this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
398 points (95.4% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2074 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I would believe them if their party EVER got anyone elected, even to state congress, in even a third of the states.

[–] meep_launcher@lemm.ee 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I said it once, I'll say it again-

Until ranked choice vote is established and the electoral college is abolished, there are no serious third parties.

The most serious third party imo is the Forward Party, only because they have one platform which is RCV, and they are quietly working in local elections only. They aren't running any candidates in federal elections, although they had a big win in helping Alaska switch to RCV for their congressional race, which nudged out Sarah Palin.

With the forward party in conjunction with fairvote.org , they are laying the groundwork to create possibly the most revolutionary change to American politics ever.

But in order to do that, we need to have elections. Vote Harris.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

FPTP means there will be two viable candidates in each race, it doesn't mean they'll always be the same two parties. There are lots of races in deep blue areas that don't have a viable Republican challengers where the Greens (if they were a real party) could mount a challenge. Sort of like the Justice Democrats, but making the play in an unopposed general election instead of the primary. Then they could caucus (or not I suppose) with the Democrats like the independents do.

[–] meep_launcher@lemm.ee -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I think the challenge this argument has is that it ignores the spoiler effect that is the biggest problem in FPTP, and it assumes party changes have happened because a third party successfully unseated a traditional party in a sort of coup.

First, the spoiler effect is very real. You'll notice the better a third party does, the worse it is for that whole faction of the electorate. It's a bit of a paradox but you can see it with the notable 3rd party runs. Teddy Roosevelt got Woodrow Wilson elected. Ross Perot gave the election to Clinton by splitting the right. Ralph Nader solidified Bush as president. The better the third party does, the stronger the spoiler effect. It's not a conspiracy, it's just the math.

Next, when there is a party change, such as the fall of the federalists or the whigs, it is because they fell apart due to losing a war or their positions (such as opposing manifest destiny) became moot and they no longer had a purpose. This created a void that was then filled with a new party. This was not because a 3rd party arrived and had a David vs Goliath situation. In this metaphor Goliath was already dead when David showed up.

Some questions to ask: what does it mean to have a politically diverse election? How does FPTP or RCV have impact in a time where we have more tools for social engineering (like social media and surveillance tools)? What assumptions of the Republican and Democratic parties are we making? What assumptions are we making on the electorate that they are composed of?

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This whole fucking post is about candidates in deep blue areas running without a viable challenger and you come back to write paragraphs about the spoiler effect? The whole of the post is about places where the spoiler effect does not apply. You didn't read anything you replied to.

[–] meep_launcher@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That was an aggressive reply and wasn't very Mr. Rodgers of you.

Did you learn nothing from PBS kids?

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Mr. Rodgers says READ POSTS BEFORE YOU REPLY TO THEM. Not spamming people with unrelated responses is the first step in respectful dialogue.

[–] meep_launcher@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You are pretty darn passionate about voting and 3rd parties and that's great. I read your comment so I was replying to your comment.

Sometimes tangents happen online, and sometimes topics change. Please understand that I am also passionate about these things, so in a Lemmy thread we can end up in many different places. No need to get upset.

[–] meep_launcher@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Also I'd like to add while rereading the thread, I'm not sure where you see the disconnect. Everything seems pretty straightforward to me.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

But they brag about five (5) whole Green Party members getting elected to state legislatures since 1985. You know, that's like one (1) whole member every eight (8) years, which is a lot considering there are only thousands of state legislature positions across the US (some of which have such little competition fucking Buck Cluck could probably get elected to a few dozen of them). So I think your point is moot tbh.