Really you don’t need to read more than one chart:
If you vote for anyone other than Harris, you’re voting for Trump:
Quick some body run as a super conservative as a third party and take away some GOP votes please.
Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election was not due to any erosion in support for Donald Trump. Rather, not only did Trump’s raw vote total increase, but in the key states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, Trump’s share of the vote actually increased.
Still mind-boggling and a source of great personal disgust while being a national disgrace. One can only hope that enough people have soured on him since then, after countless displays of racism, xenophobia, sexism, authoritarianism, bigotry, and incompetence. A twice impeached loser felon grifter that’s clearly a russian asset should not stand a chance, yet here we are. Makes me sad.
Between the people trying to give you healthcare and secure your job, and the people trying to let your miscarrying wife bleed out in the parking lot of a for-profit hospital, some morons prefer the latter. Why? “because he’s racist like me!” seems to be the deciding factor. Yes, that is why my parents are voting for him. and my mom is a poll-worker 🤦♂️
Funny how third parties always rear their heads at election time but remain almost entirely quiet the rest of the term. Where does the money come from?
Not going to vote your way out of this one unfortunately
Florida 2020 graph is not visually accurate.
I feel like the most viable path to a third party at this point:
- Ranked choice somehow becomes national law (and while we’re at it, other election reform) — yes, already very unlikely here, although it’d help Dems with reelection so under them it’s possible if they get rid of the filibuster. Gop would never.
- Splinters make a better third party, I’m thinking the "RINO"s or MAGA folk. Maybe the progressive wing of Democrars. The current third parties are pretty bad as they are given they don’t seem to target places they could actually win.
- Said faction gets more traction and the model gets tested for a few elections until it’s more normal. New paries emerge, etc.
It ain’t happening mostly cause of 1, either because the political capital would be too expensive or because it’s not ultimately in their interest. The only way 1 can happen is if it becomes a major issue and they’ve got much more lower hanging fruit, even in election rules (I’d be happy just having electrical college changed to popular vote).
National Election Reform would be great, but that would require we actually have national elections, which we don’t. :)
It’s not even a matter of 50 state elections… each election precinct is essentially it’s own little fiefdom at this point, with officials who BELIEVE they’re free to say “I aint gonna certify!” even if the State Secretary of State will put the screws to them if they do.
Holy shit you’re so right on all the districts being treated like a fiefdom. I like to think i keep up with politics but this idea has never crossed my mind. Im going to be looking at my local elections closer now.
If Americans want a third choice support ranked choice voting
This is the way. It’s perfectly okay to want to support a third party, but it isn’t done by wasting your FPTP vote.
yeah we need to make it less dangerous.
^ THIS ^ - As I said elsewhere… Jesus, if ALASKA can do it…
There are two states where ranked choice exists apparently. Are these the states that the third parties are spending money in? They’d be the most likely places for them to win and show they are viable in any way.
I don’t know the second state, Portland has it for the first time at the local level and that’s turning into a clown car, I cannot WAIT to see how it works out in practice!
So far:
118 candidates running for 14 offices:
https://www.opb.org/article/2024/09/06/118-candidates-portland-election/?outputType=amp
One losing union support over mass traffic violations:
Multiple being investigated by the Secretary of State for trading donations to meet matching funds thresholds:
Second state is Maine.
That’s such a messed up pie chart. It shows numerically 51% but the pie wedge is smaller than 48%. Man, I can only handle SO much in a day!!!
I know of a couple of Lemmy users who frequently hype third party candidates, and who will not like this analysis at all, lol.
We discount this analysis because it’s self serving. Third Way as other orgs that diminish 3rd party candidates do so in an attempt to protect their own positions of power. Voters continuing to elect neo fascists from the duopoly vote against their own interests to do the bidding of the neo fascists
And your hopeless manifestation approach to breaking the two-party duopoly isn’t entirely self-serving?
It won’t accomplish anything. You will never win any election against the two-party behemoths without Democratic reform.
But you folks don’t ever advocate for that, just unqualified spoiler candidates, and never in local elections where independents have more of a chance.
Even if your heart is in the right place, you’re a liability to progress because you care more about Democrats being imperfect than you do about Republicans being fascist.
You say spoiler as if we would ever vote for your candidates. Anyway. There could be no third party candidates on the ballot and we would not vote for your appointed candidates
I see both of them as being fascist, the Democrat ratchet effect enables right-wing fascism to take hold.
I don’t think anybody is hoping to convince you True Believers who have fully incorporated this into your personality. The spoiler effect is more about other people who maybe haven’t thought about it so much and don’t realize the mistake they are making.
As do I, I see the reports all the time. :)
If you live in a swing state or any state that is up for grabs, then yeah don’t vote for third party. If your in a deep blue/red state, I’m talking > 15 percent swing, vote for whoever you want in the presidential, your votes just going to get collapsed into the state vote for the electoral college any way. Should still vote for the two parties or whoever’s competitive in state and local elections because your vote can have an effect.
If the electoral college says my vote effectively doesn’t matter in deciding the next president since I’m in California, then at least let me use my vote to send some sort of message.
You’re exactly right.
I do wonder why nearly everyone manages to forget that the electoral college exists.
I don’t live in a swing state, I get to vote for whoever I want. Lets not pretend like the election doesnt. Boil down to half a million voters in like 4 or 5 different states. This is as much a reality as anything you’ve said, probably more.
I dunno, I saw some stats the other day indicating that if all the non-voters in supposedly solid red states actually went and voted, then they might be able to swing the state.
Yeah and if all the people who dislike both parties voted for the same third party they’d win, but that’s not going to happen either.
Why should it? Why should anyone vote for a candidate with no political administration experience? Regardless of their stated positions, what evidence do voters have that any of the third party candidates have the skills necessary to execute the duties of the office effectively? Without progressives in Congress, how exactly is a progressive administration supposed to navigate gridlock better than the neo liberals?
Outside of a swing state, you’re right… right up until the National Popular Vote movement is in effect in enough states to get 270 Electoral College votes:
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status
"&As of April 15, 2024, the National Popular Vote bill has been enacted into law in 18 jurisdictions possessing 209 electoral votes, including
6 small jurisdictions (District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont),
9 medium-sized states (Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington), and
3 big states (California, Illinois, New York).
The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 61 electoral votes."
Using Third Way as a source? The same organization that helped push the entire party and country to the right? Bill Clinton and Third Way started the shift to the right and Harris finalized that transition to become the dominant conservative party.
I have other sites with the same stats, but this article makes the dangers of third paries easiest to understand.
Use those other sites. Third Way is a large contributor to why the Democrats are continually threatened by third parties. Their whole idea is that Democrats can and should go as hard toward the right as possible because the left flank of the party is (a) bad for their financial backers and (b) has to vote Democratic. You can’t promote that position and then act like a shocked Pikachu when your own philosophy ends up creating the problem you now want to warn against.
Plus all those godforsaken inaccurate pie charts other people pointed out.
The only danger present is the oligarchy losing their stranglehold on society
Why do other countries get more than two choices but we cant?
FPTP
Why would anyone support FPTP
Never said I did
Let me support people that want to get rid of it
The next president will be either the Dem or Rep nominee.
If you believe otherwise I would like to wager a large sum of money.
Yeah and America will continue to be exceptionally bad amongst developed countries
This is a pivot and Lemmy will eat it up because “USA BAD” but is not a response to the topic in the thread which is that third party votes are meaningless.
Let’s see if I can get a direct answer: Do you know that the next president of the US will be the Dem or Rep nominee?
Voters convinced via gaslighting and propaganda they have no other choice.
TIL that “scientifically being able to prove the FPTP system the US uses will always devolve into a two-party system and make third-party candidates nothing more than spoilers” is “gaslighting” and “third-parties who do fuck-all for four years and curiously only show up to run for president instead of GOTV pushes and trying to win elections at local levels to build support for their party” is propaganda.
Who knew? Well, aside from everyone who knows how the US system is set up and isn’t arguing in bad faith, that is.
Because many poeple have decided to uphold the notion America is somehow more complex than other first world nations that magically figured out things like multiple parties, universal healthcare, automatic tax forms, minimum wage that is enough to live on, and state protected maternity leave.
Largely it has to do with the form of government. Countries with many (too many?) choices are Parliamentary forms of government:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system
The US is a Presidential system, not a Parliamentary one.
That is just bullshit. While your president is powerful, a lot of the power of government resides within the parliament itself.
As long as US media calls candidates of other parties as “independents” your political system stais a fucked up mono party system.
To change the Satus quo, laws must put in place, like in other countries that force media to represent all parties.
In addition you have to stop with this excessive money dependent political campaigns.
Those are gatekeeping tactics designed to keep the power in the hands of the two major parties.
There is no reason why your system could not work with more competitors.
edit: also, using a voting mechanism that was good in times before telegraph, telephone and internet makes it nearly impossible for smaller parties to get anything out of an election.
There is no reason not to use the popular vote. None!
There are lots of competitors in US elections, but most are eliminated during the primaries.
When you have more than two candidates in the final round, the winner may not represent the will of the people. You can end up with a majority preferring A to B, a majority preferring B to C, and a majority preferring C to A. No matter who wins, they are opposed by the majority.
In fact, Kenneth Arrow mathematically proved that multiparty elections will always produce paradoxical results like that. That’s why the winners of multiparty elections are often decided by elite kingmakers, eg Macron.
I see the issue with a president. But most legislation comes out of the Senate. Having more then two parties represented there forces compromises. And the wishes of more people have to be considered the get the required majority.
And if the congress is more diverse, the president looses some powers, as he can not rely on having the majority at least for two years of his presidency. He also would have to compromise all the time.
Just admit it, your system is broken.
First of all, in a presidential democracy the president keeps their powers regardless of the composition of Congress (not just the Senate).
It’s true that in order to pass legislation, the President has to cooperate with Congress. But I’m not sure why you think that a more diverse Congress would “force” anyone to compromise. What actually happens is that nothing gets done.
In fact, this is why the purest multiparty democracies, like Italy and Israel, constantly fail. Multiple parties are “forced” to compromise. They can’t or won’t, blaming their opponents. The government is paralyzed and falls. New elections are held. The composition of the legislature changes (or not). Multiple parties are “forced” to compromise. They can’t or won’t, blaming their opponents. The government is paralyzed and falls. New elections are held. Repeat ad infinitum.
I am living in a multi party country. I am experiencing the hurdles and the benefits of it every single day. Coalitions have to be formed to get the majority, smaller parties getting influence because of it.
We are getting stuff like increased minimum wage, social benefits, legalizing cannabis, and more. And not because the senior partner in the coalition wants it. Because of the junior partners. They are required to form a majority, so they can state their terms also.
And yes, some countries with more then two parties in the parliament are failing. What about the US?
Got some universal Healthcare yet? A livable minimum wage for everyone including waiters?
Effective countermeasures to climate change?
No? See, also failing. And that lies in the nature of countries. Sometimes they fail.
You assume that US democracy is failing because it hasn’t delivered progressive goals. But the reason it hasn’t delivered progressive goals is that it’s a democracy, about half the country is not progressive, and there is no national consensus on those goals.
It’s true that in multi-party democracies, it is easier for a progressive minority to make its voice heard and achieve its goals. But it’s also easier for a right-wing minority to make its voice heard and achieve its goals. For example, in both Italy and Israel.
The Electoral College system blocks using the popular vote. Changing that means changing the Constitution.
And that is an issue how? Are you trying to say that the USA will be stuck with a legal framework from the 1800? For all eternity?
Pretty much. There is a process to change the Constitution, here’s how it works:
-
First you get a 290 vote super majority in the House. These are the people who took 15 tries to get a simple 218 vote majority to decide who their own leader would be.
-
Then you need a 67 vote super majority in the Senate, the people continually blocked by needing 60 votes to overturn a filibuster.
If somehow you meet those two hurdles, then it goes to the states for ratification and you need 38 statehouses to pass the Amendment.
By point of comparison, in 2020, Biden got 25 states + Washington D.C. so you’d need ALL 25 Biden states +13 Trump states.
BUT - Of those 25 states, only 19 have Democratically controlled statehouses, so you could end up needing as many as 19 Trump states.
Thanks. That was my rough assumption. And that worries me. While I am not a US citizen, the USA have such immense power that yout politics affect people around the world. From privacy and data protection to the simple fact if we leave in peace or in war.
I understand it is a big issue. And I hope you find a way to change that.
-
I like the color blue.
I can understand that
No most of them started out as monarchies so they cant have parliaments. That would be a change in how the government functions, and that’s impossible.
No most of them started out as monarchies so they cant have parliaments. That would be a change in how the government functions, and that’s impossible
Well that’s not true at all. Parliamentary monarchies are absolutely a thing, the UK being one.
Awesome, that means how our government functions can be changed to accommodate several parties.
Nobody is saying the US system can’t be changed to accommodate third-parties.
What they are saying is that third-parties aren’t viable the way things are now.
You can’t elect third parties to change the system; the system has to be changed to elect third parties. Until then, voting for a third party is wasting a vote and advocating for others to do so is telling them to vote against the major party that is both more likely to win and also the one that more closely represents their values.
The exception, of course, is if one of the major parties suffers an implosion like the Whigs did in the mid-1800s. But the Dems are more unified than ever and the Republicans are brainwashed by right-wing media, so I don’t see that happening any time soon.
You’re saying the only way to get rid of the two party system is to continue to exclusively support the two parties
And the sooner you swallow that pill, the sooner you’ll realize that politics is not about emotions, it about strategy, and voting for third-parties isn’t a winning one.
Constitutional Monarchies are still a parliamentary form of government. See England as a prime example.
Theyre just figurehead monarchies, they have a prime minister chosen by parliament. The point i was making was that they are not now how they were then. They and many other countries changed into a form of government that offers several party choices for voters. But any effort to that effect here is met with immediate dismissal as being impossible.
Oh wow, thirdway.org says you can’t have an alternative to two candidates who don’t represent you and have to choose between the candidates offered to you no matter your politics!
You don’t say!
In case any reader of this post isn’t aware: thirdway.org is the website for people associated with the Third Way which is described as a triangulation between communism and capitalism but ends up still being capitalism somehow.
Triangulation was a middle ground between Democrat and Republican ideology developed by Bill Clinton, Third Way, and the DLC. And has helped shift the entire party to the right. It has nothing to do with communism.
Garbage like this article and Third Way is self serving
Third way politics were common in Europe and there they were explicitly anticommunist. I think they were even promoted by state department cutouts. I didn’t want to make it solely about the us third way even though that website is the us third way clintonite psychos.
Whomst are absolutely anticommunist as well.
I’m just astounded that a person would post an article from the third way to make the case against third parties.
Confirmation bias
I don’t get your meaning there.
Third way is essentially a rightwing capitalist think tank posing as progressive. They, along with Bill Clinton and his DLC started the party shift to the right to in order to appeal to big money that had normally been flowing to republicans. They are opposed to third parties because it would harm capital.
Their name Third Way doesnt imply an an alternative approach to government, but representative of triangulation, the centrist approach to government, a little leftish a little rightish
Yup.
