You're viewing a single thread.
At least some, like Ralph Nader, regretted it. Now we have those actively seeking to spoil the vote.
The tragic thing about Nader was his activism basically proved to General Motors and later large American corporations in general that political engagement and and public opinion was vital. The corpos learned to fight grass roots activism with astro-turf until they were just as skilled as Nader's acolytes, only with orders of magnitude more resources.
Every time I see an Oil company do a commercial about their commitment to the environment I think of Ralph.
Similarly, Woodward and Bernstein showed the corporations how dangerous an independent press was.
Back in Watergate Era, there were plenty of locally owned newspapers and TV stations. Today, thanks to ronald reagan's assault on the Fairness Doctrine, we have six major media companies controlling what we hear.
What does third parties have to do with lifelong Dem voters wanting the Dem candidate to side with the Dem voting base on basic parts of the party platform like:
-
No fracking
-
Better healthcare
-
Climate change is real and producing less fossil fuels is a good thing
What you're doing is insisting if you're not 100% loyal to the candidate with a D by their name you really have an R.
That's the same fucking shit Republicans went thru and it ended up with trump.
Why the fuck do you want to follow down the path of "never criticize the party, and always vote for them".
Please explain to the class why this time it will work out good for the party that takes that path.
It's not that it will work out good (though in a sense, it has for the R in that they got what they actually wanted), it's that if the Rs have ~50% ish support, no matter what they do, because of them going that route, the only way to beat them is to get everyone that isn't them in a coalition together.
Right and that makes sense...
Unfortunately that's not what Kamala is doing.
I'll say it till my face turns blue:
Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take to guarantee trump can't win, but Kamala is pro-fracking, refuses to give the party voters what they want, and refuses to even explain why being pro-feacking is seen as a good choice by her and her campaign.
That isn't the only issue she's to the right of the party on either.
It's like her, her campaign, and the DNC aren't focused on beating trump, they want to beat Trump while giving the voters the bare minimum it would take, because the more they give voters, the less they get in donations.
So then telling voters "all that matters is beating trump" it's obviously bullshit because they're not doing everything possible to beat trump.
It ain't complicated.
Like you said:
the only way to beat them is to get everyone that isn’t them in a coalition together.
That's the opposite of what OP spends their time on, but considering a month ago they were intentionally spreading misinformation about when early voting started, I'm surprised the mods still let them post here.
Every single "meme" OP posts is about how Dem voters should fight with Dem voters rather than band together.
Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take, when the largest swing state this election has an economy that leans heavily on fracking?
It's not the instant win you think it is.
when the largest swing state this election has an economy that leans heavily on fracking?
You're confusing people and corporations...
Pennsylvania voters continue to be split over fracking. A poll out this week, which surveyed 700 likely voters in September, shows 58% support a ban on fracking while 42% oppose it.
58% of likely voters in PA want it banned...
58% of likely voters in PA want it banned...
Did the environmentalists show up for Gore? No they did not.
Did the environmentalists show up for Clinton who said she'd have a map room to fight climate change? No they did not.
Were the environmentalists going to show up for Biden after he passed green energy and ev policies? Polls said no they were not going to show up.
Harris saying she'd ban fracking is an instant loss. She and everyone advising her knows this.
When people are employed by those corporations, they have a vested interest in their livelihood not disappearing overnight.
A survey of 700 people leaves considerable room for polling error. Without information on how they selected participants, I wouldn't say that's an overwhelming margin.
When people are employed by those corporations,
...
The report finds that about 64,000 Pennsylvania workers are employed in fossil fuel-based industries such as natural gas drilling, coal mining, and supporting activities
64k, not just fracking, that's all fossil fuel jobs in PA.
There's 12.7 million people in the state
0.5% of people in the state work any job connected to fossil fuels....
You're confusing corporations and people homie.
A survey of 700 people leaves considerable room for polling error
You didn't have to tell us you never learned about stats in any educational setting, but I appreciate the transparency.
700 is more than enough
700 people is a good sample size if they are a truly random representative sample of your population. In real life, polling error tends to vary far more than 1/sqrt(n) because of systemic biases in how you select participants. Depending on how the survey was conducted, it could intrinsically favor certain demographics.
That assumes that 58% are people who aren't already voting dem
Not the person you replied to, but 58% of Pennsylvanians support a ban on fracking. It really shouldn't be surprising. Pennsylvania may be a great hub of fracking, but very few people actually benefit from the wealth it creates. Meanwhile, they're the people actually on the ground, living there in the areas most affected by fracking. They know its effects better than anyone. It's their ground water and their wells are being contaminated, all so a few companies owned by out of state wealthy interests can profit mightily. Plus, it's not like Pennsylvanians aren't also worried about climate change.
An economy that "leans heavily" on fracking? What sort of economy leans on destroying their water table? What did you say about the economies that "lean heavily" on coal mining?
Like what, West Virginia? Can me when they're a swing state, but don't hold your breath.
If the conviction issue depends upon it being a swing state then it isnt a conviction issue.
Who's arguing about conviction here?
I want the US to pull out of fossil fuels. In the immediate future, there is no presidential candidate committing to that, but one of them is completely all-in on expanding fossil fuels so I will be voting for the opposite candidate.
Less than a month before election day is not the time for purity politics.
Which candidate are you referring to? And it certainly hasn't been just in the last month that fossil fuel policies have been a political issue.
Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take to guarantee trump can’t win, but Kamala is pro-fracking, refuses to give the party voters what they want, and refuses to even explain why being pro-feacking is seen as a good choice by her and her campaign.
I'm skeptical that there's a huge swath of voters refusing to vote just because of fracking. And if there are people claiming that, I don't believe they would be voting even if Kamala did come out against fracking anyway. Everyone knows Trump would be much, much worse for the environment than Kamala, and to refuse to vote over one single environmental issue is either very dumb or completely disingenuous.
It’s like her, her campaign, and the DNC aren’t focused on beating trump, they want to beat Trump while giving the voters the bare minimum it would take, because the more they give voters, the less they get in donations.
because, unfortunately, donations are important. It's a shitty system, and this is what they have to do to win in the system.
It ain’t complicated.
actually it is.
I’m skeptical that there’s a huge swath of voters refusing to vote just because of fracking
No one said there was.
I said a majority of voters in PA want it banned, and Kamala would gain votes there if she agreed with the Dem voter base nationally and wanted to ban it
58% of PA voters want it banned
What is Kamala gaining by being pro-fracking?
Donations so she can try and convince the people who live by fracking and know how bad it is that they should vote for her anyways because Trump is probably fracking?
Even if that works....
You know that means they still have fracking in their backyards, right?
actually it is.
I can admit when I'm wrong, I really didn't think it needed this much explaining.
No one said there was.
you clearly implied it by saying, "Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take to guarantee trump can’t win".
I said a majority of voters in PA want it banned, and Kamala would gain votes there if she agreed with the Dem voter base nationally and wanted to ban it
58% of PA voters want it banned
...which does not mean she'd gain voters from changing her position. How many of those people are voting for her anyway? How many would actually vote for her if she did change her position? you don't know this, and neither do I, but I'm guessing they have a pretty good idea.
What is Kamala gaining by being pro-fracking?
Donations so she can try and convince the people who live by fracking and know how bad it is that they should vote for her anyways because Trump is probably fracking?
Even if that works…
You know that means they still have fracking in their backyards, right?
Yes. I'm not arguing that it's a good thing. I'm saying this is the way it is, and this is what they need to do to win in the system we have. If you want to fix the system, you need to vote D to gradually re-take SCOTUS and overturn shit like Citizens United that is fucking our politics with money.
I can admit when I’m wrong, I really didn’t think it needed this much explaining.
again some things are not as simple as you think.
you clearly implied it by saying, “Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take to guarantee trump can’t win”.
That doesn't say anything about non voters....
How many of those people are voting for her anyway?
If 58% of PA voters were voting for her anyways, why is it still a battleground state?
But why are you questioning every reason for why Kamala should match the party and ban fracking....
And you can't offer a si gle reason why she's pro-fracking besides:
I’m saying this is the way it is, and this is what they need to do to win in the system we have. If you want to fix the system, you need to vote D to gradually re-take SCOTUS and overturn shit like Citizens United that is fucking our politics with money.
So are you just admitting that the reason both candidates in 2024 are pro-fracking is because they're taking bribes in the form of donations?
Like, and I hate that I have to say this:
Just because trump takes fossil fuel bribes doesn't mean Kamala does.
Like, by that same logic you're using to defend fracking, a foreign government can buy off the Dem party to support and find their invasion of sovereign countries...
Because trump and the Republicans do it too.
Is that what you meant to say or do you not even realize what you're defending here?
Yes, in order to win in a shitty system, sometimes you have to do shitty things. Welcome to the real world.
If 58% of PA voters were voting for her anyways, why is it still a battleground state?
because there is more than one issue at stake in this election, and fracking ranks far down on that list for most people. there is also likely a significant amount of trump voters who are against fracking but would never change their vote to kamala.
So you legit think it's better to piss off voters and then use corpo donations to try and claw back some?
Your priority isnt getting votes then, it's getting donations. Donations that will need to be spent in an attempt to get back some of the votes we lost to get the donations....
Nothing will ever get fixed if we do that.
It's just creating an extra step that pisses off the people we need votes from
it depends on how many votes, and how much money. You are just assuming the votes clearly outweighs the money, but you don't have enough political experience or information to know that (and neither do I to be clear). But I guarantee you the Harris campaign has done the cost-benefit analysis. They could be wrong because nothing in politics is 100%, we'll just have to see.
The problem is that the broader Democratic electorate is a much bigger tent, with overall much more moderate politics, than online leftists are typically willing to admit. We're still only eight years past an election where Hillary Clinton took the Rust Belt for granted, and we all paid the price for that when traditionally solid union votes swung to Trump because he was boosting fossil fuel extraction while Clinton implicitly threatened the livelihoods of families dependent on coal and fracking jobs.
Healthcare you have a point on, but also keep in mind that the last time Dems had the votes for sort of sweeping reform was 2008, and what we got out of that was the ACA, which for all its faults was still a big step up over the status quo. Obama was going for a big bipartisan win, in spite of McConnell's announcing that he was killing bipartisanship in the GOP caucus, and that was a mistake, but perhaps an understandable one given that up to that point that's how Congress had always worked.
There have been windows of time since in which Dems have held the Presidency and both houses of Congress, but never with enough margin to defeat a Senate filibuster, and with DINOs like Manchin and Sinema standing in the way of filibuster reform. I do not doubt that progressives in Congress would move an M4A or public option bill through the legislature if, in 2025, the House flips back and the Senate stays Democratic in spite of the unfavorable cycle, but withholding your vote doesn't get you any closer to that happening.
The problem is that the broader Democratic electorate is a much bigger tent, with overall much more moderate politics, than online leftists are typically willing to admit
Polls show progressive policy isn't just popular with Dems, but all voters...
That's life mate, I'm sorry it doesn't agree with your opinions, but it's the truth.
That's why Obama's 08 campaign did so fucking well, despite not really being that progressive in any other developed country.
The neoliberal experiment has only benefited the wealthy, stop defending them, they got lawyers and lobbyists for them, pick people over corps and we can get something done.
Polls show progressive policy isn't just popular with Dems, but all voters...
That is until they're told it's a Dem policy.
And of course the progressives actually show up to vote.
What's your alternative, Trump? Because a 3rd party candidate will never win the general election without a massive overhaul of our election system which will never happen as long as the Rs have a majority in any branch of the government.
I don't disagree with the reality of what you're saying, and I personally agree, but at the same time I think you have to grant people the right to vote their opinion if that's what they choose. It's not my choice, but people should be able to represent their views how they want.
Except Biden repeatedly gave in to pressure from his voter base on a lot of actions, we also got a lot of changes to DNC policy care of Sanders voter base. It's not ''do or die'' it's vote for an administration that will actually respond to pressure and voter's policy goals, or vote for a dictator backed by industralists who all want an ethnostate of uneducated second class citizens.
Except Biden repeatedly gave in to pressure from his voter base on a lot of actions, we also got a lot of changes to DNC policy care of Sanders voter base.
And Biden got elected despite his age...
2020 was an example of the candidate moving their campaign left and winning the election.
-
Bad faith: "I want her to stop sending weapons to the country doing genocide."
Good faith: "So basically you're demanding that she solves the entire conflict immediately."
I think this is a dumb take. Third parties are only used like this in the US because our voting system is incredibly broken and there is little interest in fixing it. If you don't explicitly highlight the caveats:
- The spoiler effect is a fixable problem, even on the state by state basis.
- Third parties are, conceptually, a great idea
then what you're doing is attempting to uphold and protect the broken system from being improved.
It is a fixable problem, but it is not a fixed problem. Bringing them up during presidential elections and only during presidential elections doesn't fix the problem and just leads to it.
So you won't complain about spoilers during midterms, then?
The spoilers rarely show up, if ever, during midterms, which is very telling.
Then it'll be really easy to not complain about them.
Which is why the correct way to bring it up is to mention the spoiler effect.
The problem is when you talk to some republicans they want a 1 party system. They want to ban democrats. If you talk to some democrats they believe we should ban third parties. These are both antidemocracy views that normalize each other.
So what you're arguing for here (to be very clear) is that it is better to embrace a softer form of anti-democracy messaging than to explain that we should avoid voting third party when spoiler effects are a concern.
I'm saying that if you're in favor of strengthening third parties in America a lot of work needs to be done and just shouting vote third party every 4 years is none of that work.
And I'm saying damage control for third parties a lot more work needs to be done than simply saying "3rd party bad, 2 parties good." because idk if you've been watching but we're perilously close to having a 1 party system.
This a prime opportunity to educate voters on their own voting system and people are squandering that to oversimplify their messaging to the degree they sound like republicans.
Edit: To clarify if you wanted to eliminate the republican party, a 3rd party needs to replace it in a 2 party system creating a "catch 22" situation where fptp props up a fascist minority party because 3rd parties can't compete
Any third-party candidate trying to run for the president is either stupid or acting in bad faith. That's what the meme was pointing out. That's the reality of the situation in America until the work is done to fix the spoiler problem. If someone is competent and actually is acting in good faith, they don't run as a third party in US presidential elections. If their belief is we need stronger third parties, they do that by trying to change the electoral system at a more local level.
If you talk to some democrats they believe we should ban third parties.
I have never seen this argument from any democrat before.
Questioned their legitimacy in participating as a candidate in a presidential election? Yes.
But banning third parties? Absolute hogwash, I've never once seen that.
Sure you conveniently haven't, but I've seen it floated on these boards and the post in the chain above us we're replying to is aligned with antidemocratic messaging - it by no means rejects anyone who wants to ban 3rd parties.
But lets make an even easier comparison making it hard for 3rd parties to exist is not wholly different than banning them. This is in fact how republicans approached abortion before the supreme court's catholic wing decided to allow bans.
Its all working to the same goal. Anti 3rd party messaging without context and rational thought is just anti-democracy messaging which only helps republicans. Every legal tool democrats are using to beat down 3rd parties will eventually be used by republicans to prevent democrats from being elected.
The only way to fix it is to change the way we vote so that 3rd parties don't produce spoiler effects.
OK, so claims of randos on the internet.
NOT any single elected democrat.
Got it.
Ah so what matters is words not actions? Taking steps to remove 3rd parties from ballots is fine as long as you don't say it?
What matter is context. Intentionally leaving it out is garbage.
As is not saying which ballots you're referring to. In this case, I assume its the presidential election where they are playing the role of spoiler?
Yes, it absolutely makes sense to legally challenge those.
But "some democrats" is just as garbage and useless a comment as "people are saying".
Edited to add: This is also definitively and explicitly not the same thing as saying ban all third parties.
Nonsense. Utter nonsense.
You improve a broken system by fixing the broken system, not by pretending you're not using it.
Vote, agitate or even run as a candidate that will pass ranked choice voting, locally or larger. Support the interstate electoral vote compact. Do whatever you can to directly fix the system.
Until then, you mitigate harm within the broken system.
Nobody is arguing that. The problem is presenting third parties as bad without giving any sort of context on how and where harm needs to be mitigated.
For instance: Alaska has ranked choice voting. Why on earth would you waste resources telling people to oppose third parties if you know some of the people you're talking to live in alaska? It makes no sense. The problem here, as it has always been, is the voting system cannot handle 3rd parties and we should back away from them where spoiler effects are a concern
Contextually, we are discussing the presidential election. That's what the meme above is about. 49 of 50 states are FPTP. Alaska is the only one using RCV. Since Alaska's total population is 800k out of 345 million US citizens, the discussion of voting pragmatically for president affects 99.8% of Americans.
In Alaska, which does have RCV for president starting this year, people should fully vote for their ideal candidate, as long as they rank the rest as well so RCV works.
So overall, for every 500 Americans who read this thread and now opt to vote pragmatically, it might adversely affect 1 Alaskan, who may vote pragmatically instead of ideally. That's not a perfect ideal for those rare Alaskans, but it's still reasonable.
Right but if only a handful of swing states actually matter here so lets take it a step further, why waste effort telling people from like california or texas not to vote 3rd party because, lets be honest, the margins aren't big enough for third parties to matter there.
Like I feel like its both more convincing and more honest to just say "Don't vote third party where the spoiler effect is a concern" or "don't vote third party in swing states"
It doesn't matter until it matters. Voting fecklesly for a 3rd party in just one large election every 4 years has not and will not change anything meaninfully. You need changes like Alaska's, which based on state population size, was like changing a city ordinance. It will take a lot more effort to change over to RCV in basically any other state. A kind of effort fringe candidates should be applying non stop.
The issue with "well just do it in non swing states" is that you can't contain this empty, contrarian gesturing to just those states without the candiates opting to not put themselves on the ballot in others. If they did that intentionally, only applying to be on the ballot in non swing states, while also actively campaigning for RCV, then I would fully support it. None do.
The reality is the people like RFK Jr and Jill stein are intentional spoilers, heavily subsidized by right wing billionaires and foreign powers to throw the election in those swing states. You can follow the money and see it in action. Until they seriously apply the above efforts, that's all they will ever be, and they don't deserve even token gestures of support.
The problem here is that the 2 party FPTP system is propping up the republican minority party creating a catch 22 where in most countries the republican party would split between resulting in a centrist party and a "MAGA" party. Like if you look at the UK that's kind of what happened. But here in the US its created a zombie republican party controlled by fascists.
Like the fact that more states have not adopted viable ranked choice voting methods and constrained the electoral college system is currently why Trump even stands a chance today. The people deciding the 2024 election are like begrudging centrist-leaning republicans who are being given two choices they don't like and we'd all be better off if they could just get like a house rep isntead and didn't decide the president.
Yes, that is an accurate representation of the issue of FPTP.
What does voting for Jill Stein or RFK Jr do to change that in 49 of 50 states?
I'm saying that the problem here is that the problem isn't "Third parties" its "The Spoiler Effect".
You might think that's a distinction without a difference but if you say "We need to eliminate 3rd parties" that's a very different solution from "we need to eliminate the spoiler effect"
PS: Fuck that moron Jill Stein because she's only made this shit harder to talk about
The spoiler effect is absolutely a fixable problem. It would be great if our current third party candidates actually put in effort to exist in the political eye and work for said reform, outside of crawling out of their hole every 4 years to run for President.