You're viewing a single thread.
I don't like Joe Biden, I'll never forget the Neoliberal bullshit he did with the Republicans in the 90s we are still suffering from further eviscerating the safetynet to the draconian war on people suffering addiction. He's one of the OG former opposition party members the Reagan Revolution convinced to take the bigger bribe checks from Wall Street than Unions could ever match, today's neoliberal(D) party.
That said, I voted for him in the last election, and I will again out of harm reduction. He has improved on policy, but l even if he didn't, the American people do not get a vote on whether or not to elect a senile President this cycle.
You can have any President you like, as long as he's senile. If you vote, we'll get a senile President. If you don't, we'll get a senile President.
The question is whether you want senile and gleefully cruel(R), or just senile(D). I'll take just senile.
Or vote third-party, and you'll probably get a senile President, but maybe not.
And more importantly, you're helping to break the Duopoly and normalize voting third-party.
If a minor party manages to get 5% of the vote, they qualify for federal funding in the next election, and that might lead to real change.
Cornel West is polling at about 3% (and after Biden's performance, I wouldn't be surprised if Cornel picks up a couple more percent). We could be close.
Edit: Or just keep on thinking you have to settle for the lesser of two evils. (How's that working out for you?)
If you're in a state that will certainly be blue or red and has 0% chance of swinging unless a huge proportion of the population changes their party affiliation (California, New York, Mississippi, Alabama, to name a few) then vote 3rd party, sure.
If your state was within 10% of flipping colors in any of the past 3 presidential elections, DO NOT vote 3rd party. Your vote matters too much to risk it.
Yeah, that’s the conventional wisdom. When Ross Perot ran, most of his support came from states that weren’t swing states.
(Despite often being called a “spoiler”, he probably had little impact on the result of the election because of that.)
But! Later polls showed that 35% of voters would have voted for Perot if they thought he could win. And if all those people had voted for Perot, he would have won!
Just something to think about.
If we could somehow ensure that our actual desires were reflected by our votes without simultaneously risking our vote being wasted by splitting support between similar candidates, we could have actual representative democracy. But we all have a duty to prevent the worst to the best of our ability, even at the sacrifice of our support of what we think would be best, but unlikely.
Vote for ranked choice voting however you can. This paradox is intentional design, not an unforeseen consequence. We need to rework the voting system before things have any chance to get better without violent revolution.
It’s actually been mathematically proven that ranked-choice voting does not eliminate the so-called spoiler effect. It’s called Arrow’s Impossibity Theorem.
As people who live in a country with FPTP voting, we’re all intimately familiar with the drawbacks of FPTP voting. But all voting systems have their drawbacks.
(I’ve actually been a volunteer election worker in a country with ranked ballots and proportional representation, and the experience actually soured me on ranked ballots and proportional representation.)
Countries like Canada and the UK manage to have four or five parties with FPTP voting.
Stop waiting for the perfect voting system, because there is no perfect system.
Countries like Canada and the UK manage to have four or five parties with FPTP voting.
And they both are dominated by 2 parties. Hardly a defense of FPTP.
Stop waiting for the perfect voting system, because there is no perfect system.
There may be no perfect system, but there are certainly systems that utterly fail to capture the will of the people, and FPTP (especially the US's implementation of it) is one such system. People aren't going to magically all change their centuries long behavior of voting for 1 of two parties. This is a systematic problem, and the solution is election reform.
And they both are dominated by 2 parties. Hardly a defense of FPTP.
Justin Trudeau's current government is a minority government being propped up by a minor party (the NDP). That minor party were able to get the government to pass a Pharmacare bill in exchange for their support.
With just 24 seats in parliament, the NDP were able to deliver on an election promise to their voters. I'd say that's pretty good.
Justin Trudeau’s current government is a minority government being propped up by a minor party (the NDP). That minor party were able to get the government to pass a Pharmacare bill in exchange for their support.
"Being propped up by" doesn't change the fact that Trudeau is a member of one of the two main (and dominant) parties within Canada.
The liberal and conservative parties make up the overwhelming majority of the seats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_parties_in_Canada
And the last time they had a 3rd party PM was in 1993, three decades ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_Canada
And the party that appointed that PM died in 2003. The Bloc Québécois, the NDP, and the Green party have never once gotten a PM. You can't point to a system that does that as a success.
You're also comparing house of commons seats to PM seats, which is a bad comparison because of the scale and difference in location of said elections. A FPTP election in a locality will inherently have easier competition than a national level FPTP election. Often times seats like that go unopposed, or functionally unopposed, or X political party has no chance, which gives a 3rd party a chance. That same effect never happens with a PM sized seat, which is why you never get 3rd party PMs/presidents.
We need election reform. Even Canada's elections show how terrible FPTP voting is.
You're also comparing house of commons seats to PM seats, which is a bad comparison because of the scale and difference in location of said elections. A FPTP election in a locality will inherently have easier competition than a national level FPTP election.
There's no such thing as a "PM seat". The Prime Minister occupies a seat in the House of Commons like any other, for which he must win the election in his local riding. Justin Trudeau is the member for Papineau, a neighbourhood in north Montreal.
The Governor General (representative of the King) then invites one member of parliament to form government as Prime Minister, for which the other members of the parliament must give a vote of confidence. By convention, that person is the leader of the party that wins the most seats in the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister of Canada is not directly elected in Canada. There is no nation-wide FPTP election for PM.
There’s no such thing as a “PM seat”. The Prime Minister occupies a seat in the House of Commons like any other
This is unrelevant semantics. You know exactly what I mean when I say the "PM seat".
The Governor General (representative of the King) then invites one member of parliament to form government as Prime Minister, for which the other members of the parliament must give a vote of confidence. By convention, that person is the leader of the party that wins the most seats in the House of Commons.
This, I will admit is a misunderstanding on my part. However you do see how this is worse, right?
Like, not only do 3rd parties not have a chance in Canadian politics to install a PM, but also the general public has less of a say on this than they otherwise could. That is worse. Canada is a terrible example of FPTP working well/being sufficient for 3rd parties.
I disagree. I too have been involved in elections in my country (Australia) and preferential voting system is pretty popular. As candidates get eliminated your vote keeps moving to your next choice. What could possibly be fairer?
What could possibly be fairer?
Approval or STAR voting, since they are more heavily utilized by all citizens instead of just white people, they are purely additive unlike ranked, which allows for easy auditing and making sharing the results possible in real time.
They're also far easier to explain, which makes voting more inclusive, and the results more straightforward to follow.
RCV is definitely better than what we have now, but if we're gonna have election reform we should go for the best possible system, not a half measure like RCV.
Don't know those systems so you could be right?
Definitely take a look, it's actually pretty interesting.
https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting/
https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting-versus-irv/
And yet minor parties fair pretty poorly in Australian elections, and always have. Minor parties currently have 6 seats in Australia's House of Representatives (up from 3 in the previous parliament).
In Canada, third-parties (Greens, Bloc Quebecois, and NDP) have 56 seats between them.
In the UK, there are 11 third-parties represented in the House of Commons, with 84 seats between them.
I don't necessarily think that the best system is the one that favours minor (or major) parties. The reason for the success, or otherwise, of minor parties involved a hundred variables.
The best electoral system makes the best value of a person's personal vote. That might be minor or major party candidate or even an independent.
Part of the problem with Australia's voting method is that the Australian people don't understand how it works. They rely on following "how to vote" cards handed out by the parties at voting booths. Most voters don't realize they don't have follow one of those cards.
If your a small party and don't have enough volunteers to hand out how-to-vote cards at every single voting booth, you'll miss out on votes. This massively disadvantages small parties in Australia.
And even amongst people who do number the boxes themselves, most of them think "I like minor party X best, so I'll put them #2. I'll put a major party #1 because I don't want the other guy to win, and I want my vote to count". Which completely undermines the purpose of ranked ballots.
So I think there's something to be said for a simple voting system that the voters understand.
Also, it sounds like you're only talking about the voting method used for the House of Reps. The STV method of voting used in the Australian Senate is much more complicated and is a complete omnishambles if you ask me.
I hear what you are saying, and I agree with some of it, but not several key points. I have supported a couple of different parties and regularly hand out how to vote cards at different elections and have done so for decades. The idea that voters slavishly follow party advice couldn't be more wrong. One in two voters snub the cards outright, many rudely so. Contrary to popular opinion, on the day, the vast majority of voters know which box they are going to pick.
Secondly, your point about minor parties struggling in Australian elections. Well, so what? There is no constitutional imperative to either favour or disfavour small parties. Or large ones, for that matter. That you think that this is important is neither here nor there constitutionally. Myself, I think that it would be better if it were so, but no system should put its weight behind it. When the constitution was put into force in 1901, parties were not enshrined, candidates were.
and he still would have lost. he got nearly 20% of the popular vote and exactly 0 electoral votes. until we change the system, they cannot win. sorry. please vote against fascism
Notably, had Perot won that potential 35% of the popular vote, he would have carried 32 states with 319 electoral votes, more than enough to win the presidency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_1992_presidential_campaign#Results
But he didn't. He didn't get a single electoral vote.
Yes, but he would have won if everyone had voted how their heart desired.
Both major parties want you to believe that voting third-party is "throwing your vote away", but it isn't true. Simply expressing your heart's desire and having it counted on the public record makes voting worthwhile, even if your candidate doesn't win. (And in the case of Ross Perot, he would have won.)
You might as well say that voting for anyone except the candidate who is leading in the polls is throwing your vote away if that's how you see it.
A woman from a formerly Communist Eastern European country once told me a story. After their country had democratized, there was an election held on the day of a horrible blizzard. Her mother and father wanted to vote for one candidate, and her brother and sister wanted to vote for the rival candidate.
"Why don't we all just stay home, since our votes will cancel each other out anyway", someone said. And so her mother and sister decided to stay home. But her father and brother went out into the blizzard to vote, knowing that their votes would cancel each other out.
They just wanted to participate in democracy. They wanted to express themselves and be counted, even if it didn't change anything.
Yes, but he would have won if everyone had voted how their heart desired.
This assumes my heart desires having a president at all.
^THIS^
Once First Past the Post voting is gone, and ranked choice is in, third party will be viable.
But right now, that's not the reality we live in.
Once the thing that's never going to happen happens...
Well it's certainly not going to happen if you ignore the realities of first past the post voting systems, vote third party, and let the party that depends on tactics to subvert democratic will win an election they shouldn't have. Do that, and you may just not get to vote at all anymore.
Well it’s certainly not going to happen if you ignore the realities of first past the post voting systems,
If you've got a large popular mandate that reliably shows support for a policy (say, a large plurality willing to change FPTP to STB or Approval voting or whatever) then you can affect the change.
But even more than FPTP, we have a supermajority mandate to make changes to the electoral system on that scale.
Easier to win 50%+1 on an issue of policy than 67% on an issue of electoral function.
Do that, and you may just not get to vote at all anymore.
Civil Rights and Women's Lib had to be achieved outside the electoral system, because these groups were deliberately disenfranchised.
Or vote third-party, and you’ll probably get a senile President, but maybe not.
Vote third party and we are guaranteed to get a senile president. It's a two party FPTP system.
Edit: Or just keep on thinking you have to settle for the lesser of two evils. (How’s that working out for you?)
Better than telling people to throw away their vote. How's that working for you? How many 3rd party presidents have you gotten elected with your strategy? How many fascist policies has your strategy avoided us?
I’ve long fantasized of people being so fed up with both parties, that along would come a third party at the right time and enough people would flock to them that and vote them into office.
But it’s just that: A fantasy.
And anyways, there’s always the chance that said third party would be way way worse and maybe there’s a good reason why they weren’t more prominent to begin with.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't have the same fantasy, but until we get election reform it will only ever be fantasy.
And until it happens, we will never get election reform.
Not necessarily. The MAGA crowd took over the GOP. The same could be done for the DNC, but with actual leftists and election reformists.
There are several reasons why the MAGA crowd were allowed to take over the GOP. First, because they weren't pushovers, if the party had tried shenanigans to stop them there was a real possibility of people defecting from the party en masse, and even of violence at the convention. Second, because the things they wanted weren't really all that contrary to what the rich donors wanted.
The Democratic base is much more weak willed and willing to go along with whatever to stop the right. We don't have enough of that Karen energy, that "my way or the highway" attitude. And election reform is directly contrary to the interests of the establishment, and the aim of prioritizing ordinary people over the rich goes against the interests of the doners. They'll crush any internal movement in that direction, and people will still vote for them because of "vote blue no matter who" and lesser evilist ideology.
First, because they weren’t pushovers, if the party had tried shenanigans to stop them there was a real possibility of people defecting from the party en masse, and even of violence at the convention.
I think this overstates where things were at when Trump first got nominated during the GOP primary in 2016. If Trump had lost that, they just as easily could have voted red anyways. Republicans have been doing it for decades, they use their geriatric & evangelical blocs to strong arm their nominee to the presidency regardless of who it is.
Second, because the things they wanted weren’t really all that contrary to what the rich donors wanted.
Sure, but a lot of the time DNC candidates do things that the rich donors hate. Biden's cap on insulin prices is a good example of that. There will always be pushback on good policy. Complaining doesn't get us anywhere.
The Democratic base is much more weak willed and willing to go along with whatever to stop the right.
This is only really relevant for the actual elections. This effect isn't nearly as strong in the primaries where it counts and is needed.
And election reform is directly contrary to the interests of the establishment, and the aim of prioritizing ordinary people over the rich goes against the interests of the doners. They’ll crush any internal movement in that direction
Look, either we work within the system to make things better, or we have a violent revolution. There isn't much of a middle option. And I can pretty much guarantee you that a violent revolution would be the worse option given that it is a militarized police state with citizen tracking out the ass.
If every single leftist wins their DNC primary, the DNC doesn't have much of a choice but to run with them. That's how you get better candidates like AOC/Summer Lee/Jamaal Bowman, etc. They aren't perfect by any means, but they are a hell of a lot more to the left than the DNC is. And I can tell you the DNC fuckin hates having said candidates within their party. But they suck it up and deal with it.
It is very much possible to get more candidates like that, but it requires focus on the primaries, just like the MAGA crowd did.
This is only really relevant for the actual elections. This effect isn’t nearly as strong in the primaries where it counts and is needed.
The DNC has literally testified in court that they don't have to abide by the results of their primaries because they aren't real elections. They don't even have to hold primaries at all. The primary process is a joke and people who want genuine change won't be allowed to win, it's a dead end.
Look, either we work within the system to make things better, or we have a violent revolution. There isn’t much of a middle option.
There is, actually. Ditching the party and moving to a new one, for starters.
The DNC has literally testified in court that they don’t have to abide by the results of their primaries because they aren’t real elections. They don’t even have to hold primaries at all. The primary process is a joke and people who want genuine change won’t be allowed to win, it’s a dead end.
Yet the candidates I named won their congressional seats.
There is, actually. Ditching the party and moving to a new one, for starters.
And that's how you get the spoiler effect, and another round of fascist SCOTUS appointments for the next few decades, a fascist president, project 2025, etc.
It's obvious third parties have no chance. Why even pretend that's not true?
What if I don't like any of the major minor parties either?
If every single person on Lemmy voted third-party I guarantee you they wouldn’t carry a single state. In a two party dominated FPTP/winner takes all system voting third-party for president is irresponsible
In a two party dominated FPTP/winner takes all system voting third-party for president is irresponsible
So the two major parties keep telling us.
So stats tells us.
Vote third part and see how that works out for you.
Please don't
Most of these people can’t be reasoned with. We’re at the point where there’s no excuses for them not to vote to keep Trump from taking over.
The gloves are off.
Okay, but swinging at third party people does nothing to sway them, tends to do the opposite, and tires you out. It's like punching your own dick instead of your opponent in a boxing match.
They’re not third party. I’ll all but guarantee it. They’re just trying to ensure no one votes for Biden.
Because people not thinking like you is clear indication they are wrong. Sure
Purposefully not voting against a convicted felon and allowing him to potentially take the wheel after promising he’d help Israel “finish the job” is a clear indication that your “protest” vote to stop the gEnOciDe is complete and utter bullshit.
Will do. Thank you.
the American people do not get a vote on whether or not to elect a senile President this cycle
I feel like I've somehow become trapped in some kind of simulation or thought experiment where the purpose of it is to make lesser evilism seem as ridiculous as conceivably possible, and every time I think it's peaked with just comical levels of absurdity, it somehow manages to escalate.
do not get a vote on whether or not to elect a senile President this cycle
Yeah this is just false.
Which candidate of our only 2 parties that matter isn't senile this cycle?
He's probably a brain parasite guy.
Poor little guy starved to death.
I support the brain worms for all American humans policy.
Love that ratio!
It's up to the DNC as to which candidate takes the running ballot. I'm betting there are a lot of conversations right now about who will be that person.
You are half right and half wrong because that decision will come down to whether establishment Democrats or populist Democrats win.
And to be quiet frank, I don't even think the DNC gets a say. Since Biden is the incumbent, unless he bows out voluntarily, I don't think we the people or the DNC get to choose.
Our hands are really tied when it comes to the presidential frontrunner, unfortunately.
It's always telling when some one insists that a statement is true when they themselves know that it isn't.
It's 💯 the case the Biden isn't the nominee today. I'm not arguing if it's going to be a progressive or a insider that replaces him. Frankly, I could give a shit because either will be doing instantly better than Biden.
Biden is replaceable and there is a cult of personality that has developed that believes this isn't the case. They're wrong. There as delusional as the right wing MAGA crowd and their doing MAGAs work for them as the useful idiots that they are.
It's important to keep it clear that I'm not arguing that some how magically were going to replace Biden with a progressive. I'm arguing that needs to, and will be, replaced. That's what Thursday showed us, and I know for a fact that the Beltway heard this.
The party that needs to be convinced is Harris. And I think she can be. All of these machinations are happening this weekend, as we speak.
My called shot: Biden steps down as early as Monday, as late as two weeks from Monday. I'm going to be making some calls and seeing what tea I can find spilled.
I never refuted your claim in certainty, rebutting with my own truth statements. In my comment, I pointed to the variables in effect leading to whether Biden stays in the race or bows out. Realistically, it's uncertain at this moment.
I will say that if and once donors dry up, I do think that the DNC will take action. What action that is will depend.
It's going to be an exciting few days/weeks.
You can have any President you like, as long as he’s senile. If you vote, we’ll get a senile President. If you don’t, we’ll get a senile President.
there are other candidates you can vote for
You’re still going to get a senile president.
Harm reduction dictates voting for the least harmful outcome, period.
the least harmful outcome is a third party winning
In which reality is that possible? Don't be a dumbass.
The same reality that thinking voting for Biden in a rural deep conservative state is going to swing the vote. You can convince every person in the cities to vote democratic and still lose to the country side that state. Voting doesn't work the same for every state, don't shame people for voting their conscious. It's always okay to shame voting for Trump, but don't shame people for voting third party.
Afaik, that's simply not true. Take a look at the margins that Biden won by in 2020 in a few key states.
You'll notice that the third party votes could've easily swung the state outcome either way.
Finally, you'll notice how far behind third party votes are. The conclusion I'm drawing is that the possibility of third party votes influencing the outcome between the two candidates is greater than the possibility of a third party candidate winning.
I think we both agree that there are locations and states where it does truly matter. I think where I'd disagree is that it's not applicable for every state. Sometimes it's already decided on where you live. It's better not to shame third party voters in situations like that. The only way to get a third party one day is by starting in locations like that. Though coming from a situation like that, I also understand it's a less stressful election than one that you have a chance of winning. Just not worth shaming others who don't have the option of winning and vote third party for president for their conscious. Still voting blue for everything else though.
Except you do get to vote for no senility. That is what the primaries were for. Trump was actually struggling quite a bit against a young woman.
As was Biden for a hot second against a younger candidate. That was short lived. Biden was also getting a bit of a slap by a few people who were not on board for having Biden run the party again.
This is why you don’t sleep through the primaries and complain you only get the only one vote on parties.