Is it any easier to ”legislate” away intra-party fptp, creating a democratic environment within the party, than to legislate away inter-party fptp?

[MrRoboto75]

Biden is accusing Facebook and other social media of murder, because they allow the spreading of misinformation about Covid.

I mean, facebook is a glorified algorithm based around sending you false information and outrage, and the corp behind it doesn't really care that it does that.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As strange as the question sounds, how bad would becoming a one party system be for the democracy of the US, if at all? Is it any easier to ”legislate” away intra-party fptp, creating a democratic environment within the party, than to legislate away inter-party fptp?

Under US law as is? There's zero guarantee of free elections within party organizations - they're technically entirely private and not subject to any election law whatsoever. There is some guarantee of at least nominally free and fair public elections, though notably no constitutional recognition of the existence of party organizations or their influence on the system.

[Micro102]

As strange as the question sounds, how bad would becoming a one party system be for the democracy of the US, if at all? Is it any easier to ”legislate” away intra-party fptp, creating a democratic environment within the party, than to legislate away inter-party fptp?

Well it depends on who that "one party" is. If a party is unified and trying to suppress the people's right to vote, deny science, and are prone to coups, then very bad. If a party has a lot of dissent within itself, and is trying to make the laws better (note, I don't think the current democrat party is actively trying to make laws better, hence the dissent), then it's significantly less bad.

Maine passed ranked choice voting so I see it as only a matter of time until FPTP is removed throughout the country.

[Frumple]

I'm betting that there's an equal chance of someone dreaming of republicans winning hard enough so that democrat donors don't see a future, etc, etc...

I mean, there's not an equal chance of that. Flat out. The GOP has been a minority party in terms of public support on the national scale for a while now; if people actually vote en masse, the republican party loses, which is why you see constant attempts at disenfranchisement and voter suppression from them. It's only our fucked up electoral system that's kept them in power to the degree they are.

and ninja'd, but whatever

... so far as one party control goes, though... that was basically the default state of things for a great deal of the country's history, so it's definitely survivable for the nation, at least. Whether that's an indictment or comfort probably depends on how well you think that turned out

[Lord Shonus]

If either party gains true dominance for any length of time, it will shatter. Both parties are a conflicting mass of interests that are held together as much by the threat of the other party as anything else.

[Naturegirl1999]

If either party gains true dominance for any length of time, it will shatter. Both parties are a conflicting mass of interests that are held together as much by the threat of the other party as anything else.

So if one party shatters, the other will room which would give third parties a much better chance than currently, right?