Many voters are weary about a Biden-Trump rematch in 2024. Third parties hope they can fill the gap
stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to 
mainichi.jp
PHOENIX (AP) -- The 2024 presidential election is drawing an unusually robust field of independent, third party and long shot candidates hoping to capitalize on Americans' ambivalence and frustration over a likely rematch between Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Donald Trump.
You are viewing a single comment
Im not supporting this political system anymore. Im voting for whoever is promising ranked choice voting, overturning citizens united, outlawing lobbying, and outlawing all elected officials from investing.
You’ll die before you see a political system that isn’t shit. Do your best to endure and then fix the shit-mess we have.
When is "and then"?
I can tell you that it’s not this upcoming presidential election, but I can’t tell you when it will be. Maybe never. Maybe 4 years. I think there’s a good chance that we see a candidate that supports overturning Citizens United AND supports outlawing elected officials from trading stocks within the next decade. Outlawing lobbying is probably the third most likely, but once we do that we’ll be almost on the right track. It’s going to take a large scale societal shift away from Capitalism for that… so maybe 40 years there. Ranked choice voting is something that will probably never happen in the USA without a full on restructure. Once that happens, it’s probably not the USA anymore.
Lmao, just deal with it until things get better. When will things get better? Never!
As opposed to the option where you actively prevent things from getting better? You know, the thing you're advocating for? Biden winning preserves the possibility that there could be change and improvement. Trump winning eliminates that possibility. Instead of "dealing with it" your solution is to make everything worse?
I think Biden winning is the least possibility of change. Absolutely not the changes Ive listed, which are the fundamental issues specifically preventing progress on political issues.
There are also other ways than just voting. Joining Unions for example and strikes. In Europe Unions have a massive influence on politics because they have the ability to strike and have huge membrrship numbers
Europe has ranked choice voting
I don't know of any country in Europe that uses ranked choice voting. Where in Eutope?
my bad Im mixed up with proportional representation. Which would also be better than what we've got.
That is definitely true. Even Sortition would be better than what you have now.
Primaries? Sure. In the general if you do that you are essentially voting for Trump and/or fascism. Third parties are spoilers 100% of the time until they can actually win. And none of them can right now.
Gee you know what would really help with that fucked up situation? Ranked choice voting.
Yeah no shit. The chance to get that from Republicans is somewhere below -1, close to hell probably.
Republicans or democrats. But yall will defend them and the two party system to the death
Our current system is shit... but it's our system.
Like a diabetic munching on candy. "I shouldnt, but its what im doin"
You sound like a child throwing a fit because you didn’t get the Christmas present that was on your list to Santa.
the christmas present being an electoral system that better represents the people instead of corporations. I will continue to throw a fit.
Well then join a union and start organizing. That is an even better way to influence politics.
Anything you're upset about is your fault because you're not active enough.
Alright since voting doesnt matter im gonna go ahead and vote for who i want
Outlawing lobbying? So you want to make it a crime to visit your elected representatives in their office? Is that the kind of world you fantasize about?
Also, how the absolute fuck are you gonna get ranked choice voting enacted by the President?? Did you just arrive from the moon?
Youre thinking of the historical definition of lobbying, when citizens would wait in lobbies of legislatures to make their case to a legislator. Thats no longer what lobbying means in the US. Its actually a legally distinguished title, lobbyists are a paid position, generally lawyers or former legislators, representing large organizations, and facilitating giving politicians money or gifts to influence their votes. You can write to your congressman, you can call one of their secretaries voicemails, you can attend any town halls they might hold, but youre not a lobbyist and you cannot go have a personal meeting with your congressman like a lobbyist can.
Im voting on these issues for all elections, not just president. But presidential support is pretty important for any legislation.
The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 starts regulating when a person exceeds 20% of their time spent in that capacity. If you spend less than 20% of your time lobbying, you're not recognized as a lobbyist per federal law. Jon Stewart was, for example, an unpaid lobbyist for 9/11 first responders.
Wrong. Lobbyists are people who spend more than 20% of their time in that capacity, per the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. Anyone under that threshold is still lobbying, but is not a lobbyist. Nonprofits also have lobbyists, such as Human Rights Watch, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Greenpeace, or the Waterkeeper Alliance. The Cherokee Tribe has a lobbyist. So does the Nebraska League of Municipalities and the Chicago Teachers Union. Not all of them are mustache-twirling supervillains. I'm sure you think it's nice and neat to write a law that makes "bad" lobbying illegal but keeps "good" lobbying legal, but I can assure you there's more lobbying happening every minute of every day than you actually realize, and a lot of it is good lobbying.
Bullshit:
Theyre non-profit, but they still spend money. The Southern Poverty Law Center i know does monetary lobbying, contributing to political campaigns. With good intentions sure, but id say theyre being forced to use a corrupt system to try and compete with the mustache twirling supervillains. Im defining lobbying as monetary value contributions to elected officials or candidates, thats the specifics of what i want outlawed. Actual legislation would be even more specific in scope.
All of these meeting links include organization representation. Some of them even say you might only get to meet with a staffer. See if you can get a one on one meeting with your rep.
If the "corrupt" system goes away, the implicit coordination with PACs doesn't. You will quite literally only be punishing the good guys. You should be far more specific that what you want to outlaw is quid pro quo lobbying, not the whole concept of lobbying itself.
Also I pointed out that you are factually incorrect on being able to meet with a Congressional representative, your goalpost shift notwithstanding.
Lobbying does not exist in its historical definition anymore. Even in non-profit examples, it's still monetary influence rather than just spoken. That's what people are talking about when they say lobbying, if you see a political call to action of writing your congressman, tell me if they describe it as lobbying your congressman.
I aint moving goalposts, I claim you cannot have a personal meeting with your congressman. If you are a representative of some large organization, maybe.
Wrong and wrong. I know and work with several registered lobbyists, as well as people who do occasional environmental lobbying. To say you're completely and utterly misinformed (on both points) would be an understatement.
you knowing lobbyists changes what? Are they registered with organizations that are doing no political contributions? The fact that they're registered lobbyists is kind of what I've been talking about, you came in talking about how I want to make it a crime to meet with my representative. Im not a lobbyist, I don't represent any organization, I dont have a political fund to influence my representative.
Yes. Novel idea, I know. That's the kind of information you learn from experience, rather than gut hunches and the news media.
And you said exactly that. The kind of activity that a colleague of mine does to advocate for clean rivers would be illegal. Not my fault you used sweeping generalizations that don't reflect reality.
Yet you are legally allowed to lobby your elected representatives.