Don’t Fall for the Third-Party Trick
Don’t Fall for the Third-Party Trick
A progressive who stays home on Election Day — or backs Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West, or No Labels — is voting for Donald Trump.
"Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst Thälmann made in 1932. The leader of the German Communist Party, Thälmann saw mainstream liberals as his enemies, and so the center and left never joined forces against the Nazis. Thälmann famously said that 'some Nazi trees must not be allowed to overshadow a forest' of social democrats, whom he sneeringly called 'social fascists.'
After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, Thälmann was arrested. He was shot on Hitler’s orders in Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944."
Plus we keep using this outdated first-past-the-post voting system in the 21st century.
Yup. We need ranked choice/instant runoff voting first.
Approval Voting is even better.
We need the presidency first. We need a majority in both houses first. We need a supermajority in the senate first. We need a 2/3 majority in the senate first. We need to completely overhaul the voting system first.
There's always something we need to do first. It's right there on the timetable. Timetable subject to change. Offer void in red states.
What's your plan to change the system?
Different user, but still have an idea.
Take over the DNC with actual leftists that will implement better voting systems, starting at the lower levels with grassroots campaigns, and slowly work our way up.
We desperately need more real third-party participation in politics, but voting for third parties in presidential elections doesn’t make that happen—the US voting system isn’t a business that adapts its products to meet consumer demand.
Yup. We need ranked choice balloting first.
That... is the exact opposite of what the article is arguing. If one side of the political spectrum (inevitably right-wing) unites, they immediately run over the side that is split up into different fragments that are arguing over just how much of a school lunch should be subsidized by the government.
And we have seen this in the modern day as well. A couple months back basically the entire Left/Center-Left of France had to unite to try and prevent fascists from taking power and... it is unclear if they actually succeeded.
Its fun to parrot the exact same text every single time a topic comes up. But shit like this is a lot more important than meming about Subway and it is well worth understanding what efforts do and don't address and think through those problems. Otherwise we just leave ourselves more and more vulnerable to hate.
voting for third parties in presidential elections doesn’t make that happen
In a winner-take-all system, the marginal votes on the winning and losing side don't matter. Third parties are an extrapolation of this principle. But when you're voting in a state that is 60/40 for a given party, any individual vote for a given party is equally meaningful.
The only real benefit to valuing a Big Two party over a Third Party is if you're in a swing state, where the odds of your vote being the tipping point are reasonably high. And even then, the powers invested in the partisan state secretary and county election's commissioner offices render that decision relatively meaningless.
People losing their shit at Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan in 2000 seem to have completely overlooked the impact of the mass voter disenfranchisement under Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, the Butterfly Ballot design that confused voters into voting Buchanan over Gore, as well as the transformative impact of the Brooks Brother's Riot and the subsequent SCOTUS decision to halt the vote count in Dem leaning districts.
At some level, Americans must stop treating their elections process as free and fair, and then deflecting blame of defeat onto anyone who doesn't vote for your favorite candidate.
Tbf, it very much appears similar to battered partner syndrome. It's going to be painful either way, but if I stay blah blah blah.
Don't feed up on the propaganda all it takes is a bunch of celebrities endorsing third parties and then they become popular enough to make a change. The moment the red and blue start to lose votes and their grip on power they have to go in damage control mode and change their politics to please people and get votes back.
The liberals fucking won that election and it was the liberal Hindenburg appointing Hitler to the Chancellorship that facilitated his rise to power, not anything the KPD did. This is disgusting historical revisionism that a search engine could dispel in 5 seconds, but you choose to warp history to make it look like Hitler actually won the election and make the liberals who enabled him seem blameless. It is, in effect, apologia for Nazi collaborators. Exactly appropriate for someone shilling for Dems while they gleefully subsidize genocide.
there sure seems to be a lot of Nazi apologia coming out of .world recently. wonder why that is 🤔
I've seen a lot more come out of lemmy.ml.
Especially the Russian and Chinese kind, they apologise for all kinds of atrocities those fascist states make. Even apologise illegal invasions of sovereign nations.
Gleefully?
No you're right they're super sad about funding the genocide
I feel like we need something like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that is aiming to eliminate the electoral college, but for Ranked Choice.
Passing this federally is too hard. We need do to this state by state.
Until I can vote for a third party with RCV, then I might as well be saying that I have zero preference about the GOP and DNC options on the table.
Alaska does it (assuming they won't repeal it in nov). Oregon is going to try and do it, if it hopefully passes. If we get two states proving it works and isn't a problem, that momentum can snowball.
Please help support the RCV effort in Oregon if you can. https://www.oregonrcv.org/
I heard this a couple of days ago, and the more I'm looking into it, the more I find the green party a joke at best.
Alaska has a number of things. A population of conservationists amoung the general population who are likely disaffected. An environment that is being exploited harder than most states. Now ranked choice voting. Most people would see them as the environmentalist party. How much good could they do towards that cause if they got into that state legislature? What if they could take the congress seat or a senator? If they took the electoral votes it would be harder since the ranked choice only seems to be for the states choice, but they could prove they could win at some level. How many candidates are they running in Alaska? One, jill stein. How much effort are they putting in there for her? I can't tell. The main criticism of them does not exist there, but they aren't even trying. They can accomplish many of there goals there more easily than anywhere else. It's the perfect storm for them. Pathetic.
Rightwing Dems that get to the primary off corporate donors in the primary will never let RCC take over
The only reason they win in generals is the only other option is Republicans.
To fix anything on the federal level we need the Dem party onboard and all on the same page, then heavy majorities, then fix the system
I’d argue that you don’t need it in every state. You just need it in enough states to make a 3rd party candidate viable.
Look up the Moral Majority. They wrested control of the GOP from Nelson Rockefeller et al by showing up at every local Republican function with enough votes to make sure they got heard. They started out putting their sheriffs and county clerks on the ballots.
Dems are not letting that happen.
Problem is that RCV will only have a chance in deep blue states, and all it would accomplish is reducing the blue representation in congress.
To put it bluntly, all it would accomplish is more in fighting and contributing to the reputation that Dems are ineffective. Except, it would be the "blue aligned coalition" instead of "Dems"
The only real path to making this change is to give Dems a super majority so they can amend the constitution.
And, well, the minority of Red voters have a majority of power thanks to the electoral college, so a super majority is absolutely impossible for the foreseeable future.
Edit - it'd also cause disruptions in States that don't adopt RCV, as "progressives" protest vote 3rd party and sandbag the Dems
Blaming progressives for not aligning with centrists instead of blaming centrists for siding with Nazis to lock out progressives is a weird take.
That's historical revisionism. They would have easily created a coalition government to oppose Hitler, but without the support of the communist party, the conservative block ultimately held onto control, and Hitler was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg.
You're disingenuously conflating the conservatives that ceded power to the Nazi party (that had only taken about 30% of the vote) with the center left that reached out to the communists in an attempt to stop them. A decision by the head of the communist party that directly led to the murder of millions of people, including himself.
We are talking about a parliamentary system. The communists could have formed a coalition government that had a majority, but they refused. Without their support, no party won a majority or were able to form a majority coalition government, and the Nazis were able to take control from the conservatives in power (or more accurately, they gave it to them freely).
I'm not a historian, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.
No, at no point did the Centre try to form a coalition with the KPD, but were turned down. In the Weimar system, it is the Chancellor that is in charge of forming coalitions, so even if the KPD, SPD, and Centre had enough seats to form a majority (which they didn't), they couldn't just form a coalition. This is why Franz Von Papen was appointed by Hindenburg, since he was expected to be able to convince the Centre party and Nazis to form a coalition with the conservatives and monarchists. And why when that failed and there was a failure to form a ruling coalition that Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor to create a Nazi lead coalition.
Hitler didn't win because he beat Hindenburg after Thälmann split the vote. He lost to Hindenburg, the center-right candidate endorsed by the social democrats, then won anyway because Hindenburg appointed him Chancellor.
The social democrats were the ones who refused to back Thälmann, the only anti-Hitler candidate in the race. And the same way that the communists called them "social fascists," the social democrats used similar rhetoric, frequently saying that the communists were no different from the Nazis, that there was no difference between the far left and the far right.
But also, we don't have to keep rehashing 100 year old grudges from another continent.
That was going back much further. The Communists had tried to overthrow the Weimar Republic in the Hamburg Uprising a decade earlier. So the social democrats, who were a key supporter and really the creators of the Republic, saw them as an enemy. Thälmann was especially outspoken against the social democrats. Hence they saw supporting Thälmann as supporting an enemy of the Weimar Republic.
However Jill Stein and co policies are mostly about as radical as the German social democrats back then. All of it could be done by reforming the US political system. At least near term.Also the German communists were much better organized then the US left. They were sitting in most parliaments of German states and cities. The US Green Party has no officeholders on a federal or even state level right now. Of the 8 state level officeholders they did have only 3 have run on a Green Party ticket, the rest was elected Democrat and switched to the Greens. That has to be changed first, before running for president. Seriously if you can not take state seats, then you can not win the presidency.
The background for the KDP's uprisings is WWI. The war was incredibly destructive and pointless for every country in Europe. Before the war, the Second International (of which the SDP was a founding member) put out a manifesto with unanimous support that said:
In case war should break out anyway it is their duty to intervene in favor of its speedy termination and with all their powers to utilize the economic and political crisis created by the war to arouse the people and thereby to hasten the downfall of capitalist class rule.
However, once the war actually started, the SDP (along with many other social democratic parties in Europe) suddenly found all sorts of reasons to rally around the flag and support it unconditionally. The British socialists would point to problems in Germany under the Kaiser, the German socialists would point to problems with Russia under the Tsar, and each side would talk about how it's not that they support the war, it's just that they don't want to lose. And so there was a failure across Europe (except in Russia, of course) to create domestic pressure to put an end to the war, and result was that it raged on until it had claimed 20 million lives.
It was only at the end of the war, when it was clear that Germany was going to lose regardless, that a revolution occurred, initially supported by both the SDP and the communists, which is what brought an end to the German Empire. During that uprising, the SDP and communists split over the direction of the country, and the SDP won and sent in the Freikorps to exterminate communist leadership. So when you talk about Thälmann trying to overthrow the government, I think it's important to put that in the context that the government in question had come to power only 4 years prior by overthrowing the government - and that government would go on to last only 15 years in total before the Nazis were able to seize power through it. All of which is to say, it was a chaotic period, and there were reasons for the KDP to resent the SPD as well.
The tendency to force history into boxes defined by modern day politics loses a lot of that nuance. In contemporary American politics, there is no Second International. There is no Great War. There is no Sparticist Uprising. It's bad enough when contemporary politics outside of the US are forced into the boxes defined by American politics, we don't need to extend that throughout history.
The Nazis had also tried to overthrow the government once by that point, so making a coalition that included the Nazis is no less backing "an enemy of the Weimar Republic". The difference is, of course, that one is an enemy to capitalism and the other is an enemy of communism. It's no wonder that liberals would choose the latter.
There's a lot you can say about how broken US electoralism is, but using this as an example is just not accurate.
-
Hitler wasn't elected by people, he lost to Hindenburg in 1932 and was appointed Chancellor later.
-
The Nazis who appointed him Chancellor had the majority, meaning more than every other party combined. Meaning third parties didn't syphon the Hitler vote
-
Hindenburg didn't want to appoint him, but meetings with industrialists made him change his mind
-
Hindenburg then gave Hitler more powers after the Heischtag fire.
If anything, it's an example of what happens when you reach over the aisle and compromise with nazis.
Number 2 is wrong. The nazis never had a majority, only a plurality. If the other parties, the social democrats, the communist party, and the Centre party had banded together instead of fighting amongst themselves, he wouldn't have been made Chancellor.
No, that still incorrect. First, KPD, SPD and Centre did not have an outright majority together. Second, it is the Chancellor that is in charge of forming coalitions, they can't just form a coalition if they had an outright majority anyway in the Weimar system and at no point did Centre try to form a coalition and was turned down by the KPD. The entire point of Hindenburg appointing Franz Von Papen was that he thought that he could convince both the Nazis and Centre to form a coalition with the conservative and monarchist parties. And the reason later to appoint Hitler as chancellor was to form a Nazi led coalition.
The real lesson, I think, is that fascists take power when the mechanisms of liberal democracy crumble away.
I have great reason for concern on this in modern times, even if the details are different.
The only part that is wrong is that Nazis did not have an overall majority, it was because of Hindenburg, monarchists, conservatives, and right-wing liberals deciding to side with the Nazis.
-
I’m not voting for Harris. I’m voting against Trump via Harris.
I'm voting FOR Harris in the same way I was previously voting FOR Biden. Biden/Harris & Harris/Walz support policies that most closely match those policies I support.
If Trump died tomorrow I still wouldn't support Vance or any other Republican because they support policies that I am strongly opposed to.
I would like to have more options, but realistically those are my choices.
I don't have to agree with Harris/Walz on 100% if issues. I'm allowed to criticize them. But at the end of the day I'm voting FOR something and not just against the worst possible choice.
I'm voting for Harris i like the money for middle class people thing
There currently is no middle class. There's people that think they are still middle class, but they are struggling just as much as they poor.
By the math, just the economic policy changes will give the non-rich a bit of a boost.
Same!
Do not forget that in '32 the SPD backed Hindenburg... who then nominated Hitler as chancellor.
Thälmann was foolish, but even if he didn't run, Hitler would still get into power. If the far right is strong enough, mere electoralism will not stop them. Fighting them must happen on the street level.
Genuine question - at what point?
You do it early (now), and you push swing voters away and hurt your cause.
You do it after they have power, and you've manufactured the pretext for your extermination.
Do it very early before they've metastasized. Do it after they have power too. The pretext already exists, they campaigned on it. Being a partisan is now literally a fight for your life.
We could avoid this with ranked choice voting.
Yes, but you're going to need to find a way to think beyond that, because both parties understand that it's in their interests to oppose rcv, so "vote democrat until we get rcv" effectively means "vote democrat forever".
Fundamentally, there is a limit to the extent that a capitalist democracy will tolerate actual democratic power, because eclipsing the power of capitalists obviously means threatening their position. They will not sit idly by and allow their power to be voted away.
Oh, you mean like these two Democratic reps and the one Democratic Senator who just introduced a bill to do ranked choice voting for all 2028 congressional races? https://rankthevote.us/raskin-beyer-welch-bill-would-bring-ranked-choice-voting-to-congressional-elections/
This guy performs material analysis.
Ranked choice voting probably leads to two-party domination (see Australia or Malta), and even without that caveat it's otherwise suboptimal. Score voting is the way to ensure voting for your favourite comes with no strategic tradeoffs.
This might work, but in our current situation I don't see the outcome as much different than what I'd expect now. MAGA would give Trump the highest score. Dems would give Harris the highest score and the rest would split.
I also don't agree with the part of the premise that says our system is prone to fraud. Because each district does things differently, it makes it hard to hack. In Miami for instance they had hanging chad, because they used a punch system. Where I live, we fill in a bubble and in some states only mail in ballots are used. The real hacking takes place before the vote, in social media.
in ranked voting there is still the possibility that a fear of a deeper evil driving straight to a bipartisan situation again.
You still have all the same campaigns exacerbating fears with just a different look to the ballot. Ppl could easily fall into the trap of picking their top 1-2 choices based on who they don’t want in power after glued to the screen watching all the drama.
Rcv just seems like the new ev where someone oversells that it fixes all things but hides the cons that we’re all pretty much in the same spot we started.
Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst Thälmann made in 1932
The mistake Ernst Thälmann made was not throwing his support behind checks notes Paul von Hindenburg, the man who ordered the police massacre of the Spartacus League?
After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, Thälmann was arrested.
Who elevated Adolf Hitler to the Chancellorship in 1933?
It's not old Junkers like von Hindenburg that they'd ally with. It's other slightly different leftist factions and a few centrists.
The centrists were aligned with Hindenburg. Friekorps were just as avid commie-bashers as any National Socialist.
The main problem Ernst had was affiliating himself with the Russian Revolution and advocating for more of the same in Germany. That made him an enemy of nationalists during a period in which "International Jewery" was the boogie man under everyone's bed.
The idea that he could just strike up common cause with people who wanted him dead is absurd.
The mistake Ernst Thälmann made was not throwing his support behind checks notes Paul von Hindenburg, the man who ordered the police massacre of the Spartacus League?
Um...no? Von Hindenburg was the conservative. They'd have thrown their support behind the centrist, Wilhelm Marx, who lost by about 3%, thanks (in part) to the 6.3% Thälmann took. The rest of the blame lay with the BVP when they protested against the Social Democrats by siding with von Hindenburg.
Who elevated Adolf Hitler to the Chancellorship in 1933?
Von Hindenburg, with the help of the governing coalition formed by the Nazis and DNVP, all of whom were conservative.
What point are you trying to make?
They’d have thrown their support behind the centrist, Wilhelm Marx, who lost by about 3%
The Catholic Centre Party was in open - often violent - conflict with the largely atheist-leaning German Communists. The German Catholics were terrified of a repeat of the Spanish Civil War, where Spaniards were revolting against a religious dictatorship and burning down churches.
Von Hindenburg, with the help of the governing coalition formed by the Nazis and DNVP
Wilhelm was aligned with the DNVP as far back as 1923. He was the one who pushed through the Enabling Act of 1923, which the Nazis would ruthlessly exploit a decade later, with their help. And he continued to govern in coalition with the DNVP through 1928, when he was dismissed from the Chancellory by...
Von Hindenburg, with the help of the governing coalition formed by the Nazis and DNVP
So, to answer your question
What point are you trying to make?
My point is that blaming Ernest Thälmann for his minority party position in the German government through 1933 when it would make much more sense to finger Alfred Hugenberg and his DNVP, which abandoned Wilhelm in '28 and aligned with
Von Hindenburg, with the help of the governing coalition formed by the Nazis
What point are you trying to make?
Muddying the waters. That's the point these shills are trying to make.
Republicans are not going to suddenly stop being evil, so what's the solution? Just endlessly comprise and never accomplish anything? Fuck that. I refuse to be held hostage. If Democrats want leftist votes then they have to deliver leftist policies. Otherwise they're just as responsible
That is what Liberals are perfectly fine with. An infinite state of groveling with people in power and never doing anything else. They are hostile to protesters too and ignore bad actions by Dems. Everything turns into but Trump is worse.
The solution is a Multi-Party system with coalition and then compromise out of a position of power. We need to accept that in almost all societies the real left are a minority. Humans don't like the socialist ideas even if it benefited then Right now because they dream of escaping poverty and to then be better than others. If we destroyed the class system they'd have no chance to some day be better than other people. I believe this drive to get ahead is part of human nature and only few are able to fight it and think in the benefit of the whole.
So there are 2 options:
-
Is a revolution, violent and ends in establishing an authoritarian government forcing your beliefs on the majority of people which kinda goes against my democratic beliefs and the right of freedom
-
Go into politics. In europe it would be voting very left and gain enough votes to join a coalition to make the centrists enable more and more socialist policies. This worked very well in some countries like early Germany, netherlands and a big portion of Scandinavian countries. In America basically the only option would be to join the democratic party and advocate socialist policies from within like Bernie sanders is trying for example. Vote more left in the primaries to try and gain influence.
After that when it comes down to voting either of the 2 parties though you probably need to accept the current majority in the democratic party in order to not enable far right.
The time to go more left is between big elections and from within. In big elections like the upcoming its time to set differences aside and unify for the lesser evil.
Never forget that a democracy is a rule of the majority of the population and not a rule of the best policies from your perspective. If you think: Fuck the majority, this is how the country should be run, you are not democratic.
This of course disregards the influence powerful people take in politics which is another topic and way more complicated.
-
Every time they run on a left policy, they lose. Every time they enact left legislation, they lose. And you wonder why they don't run a big left platform? Frankly they do left things in spite of it always costing them.
What the left needs to do is actually show up.
Totally fucking agree with this. Well said!
You need ranked voting
Score voting is the real way. Superior to every other method by pretty much every sensible metric
The only way a third party would be viable in the US is if it grew organically from small, local races that aren't captured by large donors. A dedicated group of volunteers knocking on doors and spreading a message can have a real effect in those races. Get a few candidates in office and start doing some good, and a party can grow around it. Draw up a blueprint for how you did it, and spread it around to other towns and cities, making allies with other local groups as they spring up.
Is that easy to do? Of course not, but that would be a viable path for the formation of a functioning third party.
The moment it makes waves on even a local level, one or both major parties would begin to invest resources in crushing it wherever it appeared.
Just a note, while ranked voting is much better, the people who are influenced by parties that game the system and a gullible ignorant base usually consolidate themselves into one big party that still does everything to undermine the rest of the coalitions as long as it makes them look bad even if it's worse off for society as a whole and that like a tumor can keep growing until it goes past the midpoint for toppling the democracy that elected it. It's part of the solution, but not all of it, societies act like headless chickens when things get bad enough, regardless of who was responsible for them. For example, Brexit.
2nd note, RCV is better, but approval and star voting are best.
Lemmy users be like "bUt I cAnT VoTe FoR gEnOcIdE"
Sadly, Israel's genocide is not on the ballot given that both candidates support "Israel's right to defend itself" (read that with seething sarcasm). What is on the ballot is the prevention of genocide (or at least a flood of atrocities) in Ukraine, the invasion of multiple former Soviet republics, Women's rights, minority rights, queer rights, voting rights...basically rights and the rule of law in general.
A Trump presidency would accelerate the genocide in Gaza, and bring genocide home for millions of Latinos.
What is on the ballot is the prevention of genocide (or at least a flood of atrocities) in Ukraine, the invasion of multiple former Soviet republics,
The idea that the US can stop a war between two countries in the opposite side of the world already highlight something scummy going on. How exactly is voting red or blue going to change anything in the russian/ukrainian borders?
Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body. If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have been destroyed
Karl Marx 1850
I agree entirely, in regards to politics in 1850's Germany with its diverse multiparty political ecosystem.
As for current American politics, where we are deeply entrenched in a societal tug-of-war in an ostensible two-party system, where third parties can swing policy in a largely undemocratic direction by spoiling the vote in close elections, I disagree completely. Third parties serve no purpose in a two-party representative democracy.
If we can break the two party political duopoly, then I will never complain about another fringe party voter ever again. Until then, you better fucking vote for the lesser evil, because letting the greater evil win, as we learned in 2017-2020, is really fucking bad.
If anything, letting Democrats win the next few major elections could spell doom for the Republican party as a whole, and give us a chance to introduce some actual competition to the Democratic party.
I wish that I could snap my fingers and have it fixed today, but that's not how societies work. Accelerationism always requires violence, and violence isn't how you should uphold democracy, unless you are defending its pillars against a direct threat. A two-party duopoly is something we the people need to defeat.
That means we need to abolish the electoral college, introduce universal mail-in voting, defeat all right-wing disenfranchisement efforts, and introduce ranked-choice voting to all elections. These are radical changes that will take a lot of work to accomplish, and that will face a lot of opposition.
Under Democrat leadership, these things are possible. Under Republican leadership, we'll be lucky if we still have elections.
If anything, letting Democrats win the next few major elections could spell doom for the Republican party as a whole, and give us a chance to introduce some actual competition to the Democratic party.
This will never happen. The replacement party will be fascist. The Republican Party's fascism doesn't exist because of "brainwashing" or "conmen," it exists because fascism rises from decaying Capitalism. If you don't get rid of the Capitalism, the conditions for fascism remain.
That means we need to abolish the electoral college, introduce universal mail-in voting, defeat all right-wing disenfranchisement efforts, and introduce ranked-choice voting to all elections. These are radical changes that will take a lot of work to accomplish, and that will face a lot of opposition.
Under Democrat leadership, these things are possible. Under Republican leadership, we'll be lucky if we still have elections.
The Democrats will never work against their donors. This will never happen.
Marx didn't live long enough to see just how ineffectual that line of thinking actually is.
I don't think "ineffectual" is the word you're looking for there.
So how'd that work out for him and Germany?
„Democracy”
i recognize German quotes
It can be even more crooked than the article states. You HAVE to have 270 electoral votes to get the presidency.
If third party candidates in any capacity wins some electoral votes, there's a good chance that no one at all will get at least 270 total.
When that happens, it means the House gets to pick anyone they want who was on the ticket, by majority vote.
In this manner, a third party candidate could get 135, trump could get 134, Harris could get 269, and then even though the cast majority of people would have voted for Harris, the House, which is currently republican led would simply just vote Trump into office.
This is also why it's pretty much impossible for a third party candidate to ever become president, unless the third party was already the house majority beforehand. No matter how great a third party candidate could be, there's just no way one could appear and take enough electoral votes to total 270 in an election, even if they were the clear majority winner by public vote. "The house always wins."
The only time in my lifetime someone other than the top two candidates got even a single electoral college vote, it was by accident in 2004.
So, yes, this single vote, cast in error, has a larger count than 50+ years of 3rd parties combined.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidential_election_in_Minnesota
"The following were the members of the Electoral College from the state. Nine were pledged for Kerry/Edwards, but one made a mistake and ended up voting for Ewards/Edwards[10] and thus became a faithless elector. Minnesota's electors cast secret ballots, so unless one of the electors claims responsibility, it is unlikely that the identity of the faithless elector will ever be known. As a result of this incident, Minnesota Statutes were amended to provide for public balloting of the electors' votes and invalidation of a vote cast for someone other than the candidate to whom the elector is pledged.[11]
Sonja Berg
Vi Grooms-Alban
Matthew Little
Michael Meuers
Tim O'Brien
Lil Ortendahl
Everett Pettiford
Jean Schiebel
Frank Simon
Chandler Harrison Stevens"
I see a ton of this here, especially from a certain instance.
He can write executive orders all day long but unless he's repealing a previous order, it requires Congress to fund them.
And you might think he'll just blunder along like last time, and I'd like to point out he did a lot of damage last time, but I believe he is FULLY aware of Project 2025 and I think he would try his best to enact much of it because it involves loyalty to him and enriching him. Either way, I'm not interested in finding out.
Sorry for the pedantry, but the term for cancelling an executive order is to rescind or revoke them. Only legislation is repealed.
Don't mind at all. Thank you for correcting me.
These posts are always missing the point. Voters will vote third party. Your moral claims won't change that, but your candidate's policies could. Also, most of us don't live in swing states. Don't pretend our vote matters when it never did.
Voters will but they can't do so under the delusion that a) they are making any sort of change or b) that they aren't hurting the actually viable candidate closest to them.
The winner of the election in every state will be the Democrat or the Republican, full stop. You can choose to help or harm the one closest to your opinion.
This is the type of delusion that eventually leads to fascism any way
"Hey don't try to change anything because obviously only one of two people can win"
"Hey you have to change things from the inside of the party, you can't just have a third party even though every half decent western government has multiple parties"
"If you don't want to vote for a genocidal enabler of capitalism and class separation paid for by the same people who pay for trump/hitler, then you're voting for trump/Hitler"
"You have to bring the super nuts authoritarian fascists into the group, and exclude the actual left wing people who are screaming for basic decency and rights for everyone"
"Oh no how on earth did the crazy right wingers take over the entire country who could have seen this coming? It's totally not the fault of a governmental party that can't sort their shit out and take on policies that a majority of it's constituents want, but instead keeps sliding as far to the right as possible every time they have to move"
Not a single party on the face of the earth is gonna switch to an alternative voting system. Democracy devolving into 2 parties is a problem in nearly every country and unfortunately the ones who can make the change are the ones who benefit from first pass the post voting
No "democratic" party is gonna switch to STAR or a similar voting system unless the citizens start being very loud.
On other hand, radicalizing people to support alternative voting is also very hard, because it is hard to explain and hard to understand for majority of people and its often viewed as if the supporter is trying to benefit from the said change and trying to sabotage democracy, when in reality, they are the ones who want real democracy
I’m planning on voting PSL and you can too.
They’re running de la Cruz on a platform of Palestinian statehood and an end to arms shipments to Israel.
PSL and De La Cruz are only on the ballot in 18 states for 220 Electoral College votes. They literally cannot win.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access_in_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election
Taking votes away from Harris only helps Trump.
If you live outside the ~5 swing states that decide the election you can go ahead and ignore stuff like this saying you can’t vote third party.
Shoutout PSL
So people who don't live in swing states should vote third party until there's enough of them that the state is in danger of going to trump (or whoever)? If they're successful at some point that's a threat.
How do we actually get third party candidates to win, not just "oh, Ross Perot Jr got 3% of the vote"?
However you slice it, we're looking at like a 20 year struggle minimum to get election reform, and it would be at least the same length to elect a third party candidate to the office of president, but that's a one off thing. (Or more likely that third party would be the new one of two parties)
If we're committed to the struggle of improving things, we might as well improve a reusable process rather than have a single go at a third party presidential candidate.
If enough people are voting third party that it’s a threat then maybe the other parties should take notice and change to support the popular policies and win back support.
Also we can do more than 1 thing at a time. We should be pushing things like ranked choice voting while also showing our displeasure with the current parties where it makes sense to do so.
Giving support to third parties gives them and the issues they’re promoting more visibility to the general public.
Depends on how "safe" the states are. If its by just 100,000 then that's not as safe as you think. If it's by 600,000 then yeah that's pretty safe. But at the same time why vote for a party that won't win?
Also, the PSL is not your friend. Back in 2020 they realized they weren't gonna get the Peace and Freedom nomination in 2020, so instead of having solidarity with their fellow socialists, they threw their weight behind the joke candidate Roseanne Barr. They blatantly sabotaged their fellow socialists because they realized they weren't going to win. They are not a party worth your investment.
Here's a great article about them and their shit.
But at the same time why vote for a party that won't win?
Building support for change has to start somewhere, while they won’t win this election the more support they get the more visibility socialism gets as well as showing that people aren’t willing to vote for genocide. At the very least it shows the amount of people unhappy the democrats aren’t taking a harder stance on Israel.
As for the PSL specifically, they’re the best option on the ballot in my state. Thank you for the link though I’ll take a deeper look when I have a chance.
Don't fall for the third party trick, keep voting for the red and blue party and go back to work so a bunch of billionares and politician can keep feasting
do not worry, I was assured by very confident libs that the Dems could win this election without my vote :)
Probably it is more what you wanted to hear, or coaxed out of them after being insufferable to them. Like you are being now.
I wish blocking an instance would also block all its users for me.
On connect, if you block an instance, all messages from users from that instance are blocked out by a kind of spoiler tag. 'this post was hidden due to a ban of instance x'.
You can click to open the message if you feel up to it (eg non political topics)
Very useful feature
The Intercept - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Intercept:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceInternet Archive - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Internet Archive:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
We keep doing "harm reduction" but after what point is is truly harm reduction and when does it because a slow decline into fascism? Right now the "harm reduction" policy means voting for genocide, war, a fascist border policy, less social programs for the poor, more money for the rich, mass censorship, and surveillance. What will you Liberals say when the Kamala runs again but even more right wing, and then what? When does the insanity end? At what point do we vote for Fascists as a form of "harm reduction" while the planet dies? How long do we truly have to keep making the capitalist class rich at our expense before there is no future generations to protect? I reject this line of thinking, true freedom cannot come from reform. We need a new revolution or we will not be alive to tell our story.
Did you even read the post?
Yeah, its blatant historical revisonism. Just look at any of the comments here that point it out (they all have very good points).
All viable politics is harm reduction.
Vote for who YOU want to be president, regardless of if they have a chance to win or not. I wasn't going to vote for Biden (or Trump) no matter what. I see people saying if you vote 3rd party you're waisting your vote. You aren't. You are supporting the candidate you like.
I am sorry, but this take is founded on a lack of knowledge about the spoiler effect in first past the post voting systems. Until more representative forms of voting are introduced this is an idealistic but ultimately misinformed take.
The spoiler effect is a system powerful encumbant politicians use to manipulate populaces at large in part by taking advantage of your better nature and belief in a flawed system. Voting your heart will just not be enough and it's got hidden dangers. Pressure needs to be applied after this election to change the voting structure to a more stable and open system.
https://youtu.be/3Y3jE3B8HsE?si=qCvPLnk4u6FJ0ec2
Here's a video that explains fairly susinctly what the spoiler effect is and how alternative voting systems disrupt it.
Still gonna vote for who I like and always will. I was gonna vote for Vermin Supreme until Biden dropped out.
Unless you would otherwise vote for Trump. Then definitely vote for a Third Party.
If you don't care if Trump wins, sure...
He's saying instead of voting for Trump (if you were going to do that) vote 3rd party so you don't vote for Trump... It's a joke
Considering how I'm in Texas where Trump is going to win regardless of who I vote for, I'm considering voting third party as a threat to the Democratic Party to fuck off with their far-right politics and if enough people do that in solid states then maybe it will help scare them into platforming less shitty candidates. In a swing state or barely blue or red state though where voting actually determines who wins then voting blue is probably the better option since the contest is between Harris and Trump and Trump is worse.
I bet Texas would at least turn swing state if everyone would go vote instead of giving up from the get go. Texas has a voter turnout of about 50% at presidential elections.
In the 2020 election Trump had 52.06% and Biden 46.48% in Texas. Obviously a lead for the Republicans, but it is moving getting closer and into swing state territory. This is with nobody spending a lot on Texas right now.
One, I don't know any progressive that is planning on voting for RFK.
Two, can we stop this lie? Only a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump.
I mean unless you are intentionally being obtuse I feel like you know damn well what people mean when they say "A vote for X is a vote for Trump". It's not a coincidence that so many Republican allies and organizations are promoting and pumping up 3rd party candidates to run in various swing states and pull votes away from Harris, this isn't a new tactic and historically has absolutely changed elections.
A vote for third party is a vote for Harris. You have to hold your nose and vote Trump!
But seriously, Libertarians are the largest third party by quite a margin. So third parties actually help Democrats. It is just the Democrats mentality that they are owed votes for not being Republicans, rather than a candidate's or party's job to try to appeal to voters that this narrative is pushed forward.
I do know what they are saying and I do not approve of the message. It shifts the blame onto people who voted for what they wanted instead voting against what they don't want, which is what people should be doing in a democracy - instead of blaming the people who actually voted for Trump. Those people are the people that elect him, not the people who didn't vote for him.
A vote not for Harris is one less vote for her too. Not voting for anyone and then waking up getting the person you didn't want winning should not get a Pikachu face. That single vote won't matter statistically, but it's the mindset that if lots of people think the same way, and they do, then it will matter.
It's okay to vote thinking, ugh, fine...I'll vote Democrat even though I hate the choices. If everyone thinking that way votes, we'll have a left wing sweep. That would be a refreshing change of pace...then we can put pressure on those reps who listen to people to make the hard changes that right now always get opposed because of party.
Unfortunately, that's not true. The Trump base is not as fractured as the Democratic base is. Voting 3rd party, statistically, ONLY helps Trump.
A 3rd party will not, cannot win a Presidential election, so Progressives who would otherwise vote for Harris, but instead back a loser like Stein or West are removing their vote from Harris, which has the exact same effect as +1 for Trump.
See here:
"Just 44,000 votes out of more than 10m cast in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin – less than half of 1% – were the difference between the Biden presidency and a tie in the electoral college that would have thrown the election to the House of Representatives, and hence to Trump.
If candidates from No Labels, the Green party and the People’s party peel off just 15% of the anti-Trump vote from Biden, and Trump’s base stays with him, Trump would win all five swing states comfortably and return to the Oval Office."
Only a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump.
The no vote protesters in 2016 sure helped Trump.
They usually do surveys with ranked choice voting and then you can assume who wouldve voted for dem/rep if the third party didnt exist.
I learned about spoiler candidates in 8th grade civics.
Spoiler about spoilers: spoilers can spoil actively, or passively. It doesn't really matter after the fact, the point is how their words and existence as a candidate influence the success chances for the 2 leading candidates.
lol. That makes no sense.
Let's say Trump has 47% support... his theoretical maximum.
That means "Not Trump" is at 53%.
The problem is "Not Trump" is divided among Harris, Stein, and West. Stein and West draw from the Harris camp, not the Trump camp.
So instead of 47% Trump, 53% Harris, you get 45% Harris, 5% Stein, 3% West, Trump wins.
Do that in a few key states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Trump gets a 2nd term, actively making things worse for all those people who voted for Stein and West.
I could see quite a few older Democrats voting for the name "Kennedy".
Pretty shallow vote of that's all they are looking at, but I certainly can't rule out the possibility I suppose. Don't know if I'd call those people progressive, though.