Don’t Fall for the Third-Party Trick
web.archive.org
"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Plus we keep using this outdated first-past-the-post voting system in the 21st century.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.
Literally any voting system other than the one we use is an improvement.
Yeah, ranked choice already seems to have a lot of momentum, and would fix a lot. That counts more than theoretical perfection that may not even exist in the real world.
I think people just want the emotional satisfaction of submitting a vote that says "this is my preferred person"
I second Approval Voting. STAR as well, but perhaps slightly less intuitive.
That's why one should always vote for Democrats who support voting system reform.
Are we talking about the same Democrats that sued to keep ranked choice boating off the DC ballot this year? or the Democrats that chose to keep ranked choice voting that had already been passed by voters off the Alexandria VA ballot?
I interpreted it as “vote only for those democrats who support voting reform,” but it could also be sarcasm.
Do those sound like Democrats who support voting system reform?
We're talking about these sorts of Democrats.
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.
Or in House of Representative, or Senate. The real power is in Congress.
Local elections is where most of the current people in power got started. Anyone voting for third party in the presidential race missed the boat.
Vote progressives into local offices so they can get experience to work in state offices so they can get experience to work in Congress so they can get experience to be a good presidential candidate. Also to fill offices at every level with progressives.
And it’s a hell of a lot easier to reform voting there too.
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.
The point though is that ranked choice allows you all the benefits of 3rd parties without the downsides.
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.
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.
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.
I wish it were different, but the Green Party sucks in the two countries I’ve lived in. I want to vote for environmentalists, but they seem to be Russian shills in the US, and they’ve had literal stasi members in Germany, where they were so opposed to nuclear, that the country still uses mostly coal.
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.
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.
Huh. Thanks for the correction. Sounds like Hindenburg sold Germany out big time.
That comment was not referring to literal nazis. They were talking about the American right wing.
Ok. Then I was explaining why it's not a "weird take." Because, you know... History.
It may not have been a weird take in the early 20th century. It's a weird take now.
It's literally an equivalent scenario.
Ah, of course. America's communist party should be trying to form a coalition government in Parliament this year. Literally equivalent.
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:
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.
Hitler and Thälmann lost to the center right Hindenburg who was backed by the social democrats. Hindenburg was already president since 1925, so he was seen as no direct threat to democracy. Then Germany had parliamentary elections in July 1932. Those had a Nazi + Communist majority, so they repeated the election in November as they did not have a majority to form a government as both the Communist and the Nazis were against democracy. That however although slightly better did not solve that problem. So Hindenburg used decrees to work with the Nazis so they could form a government.
So if the Communists and social democrats would have worked together and elected a left president. That might have been somebody from the social democrats or indeed Thälmann, then a minority centrist or left wing or a majority centrist and communist government would have been possible. The Communists however never tried to work with the democratic forces. The Nazis actually did exactly that, which they were able to use to gain total power.
Point should be obvious.
This is ridiculous, the Communists opposed the Weimar Republic, but they absolutely supported democracy. In their view, in fact, they supported a much more authentic form of democracy by extricating private interests from the process.
We keep glossing over this "liberals siding with Nazis" thing
I really think the word you're looking for here is "liberal"
You're making significant assumptions, such as any of the liberals actually being willing to work the with the Communists, which would be a hell of a change for the SPD after that business with the Freikorps. Otherwise, the argument is just "join the SPD" and assume that they can bring their voters with them while completely abandoning their revolutionary project and putting themselves under the discipline of a liberal party. I feel that this is something of a muddy issue that you're interpreting in a convenient way.
"Aren't you as well?" Fair question, and there's a lot about this situation that I can't speak to, but what I said before I am completely sure holds, which is that Hitler gained power, on the most proximate level, because of liberal collaborators.
The SPD initially prefered to work with further left forces. They worked together on the Reich Congress of Workers' and Soldiers' Councils however the SPD wanted a parliamentary democracy and the USPD wanted a council republic, so when they realized the most of the councils were not in fact communist and actually supported the SPD, that caused uprisings against the interim SPD lead government, which the USPD left. The USPD was also unwilling to work with the SPD in the national assembly, which was the parliament they set up and they were sitting in. Intresstingly the Weimar constituion has a few points which could have been easily turned to accomadate workers councils. Hence the more centrist forces worked with them and the consitution was born.
No it is democratic, which the KPD at this point was no longer. They were working on setting up a Stalinist dictatorship and no longer a council democracy.
I am looking at what we might want to learn from what happened back for the US election and other struggles against the far right. So pointing out that this was an option is imho extremely important. Obviously they did not do it, but that does not mean it is impossible to do it at least partly today, with different left wing groups considering different centrist groups not radical enough.
I was going to let it go, but this really bugs me. What are you even talking about here?
This is what I am talking about, especially the second half of the article:
https://jacobin.com/2016/08/ernst-thalmann-east-germany-stalin-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.
Given that she has the same stance on Gaza / Palestine as Biden, I vote against the orange bad rather than for her.
I agree that is a fucking terrible stance. It's fair to criticize them both for that stance and, especially after the election, we should all push them hard to change their stance.
It is absolutely shitty that they won't charge until after the election (if ever). Yes. Is it fair? No. Is it likely the only chance? Yes.
Single issue voters are hilarious. That's how we got here.
My comment said that I'm voting against my conscience wrt Palestine, so your comment doesn't really make sense.
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.
I hope you never suffer an illness or injury that suddenly thrusts you into the group of working poor, living out of the car, couch surfing or sleeping rough.
And they have no clue how close to reality that is for all of them.
We know. I have plenty of my own cognitive dissonance to sort.
American mercenary healthcare is the primary reason I abandoned my green card efforts. It just wasn't worth the risk that a car accident could render me homeless.
The average American tax payer individuals who make less than a certain amount get nothing in return. If we got services instead of global war, I believe very few would have an issue with taxes.
i hope so too yes :c
By the math, just the economic policy changes will give the non-rich a bit of a boost.
Same!
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.
Banded together and all refused to have a Nazi Chancellor? They could have done that, this just happened in France but this time the left had a majority. Centrists are more likely to join the Nazis than the communists though
I'm gonna assume you're still talking about the Nazis since that was your original comment so let's look at the reichstag breakdown of the election prior to Hitler being appointed Chancellor.
The Social Democrats won 121 seats in November 1932, the communists won 100 seats. The Social Democrats were socialists and the communists were communists. The nazis had 196 seats in the 1932 election. So if the socialists and communists had combined they would have had 221 seats which is more than 196. And those were leftist parties who were bickering. So if the leftists had combined they would have kept Hitler from being chancellor when he was appointed that in January 1933. But what about the centre party? Well, they had 70 seats and had a significant wing that was left and wanted to work with the social democrats. Now if we are conservative about it and say just 25 of those 70 were leftists, that would bring the 221 up to 246. And if the other 45 went to the nazis, which all of them never would because it was a big tent with diverse view points, that would have brought a nazi coalition to 241. So not as big of a majority but still a majority for leftists.
So yes, again, if the socialists, communists, and leftist wing of the centre party had combined their powers and hadn't been bickering, hitler wouldn't have been chancellor.
Basic source for the election results of November 1932. There's more pages for the parties and stuff on there so go ahead and poke around.
The problem here isn't "leftist parties bickering", it is self-evidently "the SPD aligning themselves with liberalism and fascism". It's not like the KPD refused to form a majority with other parties.
As an aside, "socialist" and "communist" are generally interchangeable terms and the SPD were neither by conventional definitions, but were instead (being very charitable to them) what we would call DemSocs.
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.
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.
Or will they? You see, this is what I don't understand about MAGA congressmen. If they make Donald Trump their dictator, they are abdicating their own power and giving it to him. How is this in their best interests?
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.
First time around Dems would probably vote Dems 99, GOP 0 and leave every other party blank, but over time people would realise that you can ALSO score your actual favourite (think of all the people that would vote Green if it wasn't a wasted vote) a 99 without hurting the "lesser evil's" chances. Greens 99, Dems 99 and GOP 0 is just as bad for the GOP as Greens blank, Dems 99 and GOP 0. That's the magic of score voting. And people who are really apathetic and refuse to vote because they think all parties are bad could still express an opinion akin to Dems 10, GOP 0, rest empty.
GOP 0? Trump barely lost the last election and the Republicans still control one house of Congress.
These are different ways to fill the same ballot! In score voting you give every party a score (in this case from 0 to 99). This was the example of a die-hard Democrat. A more moderate voter might vote something like Dems 50, GOP 60, or Dems 30, GOP 25
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.
I agree with this assessment for the most part, but it does seem like the best method for introducing a third party, which the US desperately needs. Do you have a better EV?
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.
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?
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.
Particularly, there was huge overlap in membership between the Freikorps and the Stürmabteilung. So it is important to note that the Freikorps was a direct precursor to the Nazi brownshirts.
You need ranked voting
Score voting is the real way. Superior to every other method by pretty much every sensible metric
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.
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.
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.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-does-not-rule-out-building-detention-camps-mass-deportations-2024-04-30/
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/donald-trump-mexico-military-cartels-war-on-drugs-1234705804/
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.
Your solution to defeating the duopoly is continuing giving them power and participating in it?
Would you like your vote to matter after November?
Then yes, I'm pushing the duopoly this time around.
So if they can't vote for their views now, and we keep pushing the duopoly, when do we get democracy?
When you start doing things that actually work.
Look up the Moral Majority and Jerry Falwell. They would show up at every local GOP organizing event with enough voters to make sure their candidates for jobs like mayor, sheriff, and county clerk got the nod.
That’s the neat part… you don’t.
It's not like your vote matters now. Money has all the power in this country, voters have none. When 1 billionaire has more political influence than entire states you have no power. You've surrendered your power to the donor class.
Who do you think has a better chance of fixing that? Putin's orange Fleshlight? The chick he had dinner with? Brainworm? Some other rando that gets less than 1% of the vote?
I hear you...it's a problem...
Throwing your vote away this cycle ensures that your vote will never matter again.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/opinion/politicians-voters.html nyt. "Despite extensive public outreach...11%..." The NEW YORK TIMES, of all publications!
This is the epitome of why Democrats hate Trump. He says the quiet things out loud. He has said 'I dont care about you. I just want your vote.'
This article confirms this, the Princeton study from 2012 confirms this. Several sources have confirmed politicians don't care about us, only the monied class
It's not a way to defeat the duopoly, it's a way to survive under it.
Voting 3rd party is also not a way to defeat the duopoly.
Give me a reasonable alternative and I'll take it.
You don't name a candidate to vote for, just say we shouldn't participate.
Who do you think scares Donnie more, Harris or your non-participation?
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.
The Democrats will never work against their donors. This will never happen.
Especially when their donors are the same donors to the GOP
Absolutely.
That part. They know where we're going, the only difference as far as I can see is some prefer it slower, to keep from spooking the populace, and others are willing to slaughter any part of the populace that resist.
One day, the lambs will stop screaming.
Marx didn't live long enough to see just how ineffectual that line of thinking actually is.
Same capitalists trying the same failed tactics of voter suppression.
Every one of his perspectives of capitalism and it's bourgeoisie governments still rings true.
I don't think "ineffectual" is the word you're looking for there.
„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"
The delusion is thinking you can change things with a single election. If you don't like the two party system (and I don't) then you must get more involved in politics than voting for the president. You would need to elect principled progressives at every level of government, fight against fascism at every opportunity, and diligently protect the progress we have made.
Voting for a third party candidate is like showing up to a birthday party as they're lighting the candles and complaining that nobody asked you about the decorations. It doesn't matter if your objections are valid, you've missed the window to do anything about it.
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 winning were the only effect that voting had then you’d have a great point.
No ones taking votes away from Harris, if she wants to get psl voters she can take up policy positions they support.
Winning really is the only effect and sometimes, not even then.
Votes are used to determine ballot access in future elections, funding, event presence and of course, by the two major parties to figure out where they could pick up an electoral vote or two by tacking a third parties platform onto their own.
Why some parties and political movements even use voting as a means to organize and raise awareness around their platforms and issues!
No third party has reached those thresholds in years.
2020:
2016:
2012:
2008:
2004:
2000:
And before then?
Even if the threshold for funding and ballot access isn’t met, voting third party helps get your party at events, tells the major parties how popular their platform is and builds support and awareness.
The last time a 3rd party got any significant portion of the vote was Ross Perot in '92 and '96, it had 0 significance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election
18.91% in '92, 8.4% in '96.
Before that, you have to go back to '68 where a racist 3rd party won 13.5% of the vote, and the South, also had no significance beyond that election.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_United_States_presidential_election
She's on the ballot where I live. I'm probably voting for her.
Hell yeah.
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
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.
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.
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.
WHO GAVE HITLER POWER MOTHER FUCKER?
Nobody in history has been more vindicated than Ernst motherfucking Thälmann. A vote for a Social Democrat is a vote for fascism now just as it was then - and the Democrats aren't even that!
I'm pretty sure if all Nazi voters instead voted SDP, Hitler wouldn't have risen to power. The only reason the Nazi Party had any appeal whatsoever is because fractured voting meant chaotic governments, weak and ineffective chancellors, and leaving the president with no choice but to issue emergency decrees just to keep the state apparatus in semi-functional condition.
The one way, the only way, given the composition of the Reichstag, that the Nazis could have been kept out of power is if the Communists were willing to swallow their pride and work with the Centre Party, moderate right-wing parties, and SPD to keep Hitler out of the Chancery. Instead, look what happened. Hitler was appointed Chancellor and purged the Reichstag of opposition. The Enabling Act wasn't passed because everyone wanted Hitler to have those powers. It was because you either voted with the chancellor or the SS would gun you down on the way back home.
That's the problem with today's so-called socialists. An absolutely myopic stance that what isn't perfect might as well be the worst thing on the planet.