In other words, “B-but…”
Meanwhile, Trump takes office <again> in 2 months. Keep polishing that halo tho!
It’s incredible that libs still haven’t figured out that vote shaming doesn’t work. Instead of doing some reflection on why Trump won, there’s just more of the same moralizing happening.
Remember, Trump is so supernaturally evil that everyone has to drop their principles and vote for the blue coloured genocidal fascists, but not so evil that Democrats should have to actually make any effort to win the election.
Exactly, any atrocities that the democrats commit can be absolved by not voting for Trump. It really is a cult isn’t it.
Honestly, Blue MAGA has deified Trump more than red MAGA, they just see him as an evil god rather than benevolent.
Pretty much yeah, he’s the devil of their religion.
Dems lost twice with the same rhetoric. Vote Dems or get trump. I thought they learned from the past, but no, just double down.
I’m beginning to think vote shaming is integral to their worldview.
This is a lie. People just spread this to trick you into not voting so the Republicans win.
This is a lie spread by corporate elites that want to make sure both parties align with their interests instead of having Democrats create a popular platform and win on that basis.
Did you learn nothing from hanging on to Biden until even the billionaire donors got scared by his dementia?
How many people did you vote for that weren’t Republican or Democrat in your local elections? If you didn’t vote for them (3rd party, new party) there, don’t expect them to ever exist as a presidential candidate. You can’t even qualify to be on the ballot if you don’t have the party established. You have to petition on all 50 states to be shown there and you will likely be denied on many.
If you don’t like the Republican or Democrat party, a solution would be to get local candidates to run under a new party that fits your views better, still you would NEED to vote for whichever of the 2 parties fits your views best in the presidential vote to SLOW the movement right/left/up/down whatever… And establish that party in enough city’s/counties/states to take seats that matter there. Once known… Then and only then would it be viable to split the vote, and you likely lose 4 years to a hard push into the directions you don’t want… While the final negotiations and realizations of merging or replacing/allying with the lesser evil party.
Likely meaning a pledge that you would hold primaries that would endorse each other if the winner of a primary shows more people. But you cannot and will not win a presidential election if you split the vote and don’t endorse each other
The effect shown isn’t untrue, but the conclusion doesn’t follow from that.
or voting third party in a backwards outdated voting system like that of the US
Do you mean that democrats are not centrists?
In most other countries your 2 parties would be classified right wing and extreme right wing.
Thank you!
Every time someone says this they exaggerate the positions further and further to the right, and it becomes less and less true.
You think I did that?
I’m Danish and here your 2 parties would absolutely fit the categories I described. No exaggeration what so ever.
I want to kill all the honkeys. therefore we should kill half the honkeys
You’re wasting your vote if you don’t choose to kill half the honkeys!!
Fixed
I feel as though there’s a significant amount of extra info that isn’t strictly conveyed here.
The core issue is that you only have 2 real options in america, third parties may as well not exist. So, come election time, your harm reduction option is to vote for the least evil party.
But that’s not the way to solve the issue, and neither is abstaining or voting third party, IMO. The way to solve the issue happens between votes. Picketing, protesting, demonstrating, taking action, making noise. You won’t solve the broken 2 party system at election time. But you do have to actually get out and take action, not just say that you will and keep letting the overton window shift right.
(Take with a pinch of salt because I’m not american)
This. I’m in the US and was fully prepared to protest whether Harris or Trump won, I’m opposed to them both in different ways. Trump and team may get me off my ass very quickly though.
The core issue is that you only have 2 real options in america, third parties may as well not exist.
There’s false assumptions necessary to reach this conclusion. Typically the false assumption is that the role of a third party is to win. The root cause of making this assumption is often that the scope of evaluation has been limited to one term or cycle.
I’m not convinced that voting for a third party has any positive effect, in one election cycle or over longer time. But I’m open to hearing your perspective.
The false assumption that most make is that one cycle doesn’t effect the next.
However, if a third party garners just 5% of the general election vote for POTUS then their platform and higher quality candidate will be on every ballot in the next cycle.
If there’s a third choice on every ballot then the the third party platform places tremendous and immediate pressure upon the platforms of the two major parties. The third party doesn’t actually win unless the other refuse to compromise. Long term, the continued threat is of greater value than a subsequent victory.
But, the electoral scheme doesn’t work unless leftists trust leftists to determine the collective risk of voting third party for the states they reside in. Even Jacobin failed to trust twice.
Things are pretty fucked. Electoral means are slow. I tend to advocate for boycott, strike, and riot (encompassing a wide scope of wisely breaking laws).
I suppose that is a tangible way to affect change under the existing electoral system, so more power to you. I guess, with that in mind, you need to vote third party on an occasion when third party will actually get that 5% threshold, which as you say takes trust.
need to vote third party on an occasion when third party will actually get that 5% threshold
non sequitur
You weren’t really very open to ideas. And, you were the best of the bunch in this thread.
That’s needlessly dismissive, I was repeating my understanding of what you’d said
I’m sorry you feel that way. Try something different next time.
I mean, you’re not the first one to say thing. People picket, people protest, people make noise. College students are arrested, protests either get Zero media attention (or worse, are regulated to an ineffective location because of regulations) or the protestors switch to disruptive tactics that actually get noticed and are demonized by everyone for it.
Like I keep hearing this “You have to go out and take action”, EVERYONE IS! People are walking up and knocking on people’s doors and getting punched in the face. People are outside houses getting cops called on them and arrested. Everyone is now more able to point out the bad actors and exactly how that’s effecting the parties and policies.
You have Bernie Sanders and AOC out protesting and “making noise” in the spot light every damn day.
- third party doesn’t work
- you can’t solve the 2 party system
- The way to solve the issue happens between votes
our election cycle is every 2 years or less depending on the occasion. IT IS ALWAYS ELECTION CYCLE IN AMERICAN POLITICS. They have to plan early and extensively to knock off any candidate they don’t want (pulling national resources to squash anyone they view “outside” their establishment).
At this point the “make noise” comments need to reiterate what the end goal is for that make noise. You’re setting people up to just be angry and upset and protest the inequality or inefficiencies of our system when that’s exactly what the politicians want (it’s a feature, not a bug). No amount of protesting, a litany of policies at that, will be effective when the complete political spectrum is against change. Take a look at the Civil Rights Era and the voting that was concluded, it looks completely unlike anything we have now.
The political parties have strengthened their stranglehold (I’ve argued in the past that they are “political parties” in name only, they are more incorporated or an oligarch representatives at this point and should be regulated as such). They listen to power only, the power was taken from the working and lower classes a long time ago. We get our shows we can put on, but it doesn’t move the needle anymore. It used to at least force them to talk about moving the needle, even that’s gone now.
I think its quite obvious that the people I’m advising to get out and take action are the people who… aren’t? I’m well aware that action is being taken and that it is growing in numbers, but more needs to be done.
That aside, how does voting third party or abstaining from voting affect change against the issues you’ve highlighted above? Because I don’t disagree with the issues you’ve raised.
How exactly does “picketing, protesting, demonstrating, taking action, making noise” affect change against those issues, when the Democrats will just ignore you and get your vote anyway?
You don’t think you can affect change outside of your vote?
I’m really wondering if next election cycle we’re gonna hear people say “we’ve got to vote them in first then pull them left” again. It was a notably absent phrase this past election. Biden most certainly did not move left from his “Fundamentally nothing will change.” platform.
Well, I was reliably told by ten million Vote Blue No Matter Who people that there wouldn’t be another elections if Trump won, so I guess we’ll just never know…
…and those people call me defeatist. Sheesh!
All you do by consistently voting the “lesser of two evils” is kicking the hangover down the road by keeping to drink more alcohol. You know every time that it will get worse and the sooner you get through the hangover, the sooner you could actually move on, but in fear of the hangover you grab the bottler another time.
With the measures you mentioned the problem is in particular that the current Democrats are not caring about them. They assume they will get the votes nonetheless and if they don’t it is fine because the Republicans will cover most of the donors interests anyways. Making noise only works, if it is followed by consequences. Leaving political violence aside, the only consequence a normal person can realize is not giving the vote if they aren’t heard.
But that’s not the way to solve the issue
So… revolution? It worked once before!
I mean sure! Take the whole CEO situation and springboard off that, you find yourselves in circumstances similar to pre-revolution France so the conditions are right.
Yep, that’s why I always vote for the bigger evil.
Accelerationism is more ethical than neoliberal denial. By voting for the bigger evil you’ve made yourself the lesser evil.
Run for office and be the lesser evil.
Also the lesser evil kills all enthousiam and loses the election.
Which is just fine by the lesser evil wing of the party.
No.
Look at how the system actually works. There are two choices. Both candidates have to compete for all the people who vote. If you sit out the election that doesn’t mean either candidate will try to get your vote; they’ll ignore you and go after the people who do vote.
Someone else came up with this analogy. It’s like the trolley problem except the there’s a third option. The third choice is to throw the switch to “Neither,” but “Neither” isn’t connected and the trolley kills someone anyway.
My friend, what you wrote totally ignores the passage of time. Everything you wrote is true if we only look at one election, and none of it is true if we consider the passage of time and how pressure operates. If the political party is not getting votes, if all of their candidates are losing, either they will disband or they will find different policies to push.
Or as Rush put it, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”
You understand how things work! Ignore the apathy trolls. They are trying to silence your vote. Here’s what actually happens if you vote for the lesser of two evils. You’re rights are protected and next time use the primary process to pick someone even better.
You’re rights are protected
Like how Roe V. Wade was protected when Biden got into office? Like our right to protest the atrocities which our taxes are paying for in Gaza?
You’re rights are protected and next time use the primary process to pick someone even better.
Oh, Like how we voted for the lesser evil in 2020 and didn’t have a fucking primary in 2024. Don’t tell us to do something that your party makes sure doesn’t happen.
Lol. What planet do you live on?
If 5% of the general election popular vote for POTUS, knowing that the candidate cannot win, still voted for the Green Party platform then what effect would that have upon the Democratic Party platform?
On a five point difficulty scale this is a two. The test gets way harder than this.
If my grandmother had wheels she’d be a tea trolley.
Right now the reality is the Donald Trump is going to take office because a lot of people didn’t vote for the alternative.
All the ‘what if…?’ games in the world isn’t going to change that.
Thank you for the opportunity to teach.
If my grandmother had wheels she’d be a tea trolley.
Minimization.
Right now the reality is the Donald Trump is going to take office because a lot of people didn’t vote for the alternative.
Red herring.
All the ‘what if…?’ games in the world isn’t going to change that.
Minimization.
This is a bit better than typical nonsense because there’s two tactics in a sandwich. Next is usually ad hominem. But, this one may have another trick up their sleeve.
Simply naming fallacies isn’t teaching. The point of learning fallacies isn’t so that you can just name them and feel like you’ve made a point.
I asked a question. I received a fallacy sandwich in return. There’s no point in investing further.
Simply naming fallacies isn’t teaching.
unsupported
The point of learning fallacies isn’t so that you can just name them and feel like you’ve made a point.
strawman
unsupported
How do you not choke on your irony?
With well-reasoned and nuanced principles supported by vast experience.
The point of teaching is sharing knowledge, not just poking holes in whatever argument you can (intentional hyperbole, not strawman)
The point of learning fallacies isn’t so that you can just name them and feel like you’ve made a point.
strawman
Instead of just “strawman, therefore you’re wrong” and leaving it at that, how about you explain what was incorrect in that statement. That way you become more understood, and everyone understands you more.
This isn’t a courtroom debate. This isn’t a debate you “win” or “lose”. This is a debate where everyone should be trying to understand each other, so that everyone ends up better off by the end. This sort of debate is a cooperative thing, not competitive.
The audience I wish to reach doesn’t need their hand held as a child.
None of your assertions have been supported
“Simply naming fallacies isn’t teaching.”
- yes it is.
“The point of learning fallacies isn’t so that you can just name them and feel like you’ve made a point.”
- yes it is.
Right now the reality is the Donald Trump is going to take office because a lot of people didn’t vote for the alternative.
Red herring.
You’re going to have to explain that in detail. Trump got more votes. He won. How is that anything except a cold, hard fact?
Everything you said.
Pompous.
George Carlin did a great job blowing this nonsense apart
If George was alive today he’d be begging people to vote against Trump.
No he wouldn’t, and the video I linked explains clearly why. Maybe watch it and try to comprehend what he’s saying there.
Let me explain something you may not be aware of.
The man was an entertainer. His job was to make people laugh. I can cherry pick his work and come up with all kinds of absurd ideas he put into his act.
If the only argument you can make is based on a comedy routine, then we have nothing more to discuss.
Let me explain something you may not be aware of. Entertainers often say serious things that cannot be said in other mediums. If you don’t understand that Carlin was doing political commentary, and appreciate his insights then you’re a very dim individual indeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_George_Carlin_Show
George did a TV show on the FOX network.
I love his stuff, but that doesn’t blind me to the fact that he was primarily an entertainer.
The fact that you thought this was a good argument shows how utterly intellectually impoverished you are.
Yeah bro, the anti war hippie who was challenging the FCC in the 70s would have totally been team corporatocracy. Carlin had several interviews where he talked about how the two party system in America is an illusion of choice and ragged on Bill Clinton for being phony, and that’s the farthest left liberal candidate in like 30 years, a fucking neoliberal.
Yall sound exactly like the conservatives claiming MLK.
Like I said, if you can’t come up with anything except a comedy act, we have nothing to discuss.
Here’s a clip from his early days, proof that he couldn’t possibly have ever changed his thoughts about anything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKO8qMJtbng this is from the 90s through the early 2000s, but I imagine you’ll find another reason to dismiss his words to pretend you know what was in his heart was different tho.
For the record, I don’t agree with his defeatist outlook, I think there’s comedians with better takes on American politics, but to pretend Carlin would be blue MAGA just because you wish him to be is ridiculous.
Make your 3rd party an arm of the dems. A coalition of sorts
This is true, but it’s also STILL WORSE to vote for the greater evil. You need to change the options available to you to fix this.
It’s also true that you get backlashes normally if the system doesn’t get to far out of wack. FDR wasnt right of Hoover Coolridge and Harding. Sure one can argue overall we were shifting to the right… But we were NEVER going to be left of center so long as the U.S. existed, because the constitution is built on capitalism. Capitalism has a slow decay, can it be fixed? Maybe. Is it fixable now, maybe not. Could we have fixed it if we followed Carter with a closer to center President instead of Reagan, A LOT easier to have done it then… It took 60 years to get taxes on the rich to this point.
I don’t think the constitution is very capitalist tbh
Not sure this makes sense. I think the window shifts right as people continue to vote right.
From the Wikipedia article about the Overton window:
The most common misconception is that lawmakers themselves are in the business of shifting the Overton window. That is absolutely false. Lawmakers are actually in the business of detecting where the window is, and then moving to be in accordance with it.
Things move to the right when the right wins. Things move to the left when the left wins. If the center wins, then things don’t move much at all. The lesser evil prevents greater evil
also known as
You dumb fuck.
Couldn’t you see that people are sick of “the lesser evil” they just let the greater evil win?
I think you need to look at the above the graph and try again, maybe with less f****** around and more using your brain.
Oh well it’s in a doodle on the internet, must be gospel-grade truth.
Is that a thing you have to apply to some formal committee for?
Or do we have to ask you specifically whether or not it qualifies?
Ooh maybe there’s ASCII symbol for it like ® or © ?
Removed by mod
Oh my. You win the argument today!
Thank you, thank you for taking the time to put together such a meaningful and well thought-out comment. We are all slightly better off because you paused your surely very important work and gave us your insights.
Removed by mod
a system where you get served only two options to vote for but are held responsible for the outcome instead of those who limited the available options in the first place?
eh yes, you are right, this is stupid.
as a completely unrelated sidenote:
“winner takes it all” is the actual opposite of democracy, no matter how the voting was done, and this fact can already be read 1:1 within those 4 simple words 😉
Removed by mod
Democracy is mathematically impossible.
if democracy was not possible, how does it come that the greek did democracy and it is said they were once overrun in a war because of beeing democratic? if something was a cause for a turn of a war, i pretty much believe it to really exist, no matter what some kind of half baked formulars “predicted” once.
if democracy existed and your math says thats not possible, i’ld guess your math might simply be ‘slightly’ wrong about it or was created with (un-)intentional biases in mind ;-)
just to note:
in the history of human predictions based on thought through and wordly/mathmatically described rules, the most common thing afterwards was, that those rules and also their predictions were just fundamentally wrong and biased.
Care to explain?
The argument is when there are more than 2 options a majority of people would not have selected the “winner” over any of the other individual losers. Therefore majority rule is an illusion, democracy is self-contradictory!!!
However, by reducing the options to just 2 you no longer have the same result and “democracy” is more “self-consistent”. You can do this in a fair/Democratic way by “simulating” the pairwise interactions (IE ranked choice voting, pairwise majority rule, etc.) or by establishing a false dichotomy (2 party systems, left v right spectrum, etc.).
This is not ‘not a thing’ but it’s a really old idea and is largely solved (ie. Distributed networks like the social media platform we are currently on, or stuff like this).
However, the claim isn’t entirely misplaced as modern social institutions refuse to implement any of those methods because it would be against their best interests as those in power are deeply unpopular (yes, especially your favourites whoever that may be). So yes almost all “Democratic” systems you interact with on a daily basis are inherently self-contradictory on the most cursory of examinations, but they dont have to be.
Removed by mod
I just wish those campaigning were required to provide policy ideas/plans for what they want to do, and where they want the money to come from. In an ideal world I would give the candidates 0 face time, possibly even no names to the public at first. (Would never work but would be interesting)
The options get a set of questions framed around current events, past events, and possible future events that they would give detailed responses to how they would have, would currently or would plan for those events. No party affiliations known. Eliminate contenders from the list by most accepted answers from the lists bringing it from say 50 candidates to 25, then 10, then 5, the 3 then 1. The election period is 6 months. No prior rallys, no posturing, no ads, and no names tied to the responses so no one cares about popularity.
The President is whomever wins 1st, Vice President 2nd, and 3rd place is placed on stand-by but works directly with both members to stay informed. If at any time a person makes decisions as president that the other 2 do not believe coorelate with the responses they gave to the people, they call an emergency vote to veto that directive, and recall a ranked choice vote where the population votes for all 3, where the 1st takes the presidency, 2nd VP, 3rd taking the back seat.
Would be fucking crazy, but at least itd be more fun than what we have now…
I don’t think it’s crazy in the slightest and see no reason why it “would never work”, it’s just not a conservative idea. Why did you feel the need to minimize it so?
Removed by mod
