The Dangerous Illusion of a Presidential Third Party in 2024
thirdway.org
Really you don't need to read more than one chart:
If you vote for anyone other than Harris, you're voting for Trump:
Really you don't need to read more than one chart:
If you vote for anyone other than Harris, you're voting for Trump:
certain lemmy users around these parts absolutely frothing at the mouth seeing this graph
A similar article will be posted every time Monk posts one supporting a 3rd party spoiler from now on.
so you're gonna have to find like 20 articles a day.... also don't forget to copy paste a 6 paragraph defense of "I swear I'm not Russian I just post the articles" in the comments of every post
I do have the time... :)
Genuine question: why has he not been banned? To me he seems to repeatedly violate the rule about arguing in good faith, and - to be honest - his passive aggressive civility feels at times more hostile than straight up attacks.
We've talked about it amongst ourselves with the mods and admins and have concluded that having a shitty opinion is not infringing.
They do post legitimate sources with legitimate opinions. They're BAD opinions, but you aren't going to get banned for having a bad opinion.
I don't much have an issue with the material they chose to post - the nature of a link aggregator will sort them to the bottom regardless due how how voting works and as you say, they're legitimate sources.
My issue is more regarding their conduct in the comment sections.
Their conduct is more cordial than the responses they get.
Have ya ever heard of Southern politeness? Cause ya can technically be cordial while being a complete shitbag, a good example being "bless your heart" more or less meaning go die in a hole.
Would you correlate to being a shitbag is someone that you happen to disagree with
It looks that way but is not. It's purposefully shaped to be divisive.
It's not the opinion, it's the JAQ energy and baiting.
If they just posted articles, that's one thing.
They legitimately try to bait people into being heated about things. Afterwhich, they cry victim
Yeah but is it against the rules to be an asshole or a crybaby ? I tend to say stupid shit when drinking and have gotten a ban and a few comments and posts deleted, but it would be a shame for something minor to get me a bigger ban or what not.
I'm not going to directly link the user because that's bad behavior but they have a very clear routine they follow on every post. Having an opinion is fine, acting like you are following a script is eventually really lame. Especially when the end of the script usually is calling people out for victimizing them
This user often posts about Jill Stein, and is exclusively critical of democrats.
Spoiler implies we would vote for a Democrat if there were no 3rd party options. We would not. There's a larger chance you would vote for a republican than us voting Democrat
For you, personally, that may be true. Statistically speaking, in general, it's very much the opposite:
https://www.thirdway.org/memo/the-data-how-third-parties-could-be-spoilers-that-elect-trump
"Similarly, Third Way’s polling has found that Biden’s voters are 13 percentage points more likely to consider voting for a third party than Trump’s voters. While Biden has a higher ceiling, with his possible vote totals well north of 50%, Trump has a stronger floor: his voters are more loyal, so third parties are less likely to draw them away."
If you lean left, and you fail to vote for the Democratic candidate, you only help the Republican candidate.
There's the confusion, we dont lean left, we are left. Democrat voters lean left then vote for non left leaning candidates. In rhetoric the DNC may sound like they lean left but in action they do not.
Compared to Trump, Nixon is to the left.
I mean shit, Dick Cheney is left of Trump. What does that say?
No kidding! When Cheney and Fucking Frank Luntz are like "Hey, maybe he's too extreme..." you know you're in trouble.
Has anyone talked to Karl Rove lately? LOL.
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-harris-debate-karl-rove-verdict-b2611340.html
Republican Karl Rove says Trump got ‘crushed by a woman he called dumb as a rock’ during ‘train wreck’ debate
By Obama's own admission, Nixon was to the left of Obama.
This is mind-bogglingly weird. I’ll never understand it.
I don’t think it’s all that weird to recognize that neither party is what you want or will advance your political goals.
It’s pretty weird to insist on a course of action that won’t result in something you want. If you think both parties are the same, you’re wildly misinformed.
I don’t think anyone suggested both parties are the same.
If they aren’t the same in their view, they they would be sensible to care about which wins. They have a stake in a less harmful result.
But literally throwing away their vote on a third party, they are inflicting harm on themselves, the electorate, and the world.
Who are you talking about?
Third party votes get counted and have an effect. The whole idea of throwing one’s vote away is so nonsensical that it was lampooned in a simpsons bit.
If third party voters are inflicting harm on all the groups you mentioned, does that mean they’re responsible for the harm caused by one or the other party? Would you extend that to people who actively voted for those two parties? To the people enacting those parties policies? Deciding them?
Just how responsible for Bidens genocide in Gaza would you say a person who voted third party or trump in 2020 can be held?
Did you even READ the original linked article?
Seems like not.
Voting third party is the same as voting for Trump. THAT'S the effect that third party votes have. You're deluding yourself if you think they have any other effect in this upcoming election.
Wait how is a third party vote the same as a trump vote, they’re for different candidates?
Third party votes don’t get counted towards trumps total and the president isn’t elected by popular vote anyway.
Did you READ the original article??
Are you being intentionally dense?
You are correct, albeit for the wrong reasons :D
Oh God I didn't even realize how badly proportioned the pie charts were. They didn't even generate new ones they just copy pasted an image and changed the percentage number. Aghhhhhhhh I hate this I hate this I hate this
And now you will see it everywhere and it will annoy you ever more.
Also I at first though that your profile pick was that of Darth Vitiate since it fits your user name. But its actually soldier with twin tails and I hate it.
I'm frothing at the mouth because it's distorted, making an easy comparison by visuals impossible. The numbers don't match the size of the pies
Someone fucked these up badly and there's no way to tell from this how.
Are the numbers swapped between candidates but the sizes correct? Are the sizes swapped between candidates and the numbers correct?
As an aside, this is why serious data people don't use pie charts. They're terrible for lots of reasons, one being it's very hard to compare areas instead of lengths, like a bar chart, as demonstrated by how many people didn't notice these were so bad at first.
If you see data presented in a pie chart you should immediately be suspicious that it's dishonest or incompetent.
None of that is to take away that voting for third parties this election is a terrible move - just saying this chart is useless.
Not really. The point has always been that the dems need pressure to change their genocidal policies. If you vote blue unconditionally then it won’t take long until the next blue candidate will be on the same level as trump. Show these graphs to the democratic party and tell them to listen to 3rd party voters.
The argument is always that "A vote for Not X is a vote for Y", forgetting how many third party voters would simply skip the ballot line or refuse to vote at all if these options weren't available.
Calling Jill Stein and Chase Oliver "fascist enablers" for appearing on the ballot misses the entire reason they have a vote base at all.
Eh...we call em as we see em.
https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/democracy-now/clip/why-jill-stein-attended-moscow-dinner-with-putin-and-flynn
When I was younger I liked stein...now that I've seen her just show up for the last 3 or 4 elections and not much else...the pieces all came together.
She's definitely past her expiration date.
I guess you can always write in Claudia de la Cruz with the PSL party.
The entire reason they have a vote base at all is not dissimilar to Trump: civic illiteracy. Unfortunately she appeals greatly to these newcomers to politics or those who care not about watching the other side literally take a sledgehammer to the country but rather point to the other side for not fixing the damage quickly enough. There was a brief moment in time when I was a new voter and at a very shallow level liked the Green Party platform and Stein...
... But it didn't take long for me to realize that was utterly self-defeatist. And if Stein actually cared about the issues she pretends to care about, then she would simply run for Congress as AOC or Sanders have done and influence change in the Democratic party. Changing the party from the inside is far easier than going against the mathematically-impossible 3rd-party vote that ultimately results in a proven Spoiler Vote. So you're right... Some naive folks do support Stein; and those naive folks absolutely have more in common with the Democratic coalition than the Republican ones. So why would they ever want to support Republicans via Spoiler vote?
Anyways, we should all be advocating for Campaign Finance & Election Reform so we can truly vote for who we most ideally want without risk to supporting the person or party furthest from our views.
You're not going to get that with an incumbent party. How do you abolish FPTP inside an organization that won't give DC it's statehood?
https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-democrats-demand-statehood-for-dc-defend-district-s-right-to-home-rule
An Incumbent party already supports DC statehood and it would benefit their party greatly no less. It is completely possible to transform a party (e.g., how Democrats used to be what Republicans are now) and also push another party out (e.g., the Whigs) from within. We do that one Representative at a time, such as how Bernie Sanders and AOC have transformed the Democrat party.
I've written extensively elsewhere on the topic of abolishing & replacing FPTP and more, and ultimately, I believe it's going to require a groundswell bipartisan effort state-by-state on a scale as big as the civil rights movement to pressure for a new Constitutional Amendment, along with an accompanying state-level Constitutional amendment in each state. To me it's the only way to truly fix all the core problems while also making it immune to the corrupt Supreme Court.
They failed to pass a statehood bill in 2009 and again in 2017. That would suggest the party does not, in fact, support the change.
In both cases the outcome was overwhelmingly a result of Republican obstructionism with the vast majority who voted to support DC Statehood being Democrat. There is no reason Democrats wouldn't want another state that would be the bluest in the country to statehood lol. Democrats had a filibuster-proof super-majority for like, two months, and if you recall that kind of had other things going on at the time in 2009—including but not limited to health care reform and recession recovery.
In 2017... You know who was President and who controlled the Senate, right...?
Democrats claiming they need 60 votes to do anything are as big a pack of liars as Republicans claiming Unitary Executive is a thing.
These are institutions that are hostile to a majority black state.
They did and they do. Especially for partisan policies.
Show me the Republican Senators in 2017 willing to support DC statehood that would get it across the finish line.
Major Citation need for an extraordinary claim. Where is your proof Democrats of today whose presidential nominee is black is trying to stop this? Lmao?
How is DC statehood bad for Dems? Lol.
If you were sincerely never going to vote for either I honestly don't care. Throw your ballot in the garbage physically or technically, I do not give a shit.
But MAGA propagandists are also on here campaigning for Donald every day by trying to turn voters against the only reasonable viable candidate.
If your primary strategy for winning elections is diverting people into third parties, your election prospects are bleak.
A big part of Trump's problem is that he's glued to his base. He can't say anything appealing to a general audience without pissing off the anti-government haters at his flank.
I don't see anyone on this site trying to argue for Trump. They're all closeted in other communities, where any criticism of the GOP is forbidden.
Their primary strategy is using propaganda on fear-addicted racists to bring their voters to the polls, along with gerrymandering to maximize the effects of vote suppression strategies.
Vote suppression strategies includes not only closing polls and other bullshit, but also MAGA propagandists cosplaying as third party voters and attempting to deter votes that would otherwise go Dem.
When your strategy clearly cannot lead to your stated goal given the circumstances, you are either not smart enough to recognize that, or you are lying about your goal.
That doesn't change even if someone agrees with your stated goal. Ignoring the circumstances doesn't make them go away.
Fuck Jill Stein. Never forget the dinner she attended
If people can tolerate Trump being on the Epstein flight logs and Harris taking enormous sums from the Crypto-Bros, I don't think Stein's dinner with the Russians is going to phase them.
But I guess you can always default to the Libertarians. Can't think of anything problematic about a bunch of Americans that idolize Milei.
And the enormous sums she taken from AIPAC, and refusing to prosecute one of the architects of the 2008 housing crisis, opposing body cams on cops, locking up parents of truant children, etc. etc.
Oh sure, but this is all far-right pro-Trump propaganda. Don't let it influence you in any way.
Facts are not propaganda, you may believe that everything you disagree with is propaganda. She has a well-documented history of an being authoritarian right-wing cop
also I believe that was sarcasm and they were agreeing with you.
edit: unless they weren't. I honestly don't know anymore lmao. cause they're right about propaganda but that doesn't mean it's cool to just disregard facts that make you feel less good about doing something. One should take in the whole picture.
I don't bother trying to decipher sarcasm anymore when a majority of the bullshit isn't sarcasm.
Ben Shapiro ass response.
Selective release of and focus on information is a classic propaganda technique.
It is selective because those are pretty significant issues to be selective about. When she is in a position of authority like she was in California, she is very right-wing. She's very Draconian she's very authoritarian.
When she was VP, she went south of the border to tell civil war refugees to... what? Go back home and die? Absolute fascist freak.
The enablers of fascism are the 2 capitalist owned parties
Scratch a liberal...
Im glad you posted this, but no both-sides smoothbrain will be convinced by it, since they are either lost on the plot, a bad faith actor, or unable to engage in real world politics.
Still saving it, just to have one more post to bash them over the head with.
It's not about convincing a both-sidser.
It's about convincing someone who reads an article posted by a both-sidser and goes "Hmmm... maybe they're on to something..."
They aren't, they really, really aren't.
Another good one here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240122162245/https://theintercept.com/2024/01/22/biden-trump-president-election-third-party/
"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."
I thought Kennedy dropped out to support Trump? Maybe I’m wrong I’m not American, but thought I heard that.
But yeah I agree. It’s just splitting the vote, the same thing happens in the UK. For a long time until this most recent election we only had the Conservatives on the right, whereas on the left you had Labour, Lib Dem’s and Greens, yet the Conservatives kept getting back in because the left wing vote was split, they wouldn’t work together to step down in certain seats to let the party most likely to be beat the Conservatives stand.
Thank god, in a weird way, for Reform UK, massively splitting the right wing vote this time around. Allowing Labour to win. If Labour don’t change the voting system to proportional representation now that they’ve finally got the chance after a 15 year wait, then they are truly mugs. They won’t though I’m sure. They are hopefully supposed to be letting 16 year olds vote which should help.
But yeah, that Hitler story gave me the shivers lol. Apparently we aren’t allowed to call Trump a fascist because it pisses off Republican voters and caused that assassination attempt (even though I swear the guy was a republican voter??)
But like; he is literally a fascist. For me personally, if someone said, “we can stop Trump from ever being elected, but the price is you have to cancel the election and just say that George Bush won and let him have another term”. I’d take that deal. I genuinely think Trump is so dangerous, it shouldn’t be a republican vs democrats thing, it should be an Americans for Democracy thing.
Article is from before Kennedy dropped out, but he's still on the ballot in key states so it still applies.
Oh really? I don’t really get how your system works I guess lol. Cos I thought if he drops out he’s out. So he’s still running against Trump in some states basically? I would have thought he’d be taking votes from the right rather than the left though. But I probably just don’t understand your system properly tbf.
He tried to remove himself from the ballot in multiple states and was told "LOL - yeah, no."
There are deadlines due to having to print the ballots, once you're past a certain point, there's no going back.
https://thehill.com/homenews/4872514-states-where-robert-f-kennedy-jr-still-on-ballot/
He’s currently on the ballot in nearly half the country:
Alaska
California
Colorado
Delaware
Hawaii
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Nebraska
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Oregon
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Ahh ok haha well that’s good at least. I can’t see any left leaning would-be democrat voters voting for the guy who dumped the carcass of a bear in… I wanna say.. Central Park?
I love that they’re like “paper doesn’t grow on trees dude, we ain’t wasting anymore”.
I don’t really understand why these independents bother. Do they really think they’re gonna turn 3% (being generous) into 51%?? I don’t think so. I wonder if there’s some ulterior motive in play, like to just get their name out there and then with that name recognition, get elected into a much lower down position at state level.
Jill Stein in particular who at her BEST got 1.07%.
Generally she's 0.1% to 0.3%.
Hahah literally what is the point!? Well like I say. Probably is about name recognition otherwise why bother.
Either that or Jill is retired and bored/senile.. isn’t Jill the same name as Biden’s wife actually? Hahah. Maybe it’s Biden in a wig. Who can say?
I have given up talking to these people. I really can't with Rule 3 because I do not believe they deserve any form of civility, and since I can't call them out directly, I'll ignore them while destroying their points.
The targets of my takedowns of the 'Imma Vote Jill Stein!111one!1one!!''s articles are the undecided and wavering voters who REALLY aren't sold on Harris/Walz, but really don't like Donald Trump. That's where the 'a vote for anyone but Harris/Walz just makes it easier for Donald Trump to steal the election' line comes in. The 'lost the plot/bad faith actor/naive poster' people can't be convinced, but we don't have to, fortunately.
I know of a couple of Lemmy users who frequently hype third party candidates, and who will not like this analysis at all, lol.
As do I, I see the reports all the time. :)
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.
The underlying fallacy, IMO, is that people think the purpose of elections is to send a message to the government, instead of choosing the government (and that all political problems can be solved by sending the right message).
The best way to approach an election is to determine the most likely scenario in which your vote would actually decide the outcome (which in practice means a choice between the two frontrunners in a FPTP system), and then consider what difference that would make in terms of actual policy (rather than symbolism).
And recognize that this alone won’t fix all the problems with government—that will require other types of involvement beyond voting.
Unfortunately, too many radicals on both sides have over-inflated senses of their own self importance. "We're sending a message!" Yeah, no, no you aren't. You're actively doing nothing in order to make yourself feel good. That's it.
On the nose. The ones screaming the loudest about Democrats supporting genocide. Or saying something stupid like blue Maga, trying to deflect from the fact that they themselves are the most maga like of any on the left. Culturally slave to Virtue signaling no matter how much it hurts them. Get an instant down vote.
If we're going to send them a message. We should be running against them at the local level across the nation. Or better yet, coopting the party and make our candidate theirs. 3rd party presidential candidates are an exercise in pyrrhic self flagellation.
With the exception of Donald Trump, every single US President previously served as a Senator, or Governor, or a Major General, or Secretary of State, or Director of the CIA, or something. Some kind of higher office to prove their fitness in a political administrative role.
If we want a progressive president, we need progressive members of Congress and State Governors. Not only so we have an experienced candidates to put forward, but by having a significant representation people will just psychologically consider a progressive candidate to actually be viable.
And if we want progressive Governors and Congresspeople, we need progressive mayors and County Commissioners and Attorneys General to pull from. And if we want those, we need progressive City Council members and School Board members and all the other local elected offices.
These third party candidates with no real political experience shooting straight for President are so counterproductive, it's difficult to imagine they're anything but bad faith, intentional spoilers.
I feel like the most viable path to a third party at this point:
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.
We are a two party system.
Yup, at least outside Alaska we are...
Who would have thought ALASKA would have the most progressive statewide voting system?
Can we get that going elsewhere?
https://www.elections.alaska.gov/election-information/#RankedChoice
"In accordance with Alaska law, all general elections will be conducted by Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). RCV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Only the top four candidates who received the greatest number of votes for any office in the primary will appear on the general election ballot. There will still be a space for write-in candidates except for Presidential races. For a candidate to win, they must receive a majority (50% + 1) of total votes cast. If no candidate receives a majority of 1st choice votes in the 1st round of counting, more rounds of counting continue until a candidate reaches a majority."
We're working on it here in Colorado, but the two entrenched parties are fighting us tooth and nail. and don't forget, Alaska has a measure on the ballot to repeal that this election.
Were working on it in Oregon too, ballot measure in November. Our democrats are partially on board with it but all the conservative counties are fighting it for obvious reasons. I'm optimistic though. Oregon has a good track record on average of being forward looking.
This is where primaries are vitally important. They provide accountability with low risk to the overall direction of governance.
It could well be a consequence of how recently it became a state. There's a similar situation in the UK where elections for the entire country use FPTP but elections for the devolved parliaments (Northern Ireland in 1973, Scotland in 1999, and Wales also in 1999) use other better options . Maybe seeing FPTP in action for a long time just turns you against it.
NZ's Parliament was regularly described as "more Westminster than Westminster" until we moved to MMP in the 90s.
It has its bugs but it's far better than FPP and many alternatives.
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?
I wouldn't take this graphic too seriously...
0.5% rounded up to the nearest whole number
That's how math works
No, it is really not.
What is 0.5 rounded up to the nearest whole number then?
What does it have to do with 48% presented as more than 50?
They must have let people from each state make their own graph.
One exception proves the rule. :) But Florida is gonna Florida. There's no question who they're voting for.
It everyone else we need to worry about.
No, it doesn't. Also my point is not "how Florida voted"
It is that the blue part of the right graph is clearly bigger than half, yet the text description says 48%.
So the whole graph set is not really worth drawing any conclusion from, because you can't trust the data.
Wait, aren't ALL of those colors inadvertently transposed? The reds and blues are wrong.
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 🤦♂️
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!!!
Quick some body run as a super conservative as a third party and take away some GOP votes please.
Florida 2020 graph is not visually accurate.
Https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
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.
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.
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."
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?
Not going to vote your way out of this one unfortunately
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?
Yes, and my comment is the result of that outcome. Instead of people choosing what they think is best for us, they have a very narrow choice of who will make things worse less than the other choice. Regardless of who wins, we're gonna fall further behind developed countries on metrics of labor, environment, health, etc
Thank you. That's more than I get from most "just vote third party" commenters. But then you say,
The FPTP voting system results in 2 major parties where 3rd parties have no chance of winning. It's not people who've decided to do what they can to perpetuate the 2 party system we have - it's the system itself which needs to change. The people mostly vote logically (with the exception of 3rd party voters) given the current rules of the system.
Its weird how often people explain the problems of FPTP to me. Yeah, I'm well aware, im the one opposing it.
How’s that, exactly?
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!
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?
EDIT I like that. Downvoting is fine, but maybe explain why? Srsly I am very invested in politics, doesn't matter if European or US. So, if I am wrong on a factual basis, tell me.
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
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, the majority can identify a preferable candidate.
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.
In the US the fucking right wing has 50% in the polls. What are you talking about?
~50% of the people ate voting for a lying, narcissistic Nazi. One of your supreme courts justices took "presents " from someone who has a hitler singed version of "Mein Kampf" in his possession. Right besides ohter Nazi memorabilia.
And your concern is, that it would be easier for a right wing minority to gain power? You have a right wing majority.
We ate shoked over here in Germany that our far right has more then 20% in election results. Your far right has 50% and one of your presidential candidates represents them.
We had a right wing government under Trump, yet somehow Trump didn't achieve most of his goals.
He couldn't repeal progressive health care legislation. He couldn't leave NATO. He never built that stupid wall on the Mexican border.
He did manage to enact tariffs against China. But only because Democrats supported them too.
Finally, he got a tax cut for the rich without support from Democrats. That's his main legacy.
And that's the difference between your country and mine. In yours, a junior party can achieve its goals. That's great when you agree with those goals. Not so great when you don't agree with them, like in Israel right now.
In the US, often even a majority is not enough to get what you want. It means progress is very slow, but we've avoided several potential catastrophes.
He got abortion rights overthrown, handled the pandemic so badly, that the rest of the world laughed at the US, and got himself and his family richer by talking money and presents from foreign powers.
Your argument boils down to: in the US political system it is hard to change anything and therefore we are protected from "worse"? Does this argument still stand with the supreme court ruling about presidential immunity and trumps statements about dictator on day one or "you never have to vote again"? Project 25?
So, in my country we are moving towards a livable feature for citizens, in your country you are stuck with a system that only benefits the wealthy. And every approach that could change that will be undermjnedby right wing lunatics and their donors.
He didn't get abortion rights overthrown single-handedly. Anti-abortion activists have been working on that for decades, starting with the appointment of Clarence Thomas in 1991. Trump was simply responsible for the final step.
Progress is slow. But in a democracy, your opponents will inevitably have some victories. Fortunately those are slow too.
If your country is making progress towards a better future, then you should thank your fellow voters not your election system. Because a different group of voters could use the same election system to make things much worse, and in fact they have done so elsewhere. What have people like Trump achieved when they won elections in your country?
Anyway, the US is stuck with American voters. So I'm glad our election system enforces patience.
K
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.
You say emotions, I say evidence based. With over a century of results of voting exclusively for one of two parties. The result being we're more deeply ingrained in two parties than ever before.
Lets say we vote for democrats again, what are you willing to claim will be different next election with regards to moving past the two party system?
And all the evidence shows that, as the US is currently, voting for third-parties hurts you far more by allowing the major party that least represents you to win. You can't claim to adhere to "evidence" if you don't acknowledge that fact.
Also, I'm going to let you in on a little secret: I don't want any of the current third parties to win. None of them are serious beyond being spoilers for the major parties- they don't host voter drives, they don't campaign for local and state elections, they don't do anything for four years then show up and expect to have the same shot as the major parties.
I'm perfectly happy voting for a party to win who agrees with 60% of what I want than getting 0% of what I want, because it's the rational choice to make.
This is where we're losing eachother. I dont think youre understanding that I am advocating for changes from how the US is currently.
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.
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.
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.
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
::: spoiler Third Way - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for Third Way:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.thirdway.org/report/the-dangerous-illusion-of-a-presidential-third-party-in-2024 ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support