this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
688 points (92.8% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7151 readers
1232 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can't get ranked choice voting with either establishment party, and I don't consider the only major leftist candidate to be a spoiler for 2 right parties.
Hilarious. Let me think about who I'd vote for if I was US-American. The Fascist or the at least slightly socially progressive neoliberals? It's anyone's guess really. NO. Of course the Dems, fucking obviously.
So if I was US-American and also hit in the head enough to consider voting for third party in a country with a first-past-the-post voting system, I'd not vote for the Dems as a result.
This is called the spoiler effect. This makes her a spoiler candidate, no matter her intention.
What are they actually socially progressive on though? They're still supporting ICE and police state expansion, still doing tough on immigration bullshit, still presiding over migrant concentration camps, still funding and arming Israeli genocide, still rattling the saber at China, still blockading Cuba, not doing anything to protect trans people from genocide, doing exterminationist shit to homeless people in blue cities in blue states,
I could go on but you get the point.
Putting a HRC sticker on doesn't mean you're a little bit socially progressive, it means you have a PR team.
The fact that you are not american, and apparently do not understand our political system, means that you probably shouldn't be talking about our elections. There's only around 10 states at any given time that actually decide the outcome of a presidential election, by design, and the rest of the states are pretty well locked in, most especially the majority population centers like new york, california, texas, many southern states, cascadia. It's only realistically medium density states, flooded with suburbs, that are really up for grabs in the EC, which doesn't necessarily directly correlate with who becomes president. Every state, bubbling from local city districts, to state level districts, are also gerrymandered to shit, which further decreases the power of your vote directly.
So, if you live in one of those majority population cities or states, your vote basically might as well just be going straight into the paper shredder. You might as well vote for a third party, which, given 5% of the popular vote, could qualify them for federal funding, you might as well vote for a third party to signal to the big two parties in which direction they should lean, you might as well vote for a third party so said third party can understand what their actual activist base is.
Doubly so when we have further evidence that the marketing of either party doesn't matter so much when they agree on every other issue regarding their actual political orientation. On economics, they're both neoliberals. On immigration, they're both hitting the same line because the only institutional response to the exploitation of latin america and the climate crisis has been to shore up the border militarily. On foreign policy, they are both completely aligned. On social issues, they might seem a little bit different, but I think you'll find that nobody in the democratic party really takes what is mostly used as an aesthetic ideological divergence seriously, or else they would actually be pulling any number of the levers available to substantially change things. Gay marriage might be legal at the federal level, sure, but see what kamala's record is as the DA of san francisco, and it's pretty fucking horrifying, and is obviously something that we know impacts marginalized communities to a greater degree.
Also don't hit me with the "oh she was secretly good as the DA". She was incredibly mid as the DA compared to every other "progressive" DA that san francisco has had, which is an incredibly low bar to still somehow not clear. One side will hit you with "kamala had 2,000 people locked up for marijuana charges", which is true because when you are arrested you go to jail for sometimes months or even years until trial, most especially when prisons are crowded with marijuana charges or graffiti charges, and then the opposition claps back with "well she only sent 45 people to state prison, which is less than the last guy for state prisons", despite the fact we have no information for county jails because they refuse to give us those statistics. That's on top of her deciding to prosecute parents for truancy, which I'm sure can be spun as actually being a good thing rather than a ghoulish curb-stomping of the working class which just needs to buck up and bootstrap themselves under the gentle threat of getting sent to jail, which I'm sure will help kids. I have a lot more then just that, too, and I can hit you with the citations if you actually want to read them. That's just her, also, a lot of this shit will float around about basically every other "progressive" democratic politician except for maybe bernie, AOC and other members of the squad, and maybe some midwestern politicians that happen to get a simple democratic majority.
I fucking hate this rhetoric.
Voting for a third party is not "taking a vote away" from anyone.
You're arguing with someone who would in all likelihood JUST NOT VOTE if not for an alternative option. If you want assurances that fascism doesn't get voted in, how about you direct that passion towards getting people to vote for someone, anyone, instead of staying at home? That is the only certain way of getting not-the-GOP-candidate elected time and time again. Republicans always come out to vote in about the same numbers every election. Just get more people voting, and not only do the Dem numbers go up, but the viability of a third party goes up astronomically as well.
Just VOTE. For anyone!
Hate it all you want, it's objective reality.
You can hate it all you want. It isn't rhetoric. It's basically math. Every registered vote that votes 3rd party is a wasted vote. There isn't enough support in the US for any 3rd party thanks to the First Past The Post electoral system.
Since it's so basic, then surely we can stop giving candidates the benefit of the doubt when they refuse to support its reform.
Just because the big silly in this conversation is a big silly, doesn't mean all the sillies are. There's lots of sillies who are silly enough to vote third party but not silly enough to abstain.
Neither are acceptable, both are genocidal regimes that are working towards WW3, Climate Collapse, and genocide. The only peaceful solution is voting third party, otherwise revolution is necessary. Taking the miniscule chance of a peaceful solution is morally correct, especially if we believe revolution to be necessary.
Meanwhile you “peacefully” increase the probability that the guy who destroyed women's reproductive rights gets voted in again.
I say you should help punish the Republicans for MAGA and once they try a moderate candidate again you can vote third party. But don't ignore the consequences of your actions.
Meanwhile you "peacefully" increase the probability that genocide continues, climate change continues to be ignored, and World War 3 kills us all.
What do you think fascism is? Why do you think MAGA is just a random event and not a systemic problem? Fascism is Capitalism in decline, there will be no "moderate" candidates because Capitalism is still in decline. The conditions for fascism persist, so fascism persists, and the Dems get closer to fascism.
I'm not doing anything like that, the will never be public support for a socialist candidate in the US without first changing the voting system.
I wish it wasn't like that but I'm convinced it is.
Why do you believe there will never be public support for a Socialist candidate in the US? Where do you believe people draw their ideas from? Is the US a static, unchanging system? We know this to be false, wealth disparity is rising, the climate is changing, it's anything but static!
The mainstream parties will never risk losing power intentionally, ergo there will be no change to the voting system.
Because that's how the spoiler effect works.The more support a leftist third party gets, the easier it is for the Republicans to win.
I can't tell you how to fix it, but I can tell you that an election with 10% Socialists, 40% Dems, and 50% Reps will scare people away from voting Socialists.
At least as long as MAGA is a thing and the Dems aren't seen as totally corrupt and basically the same as the Reps by the general public. And believe me: they aren't.
You didn't answer my questions. Why do you believe the US is a closed, unchanging, static system? In order for any of your analysis to make any sense, it must be immovable with no trends in metrics, in perpetuity.
Not necessarily. Ideas change alongside the ever-changing material conditions.
Evidently.
Why? Trends change over time.
It will be for as long as Capitalism exists, getting worse. Capitalism is declining, and fascism rises when Capitalism is in decay. Only Socialism will fix it, liberalism leads to more fascism. You can't prevent MAGA by voting Dem, you strengthen it.
This is increasingly proven to be true, public opinion of both parties is declining.
Drag is happy that you get to feel like you're being peaceful, but sad that you've convinced yourself the way to do so is through apathy and inaction. Drag wonders if you'd feel the same way if you understood that choosing not to do a good thing is still choosing to do a bad thing.
Drag should not assume I am saying electoralism is the end all, be all of political action. I am advocating for organizing outside the electoral system as the primary role of leftists, and refusing to give the electoral system legitimacy. Voting Dem is not a "good thing," because the Dems are unacceptable and will lead to genocide, world war 3, and failed climate action.
Drag is confused. How does voting legimitise the electoral system? Drag mostly does direct action, but drag also votes.
If voting for Democrats is seen as activism, then activism is oriented around voting for Democrats. Voting third party signals disapproval for the system in general and tells the public what views those in disapproval have.
If Drag wants to do direct action, and believes it to be the path to systemic change, then voting for Democrats is counter-intuitive.
Drag doesn't get it. None of that sounds like practical, material effects. It just sounds like symbolic gestures. Drag wants to know if there's any physical reasons not to vote, or just symbolic ones. Also drag is not a capitalised pronouns user, but drag is glad you're willing to respect people with capitalised pronouns.
How is delegitimizing the electoral system by voting for leftist third parties not practical? If leftists continue to prop up right wing parties committing genocide, failing to address climate change adequately, and working towards World War 3, then that will be the status quo that is maintained. To get off of this train, leftists need to organize outside the bounds of electoralism, build up dual power, and signal strength with third party voting.
The physical reason not to prop up the democrats is that the democrats are leading the US to the end of the world, just like the republicans, and legitimizing their rule makes leftist organizing more difficult.
That's a circular argument. Drag asked you how voting props up the electoral system. You said "well how does propping up the electoral system help?" Drag agrees that propping up the electoral system is bad, but drag has not been told a reason that voting is that, except that it's supposed to be a symbolic loss. Drag doesn't care about symbolic losses, drag cares about stopping Trump from bombing the West Bank. Drag cares about Palestinian lives much more than symbolic complicity. Drag still wants to hear a practical reason why voting helps electoralism.
I never said voting props up the electoral system, I said voting for Democrats or Republicans props it up. Drag is arguing against ghosts.
Drag still wants an answer to the question you think drag should have asked. Drag doesn't think that detail is worth delaying the actual conversation for.
I already answered it.
Your answer was that it's a bad symbol. If drag thinks the only reason not to vote Democrat is because it's a symbolic admission of defeat, is drag understanding your argument as you wish it to be understood?
Explodicle wonders if talking like this is going to catch on.
You're not talking the same as drag. Drag is using drag's first person pronoun, you're just saying your name.
Is explo talking the same now?
Drag doesn't know. Is explo explodicle's person independent neopronoun? If so, drag will refer to explo by these neopronouns from now on. Drag is happy that explo has decided to experiment with a new gender presentation.
So I don't have a hat in this race because I can not vote. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how a government is formed in the United States. The odds of stopping a Democrat or Republican from not winning the 2024 presidential election are futile. If I could vote, but I can't, if I voted third party I would be putting my effort into what I know is a futile effort. That seems morally the same as ignoring it because I know the results would be identical. The only moral option I would then have is to choose the least bad option. The most moral option would be off the table for me.
Actually the president used to be less important than they seemed. The United States Supreme Court decision that president's are practically kings changes a lot. ~~The other side of this is that the president doesn't really matter. The president really only executes the will of Congress.~~ It seems to me that if you really wanted to do the moral thing, it would be changing the roots of the problem. Not a single branch. It's the hearts and minds of grass roots organizationa you want to change long before anyone walks up to a polling booth.
Just saying, as someone who can't vote.
First off, I understand how the electoral system works. The odds are incredibly slim that a third party will win. I disagree that a Democrat victory is acceptable, because the Democrats will only push for more genocide, failed climate action, and world war 3. It isn't a matter of being "better or worse," both result in the doom of humanity. Either we push to end that electorally, or via revolution.
Organizing is also good, Claudia De La Crúz represents PSL, a party that does that more than try to win the presidency. They serve to highlight the sham of the election and gain recognition.
I wish I could tell you more because my area did that, we've done what we both agree is what needs to happen. We elected a third party candidate as our representative. Not as our president, that's insane lol. Also I don't know how what we did would apply to the United States other than just saying grass roots organizing. Saying even that much reveals more about me than I'm comfortable with online.
Democrats have instituted ranked choice voting in some states.
Republicans have also made moves on ranked choice voting. They banned it in Florida.
It's a carrot that will never be implemented in any meaningful capacity, it's kabuki theatre. Even if it got implemented nationally, the moment it risked changing the status quo it would either be defanged or gone entirely.
There is no implemented nationally. States run their own voting systems. You do this state by state or you don't.
Exactly, hence why it doesn't stand a chance of impacting anything.
Then there's no point in voting for the Socialist party, either.
There is, though minor.
It delegitimizes the Electoral system.
It signals strength in Communist Parties, serving as an advertisement.
In the microscopic chance it succeeds, revolution may not be fully necessary.