I am a libertarian minarchist. Look it up before you form ideas.
I don’t like Harris but I’d much rather have her over Trump. And that’s how I’ll vote.
I strongly recommend everyone should research your local elections and vote for candidates that best represent your views and mindsets on a local level. The FPtP system makes third parties mostly unviable in influencing national policy.
I too will vote Harris, but I think it’s important to understand that voting out of fear is not going to fix our extremely broken two party system. Voting third party is not a vote for Trump, I think it’s often a vote born of a broken two party system.
Despite knowing that I can’t bring myself to vote third party out of fear that I may not get another chance to vote if Trump takes power.
That is the system though. Democracy isn’t really about getting what you want. That’s impossible under any system other than a dictatorship where you are the dictator. Parasocial psychology has lead a lot of people thinking that Trump getting what he wants is what they want. But that won’t work out well for anyone.
Democracy is really about removing the worst people from power and preventing them from getting power in the first place. Over many years in something akin to natural selection you can have progress. But like evolution, it goes slowly.
Voting third party isn’t a brave choice, it’s just a fantasy. Even in a proportional representation system, it’s still a fantasy, just you’d see maybe a few powerless people sitting in a legislature complaining on C-Span (which nobody will watch) instead of on social media.
Politics is about power and compromise. Vote for a representative that has a reasonable chance of winning, and write to them to encourage them to compromise closer to your position on things. That’s actually effective, people that go on about a fantasy world where they just tick a box and whatever they want will happen are just being silly.
Voting is the feedback part of the system. If people aren’t voting honestly, politicians will take the wrong feedback. For example, democrats thinking they should move to the center to reach more republicans, rather than moving the the left to reach more third party voters.
The feedback part of the system is actually writing (or calling, or participating in public forums) to your representative. Voting is about choosing a representative that will most likely consider your point of view.
To the left of the Democrats are unreliable voters and everyone knows that. They might vote Democrat, or third party, or be “uncommitted” depending on whatever meme they last saw on social media. The Democrats know that which is why they aren’t putting a lot of effort to get those votes because it likely won’t bear any fruit. The GOP knows that too, which is why they fund people like Jill Stein.
Obviously the Democrats are going to shift right to try to entice reliable voters to vote for them. People that are a little more mature and are not living in a fantasy world where voting third party or being uncommitted are going to have any kind of positive outcome. People that understand the system well enough to know that you’re supposed to vote for someone that could feasibly win, and then write about their concerns to their representative rather than spending all day whining on social media about the system not being what they want it to be.
I disagree, the feedback comes after their actions, not before.
As for why the democrats aren’t pursuing third party voters, is because to do so would run afoul of AIPAC, and they can get politicians removed from office. Thats something your average voter cannot do. Democrats are hoping to ignore the issue as best they can until after the election, a real lose-lose.
You are right they are moving right to get voters but not based on maturity or likelihood to vote. They are simply moving right because thats where the numbers are, which is why I argue that the bigger the third parties are the more of a counter balance that is until it tips into a three party system.
If you can get past antisemitic conspiracy theories about AIPAC you’ll find out it’s a group of Jewish American citizens and they have exactly as much right to representation as you do. There are a lot of people in the pro-Palestinian movement that are in this “uncommitted” movement which is an attempt to threaten politicians with removal from office if they don’t change foreign policy to help their side in a foreign conflict. How is what the pro-Palestinian movement is trying to do any different from what AIPAC does? The only difference is AIPAC is significantly more competent at doing what the pro-Palestinian movement is trying to do. Also the pro-Palestinian movement has an antisemitism problem that they’re in denial of which means they’re doing nothing to address. So it’s obvious to any politician which of these groups they’ll be happy to associate with and which group they’ll generally avoid. The pro-Palestinian movement has to fix their problems to be able to have any kind of influence.
Third parties are simply not viable in the current system. There is a proposal to have ranked choice voting at least for congress, but it’s currently lacking the votes needed to pass. That would make third parties at least possible in congress. I’ll give you one guess about which party has proposed it.
I’ve written to many of my state and federal legislators over the span of 20+ years. it’s not effective. We need campaign finance before, we need to overturn citizens United, and we need to change our two party system.
I understand your perspective but I disagree on some points.
“Even in a proportional representation system”
In a proportional system votes for other candidates aren’t lost tho, which means it doesn’t force a two party system by design.
I don’t think it is stated enough how horribly weak the current US one seat FPTP system is.
Proportional representation grants all power to political parties and eliminates the representative nature that a community representation (what you call FPTP) system offers. And the votes of the parties that aren’t in the ruling coalition are lost and therefore the votes of anyone that voted for those parties are also lost.
You dont even get a representative by 2., 3. and 4. candidate votes in the 1 seat districts. Your vote is actually worth zero if it doesn’t win. My 7th party vote goes towards a party representative that can voice my cause. My vote is not lost at all.
You always have a representative in a community representation system. It may not be the person you voted for, but there is someone that’s supposed to represent your community. If they don’t do a good job of that then they get voted out in the next election. Parties don’t want to lose seats so they’re incentivized to pick people that are capable of representing community interests. This is why you get oddities where people like Josh Hawley speaking loudly against programs like FEMA, but also accepting FEMA money when his district needs it. Push comes to shove, they have to represent their communities.
Also because the seat belongs to the person (not the party as in a PR system) a party could lose a seat even between elections if they fail to serve the interests of a community. So if a party is doing something that’s really bad for your community, then you may not even wait until the next election for them to lose a seat.
In a PR system, you vote for a party that isn’t part of the ruling coalition, you have no representation at all. Because it’s not a good representative system. The power lies solely in the parties forming the ruling coalition, If you can get 50% + 1 votes for your party by screwing over minorities your party rules the country. PR systems have more of a tendency towards radical right wing politics because there’s less need to represent minority interests. In a Community Representation system if even five members of a party are in close districts in communities with a significant number of minorities that might be the deciding factor that can change party policy.
And this isn’t really theoretical either. The EU is PR and has countries leaving because they don’t feel represented and they’ve taking a turn towards the extreme right. Israel has a PR system and it’s current ruling coalition is made up of a right wing party that has to make concessions to extreme right parties to stay in power. Before claiming PR is better than a community representation system then I suggest closing the spreadsheet for a few minutes and look at the real world track record of PR systems. I’ve had conversations with people in Europe that are a little jealous of us for having community representation.
Of course any democratic system will fail without participation of the people. So make sure you go and vote.
It may not be the person you voted for, but there is someone that’s supposed to represent your community.
That’s a weird take on politics. “Hitler comes from my place so he represents me.”
As a non-EU European I vote on country politics at the national elections, and local politics at the county elections. That way I have local representation in local matters, and national representation at national matters.
The current right wing surge in Europe is mostly because people don’t like the amount of Muslim immigrants and most countries have only far right parties that rides on that matter. Plus Russian influence I assume.
You do not get a good political landscape with one seat districts that can even be gerrymandered. Every fucking US state house is divided in DEM and REP, that’s not healthy.
It literally exactly is a vote for trump. We have shown you morons the math a million times by now, you’re just being willfully resistant to acknowledging what you’re doing to endanger the republic.
Is that based on the assumption third party voters would vote democrat otherwise? If I would either not vote or vote third party, how does my vote help trump?
Maybe the democrats shouldnt count votes they don’t have?
When the options are democracy or dictatorship and you choose not to vote… it’s kinda gross. I get that you got a failure of a system over there, but the fight to update your democracy should be done after you choose to have one.
It depends where you live. In my very local area my vote counts, and so it goes to democrats. If you are in a republican state, I can’t think of anything better than Democrats coming in third place there. If the democrats had a bigger third party to worry about they’d start having to move left or at least stop moving right to win voters.
The math has been explained to you endlessly. You can’t escape voting for either Harris or Trump because you want to pretend you’re above it all and superior to us who have to live with the consequences of supposed good people like you standing there and doing nothing.
I again think you need to settle down. I am not voting third party because I like you apparently will just view out of fear.
That said, The math had not been explained to me so show it to me. post it for anyone who agrees with me. Show me the math.
Next you’ve decided that I have some feeling of superiority. I don’t. I simply think the two party system has failed us and needs to change. People in power have a stake in keeping a two party system for their own benefit, and it infuriates me.
No, I think their tone is completely warranted. Frankly I, too, am sick and fucking tired of seeing this shit plastered all over this website. You are a scourge.
It’s not even math. You need 270 electoral votes to win. They are not on enough state ballots to do that. It is literally not possible for them to win.
They disappear, and then every four years they emerge from whatever hole they were rotting in, to siphon votes from Democratic party candidates. It really is that simple.
Political parties don’t become successful by disappearing, and showing up for a few months every four years. That’s not how it works. Just put some critical thought into it.
You have every right to be sick and tired of this but it doesn’t make you right. Currently they have a zero chance to win but there are rules set in place by the Dems and Reps that prevent them from competing. If a third party candidate can poll at 15 percent for instance they’ve surpassed that barrier to entry into a national debate. There are other hurdles too but constantly voting out of fear makes this impossible.
In addition saying they emerge as if their only goal is to circumvent the election isn’t true at all. You can see a list of non affiliated candidates working for people all year at the link below.
Agreed. I’ve voted in every election I’ve been able to for 20 years, and I try to have reasonable conversations about things like this with people on the other side of the aisle. It becomes a bit demoralizing and I’m a bit disillusioned.
Honestly I think fears of a dictatorial takeover are way overblown. Not that I think he doesn’t want to, I just think he can’t, and even if he did I think it’d be 5min before he was shot by someone close to him (probably one of his own “security” team tbh.) And if that fails then a $100 price on his head and a greenlight is all we really need to get the job done by a private citizen, hell increase the reward and some of his own supporters will join in, they have no scruples.
I’m not saying we should vote for him, I’m just saying I don’t think we have to worry as much as some people think we do.
I underestimated Trump in 2016 because I figured it couldn’t be worse than the US under Dubya.
It’s not so much that the guy is a cunning strategist who will shrewdly consolidate power until no one is able to stop the purges and death squads.
Moreso it’s that he is just a magnet for disaster and bullshit, and being in power makes it easier for those under him to do whatever they want. His very existence enables that “mask off” behavior we see from other far-right politicians and personalities, and it’s those sorts of people who are empowered by Trump that we should be worried about if he wins again.
…i’m a progressive libertarian: the terms used represent something entirely different from the perversion of twenty-first-century political branding…
…i’ve begrudgingly voted democratic in the past two election cycles only because i draw a hard line at open fascism; i’ll never forgive the republican party for forcing my hand and look forward to a future after they’ve imploded and i can resume voting for causes i support rather than the enemy of my enemy…
I am a libertarian minarchist. Look it up before you form ideas.
I don’t like Harris but I’d much rather have her over Trump. And that’s how I’ll vote.
I strongly recommend everyone should research your local elections and vote for candidates that best represent your views and mindsets on a local level. The FPtP system makes third parties mostly unviable in influencing national policy.
I too will vote Harris, but I think it’s important to understand that voting out of fear is not going to fix our extremely broken two party system. Voting third party is not a vote for Trump, I think it’s often a vote born of a broken two party system.
Despite knowing that I can’t bring myself to vote third party out of fear that I may not get another chance to vote if Trump takes power.
That is the system though. Democracy isn’t really about getting what you want. That’s impossible under any system other than a dictatorship where you are the dictator. Parasocial psychology has lead a lot of people thinking that Trump getting what he wants is what they want. But that won’t work out well for anyone.
Democracy is really about removing the worst people from power and preventing them from getting power in the first place. Over many years in something akin to natural selection you can have progress. But like evolution, it goes slowly.
Voting third party isn’t a brave choice, it’s just a fantasy. Even in a proportional representation system, it’s still a fantasy, just you’d see maybe a few powerless people sitting in a legislature complaining on C-Span (which nobody will watch) instead of on social media.
Politics is about power and compromise. Vote for a representative that has a reasonable chance of winning, and write to them to encourage them to compromise closer to your position on things. That’s actually effective, people that go on about a fantasy world where they just tick a box and whatever they want will happen are just being silly.
Voting is the feedback part of the system. If people aren’t voting honestly, politicians will take the wrong feedback. For example, democrats thinking they should move to the center to reach more republicans, rather than moving the the left to reach more third party voters.
The feedback part of the system is actually writing (or calling, or participating in public forums) to your representative. Voting is about choosing a representative that will most likely consider your point of view.
To the left of the Democrats are unreliable voters and everyone knows that. They might vote Democrat, or third party, or be “uncommitted” depending on whatever meme they last saw on social media. The Democrats know that which is why they aren’t putting a lot of effort to get those votes because it likely won’t bear any fruit. The GOP knows that too, which is why they fund people like Jill Stein.
Obviously the Democrats are going to shift right to try to entice reliable voters to vote for them. People that are a little more mature and are not living in a fantasy world where voting third party or being uncommitted are going to have any kind of positive outcome. People that understand the system well enough to know that you’re supposed to vote for someone that could feasibly win, and then write about their concerns to their representative rather than spending all day whining on social media about the system not being what they want it to be.
I disagree, the feedback comes after their actions, not before.
As for why the democrats aren’t pursuing third party voters, is because to do so would run afoul of AIPAC, and they can get politicians removed from office. Thats something your average voter cannot do. Democrats are hoping to ignore the issue as best they can until after the election, a real lose-lose.
You are right they are moving right to get voters but not based on maturity or likelihood to vote. They are simply moving right because thats where the numbers are, which is why I argue that the bigger the third parties are the more of a counter balance that is until it tips into a three party system.
If you can get past antisemitic conspiracy theories about AIPAC you’ll find out it’s a group of Jewish American citizens and they have exactly as much right to representation as you do. There are a lot of people in the pro-Palestinian movement that are in this “uncommitted” movement which is an attempt to threaten politicians with removal from office if they don’t change foreign policy to help their side in a foreign conflict. How is what the pro-Palestinian movement is trying to do any different from what AIPAC does? The only difference is AIPAC is significantly more competent at doing what the pro-Palestinian movement is trying to do. Also the pro-Palestinian movement has an antisemitism problem that they’re in denial of which means they’re doing nothing to address. So it’s obvious to any politician which of these groups they’ll be happy to associate with and which group they’ll generally avoid. The pro-Palestinian movement has to fix their problems to be able to have any kind of influence.
Third parties are simply not viable in the current system. There is a proposal to have ranked choice voting at least for congress, but it’s currently lacking the votes needed to pass. That would make third parties at least possible in congress. I’ll give you one guess about which party has proposed it.
Its shocking how little you understand what is happening in Israel and Palestine, but I’m tired today so have a nice day.
I’ve written to many of my state and federal legislators over the span of 20+ years. it’s not effective. We need campaign finance before, we need to overturn citizens United, and we need to change our two party system.
I understand your perspective but I disagree on some points.
“Even in a proportional representation system”
In a proportional system votes for other candidates aren’t lost tho, which means it doesn’t force a two party system by design.
I don’t think it is stated enough how horribly weak the current US one seat FPTP system is.
Proportional representation grants all power to political parties and eliminates the representative nature that a community representation (what you call FPTP) system offers. And the votes of the parties that aren’t in the ruling coalition are lost and therefore the votes of anyone that voted for those parties are also lost.
You dont even get a representative by 2., 3. and 4. candidate votes in the 1 seat districts. Your vote is actually worth zero if it doesn’t win. My 7th party vote goes towards a party representative that can voice my cause. My vote is not lost at all.
You always have a representative in a community representation system. It may not be the person you voted for, but there is someone that’s supposed to represent your community. If they don’t do a good job of that then they get voted out in the next election. Parties don’t want to lose seats so they’re incentivized to pick people that are capable of representing community interests. This is why you get oddities where people like Josh Hawley speaking loudly against programs like FEMA, but also accepting FEMA money when his district needs it. Push comes to shove, they have to represent their communities.
Also because the seat belongs to the person (not the party as in a PR system) a party could lose a seat even between elections if they fail to serve the interests of a community. So if a party is doing something that’s really bad for your community, then you may not even wait until the next election for them to lose a seat.
In a PR system, you vote for a party that isn’t part of the ruling coalition, you have no representation at all. Because it’s not a good representative system. The power lies solely in the parties forming the ruling coalition, If you can get 50% + 1 votes for your party by screwing over minorities your party rules the country. PR systems have more of a tendency towards radical right wing politics because there’s less need to represent minority interests. In a Community Representation system if even five members of a party are in close districts in communities with a significant number of minorities that might be the deciding factor that can change party policy.
And this isn’t really theoretical either. The EU is PR and has countries leaving because they don’t feel represented and they’ve taking a turn towards the extreme right. Israel has a PR system and it’s current ruling coalition is made up of a right wing party that has to make concessions to extreme right parties to stay in power. Before claiming PR is better than a community representation system then I suggest closing the spreadsheet for a few minutes and look at the real world track record of PR systems. I’ve had conversations with people in Europe that are a little jealous of us for having community representation.
Of course any democratic system will fail without participation of the people. So make sure you go and vote.
That’s a weird take on politics. “Hitler comes from my place so he represents me.”
As a non-EU European I vote on country politics at the national elections, and local politics at the county elections. That way I have local representation in local matters, and national representation at national matters.
The current right wing surge in Europe is mostly because people don’t like the amount of Muslim immigrants and most countries have only far right parties that rides on that matter. Plus Russian influence I assume.
You do not get a good political landscape with one seat districts that can even be gerrymandered. Every fucking US state house is divided in DEM and REP, that’s not healthy.
It literally exactly is a vote for trump. We have shown you morons the math a million times by now, you’re just being willfully resistant to acknowledging what you’re doing to endanger the republic.
Is that based on the assumption third party voters would vote democrat otherwise? If I would either not vote or vote third party, how does my vote help trump?
Maybe the democrats shouldnt count votes they don’t have?
Because under FPTP no vote or a third party vote is identical to a vote for the opposing candidate.
Maybe you should stop trying to justify being a fucking traitor.
So just saying that out loud makes it true, got it. You’ve convinced me I’m wrong.
When the options are democracy or dictatorship and you choose not to vote… it’s kinda gross. I get that you got a failure of a system over there, but the fight to update your democracy should be done after you choose to have one.
It depends where you live. In my very local area my vote counts, and so it goes to democrats. If you are in a republican state, I can’t think of anything better than Democrats coming in third place there. If the democrats had a bigger third party to worry about they’d start having to move left or at least stop moving right to win voters.
That 3. party better be Election Reform.
Settle down and re-read what I wrote. I’m not voting for Trump. I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to say a third party is crucial for our Republic.
The math has been explained to you endlessly. You can’t escape voting for either Harris or Trump because you want to pretend you’re above it all and superior to us who have to live with the consequences of supposed good people like you standing there and doing nothing.
I again think you need to settle down. I am not voting third party because I like you apparently will just view out of fear.
That said, The math had not been explained to me so show it to me. post it for anyone who agrees with me. Show me the math.
Next you’ve decided that I have some feeling of superiority. I don’t. I simply think the two party system has failed us and needs to change. People in power have a stake in keeping a two party system for their own benefit, and it infuriates me.
No, I think their tone is completely warranted. Frankly I, too, am sick and fucking tired of seeing this shit plastered all over this website. You are a scourge.
It’s not even math. You need 270 electoral votes to win. They are not on enough state ballots to do that. It is literally not possible for them to win.
They disappear, and then every four years they emerge from whatever hole they were rotting in, to siphon votes from Democratic party candidates. It really is that simple.
Political parties don’t become successful by disappearing, and showing up for a few months every four years. That’s not how it works. Just put some critical thought into it.
You have every right to be sick and tired of this but it doesn’t make you right. Currently they have a zero chance to win but there are rules set in place by the Dems and Reps that prevent them from competing. If a third party candidate can poll at 15 percent for instance they’ve surpassed that barrier to entry into a national debate. There are other hurdles too but constantly voting out of fear makes this impossible.
https://www.debates.org/about-cpd/overview/
In addition saying they emerge as if their only goal is to circumvent the election isn’t true at all. You can see a list of non affiliated candidates working for people all year at the link below.
https://ballotpedia.org/Current_independent_and_minor_party_federal_and_state_officeholders
The only way things change is if more people are informed and active. Do what you can to help implement ranked choice voting.
The state of Florida outlawed rank choice voting
Which is the exactly why you should be working to overturn such an undemocratic law.
Agreed. I’ve voted in every election I’ve been able to for 20 years, and I try to have reasonable conversations about things like this with people on the other side of the aisle. It becomes a bit demoralizing and I’m a bit disillusioned.
Last map I saw like half of the states have banned it.
Makes sense. There two party system is vehicular to the existing two parties. Why give a third option.
Honestly I think fears of a dictatorial takeover are way overblown. Not that I think he doesn’t want to, I just think he can’t, and even if he did I think it’d be 5min before he was shot by someone close to him (probably one of his own “security” team tbh.) And if that fails then a $100 price on his head and a greenlight is all we really need to get the job done by a private citizen, hell increase the reward and some of his own supporters will join in, they have no scruples.
I’m not saying we should vote for him, I’m just saying I don’t think we have to worry as much as some people think we do.
I underestimated Trump in 2016 because I figured it couldn’t be worse than the US under Dubya.
It’s not so much that the guy is a cunning strategist who will shrewdly consolidate power until no one is able to stop the purges and death squads.
Moreso it’s that he is just a magnet for disaster and bullshit, and being in power makes it easier for those under him to do whatever they want. His very existence enables that “mask off” behavior we see from other far-right politicians and personalities, and it’s those sorts of people who are empowered by Trump that we should be worried about if he wins again.
Sure like I said I’m not saying he’s great, I’m speaking specifically on the oft repeated line “it’ll be the end of democracy.”
Basically: I doubt that.
…i’m a progressive libertarian: the terms used represent something entirely different from the perversion of twenty-first-century political branding…
…i’ve begrudgingly voted democratic in the past two election cycles only because i draw a hard line at open fascism; i’ll never forgive the republican party for forcing my hand and look forward to a future after they’ve imploded and i can resume voting for causes i support rather than the enemy of my enemy…
Much respect.