That's precisely the way I described it working. The ratchet effect exists because there's never more progressives willing to leave the party, but some do and the remaining progressive voters weaken their own position with compromise.
Wait, is it milk made by stoats, like goat milk, or milk made from stoats, like oat milk? Which ilk of milk is in the same boat? Do you bilk the stoat out of it's milk? Or is there a moat of smote stoat passed through silk on a float?
Local parties are generally more in tune with the community. If you live in an area where a progressive party candidate would be viable, the Democrat candidates are probably progressive (or at least claim to be, Shitbag I mean John Fetterman).
This is a multifaceted issue. The Democrats need to do better, and voters need to be better informed about the process. Both things are true.
From a numbers perspective, though, this supports the Democrats moving further right simply because there are more votes in that direction. "Vote Blue" voters will not abandon the party they believe is less evil, and targeting 5% of republican voters will tip the scales twice that of gaining 100% of the third party voters (who are spread across various hopeless causes). If more progressives were willing to leave the centrist party and vote for third party candidates, it would force the Democrats to the left as long as the number of voters leaving exceeded the number of voters gained on the right.
In other words, being a pragmatic voter weakens your influence on party politics. Look at how unreasonable the far right wing is, and how outsized their effect has become. Most Republicans aren't fascist nazis, but they roll with it because they want the benefits that come with being inside the circle when the nazis get violent. And if you're a conservative, then aligning with the Nazis is just as pragmatic as progressives aligning with centrists. It's the same thought process, just with completely different systems of morality.
If you believe in your cause, then you should be unreasonable. You should reject compromise, and you should demand justice. And the math supports it.
What a fun comment to get in your inbox on an old comment thread. I got to play a little rendition of "How many awful things have I said?" while I waited for the link to open.
I am surprised to find this particular rant. I thought the take was relatively benign if you actually absorb what I'm saying. At first glance, though, maybe you think I'm promoting drugs?
I'm not saying Anakin is right. I'm saying he understands that Obi-Wan doesn't have the same perspective. Like I said, none of it is explored in the movies, but Anakin grew up around Jedi like Dooku, Pong Krell, Mace Windu, and Bariss Offee. He saw how the Jedi betrayed his padawan Ashoka. He felt his mother's suffering and was prohibited from saving her by the council. He was born a slave, rescued by a Jedi who cheated in a wager. Obi Wan possesses the physical high ground, but the moral high ground is much shakier from Anakin's point of view durr.
Anakin fell to the dark side. He chose to be merciless and violent. He had no empathy for sand people or jedi children. He is not righteous. But he didn't fall from high atop the mountain of morality. He was never all in on the Jedi code, the asceticism, the rejection of attachments and emotions, or the obedience to the wisdom of the council.
They did that a few times already. I think at different points the villains have been the President, the VP, the First Lady, the CIA director, and the secretary of state maybe? But they're always portrayed as secret traitors, and exposing their crimes is a massive scandal.
That's not, like, news though. Right? I mean, human trafficking often relies on sedation. Sleeping people are easier to hide in a tiny space, and children are notoriously uncooperative. I would bet folding money that it isn't just the small boat smugglers who do this.
I've worked for not-for-profits. Profit is still a motivator. They need funds to operate. Obtaining funds, controlling budgets, it's all part of the same thought process.
The only way to avoid profit as a motivator is to eliminate competition and provide fixed budgets. You will have X money to achieve Y goals. Your success depends only on achieving Y, and failure does not diminish your budget. Once you let profit in the door, it will seek out the people driven by it and plug them into decision-making positions.
That's precisely the way I described it working. The ratchet effect exists because there's never more progressives willing to leave the party, but some do and the remaining progressive voters weaken their own position with compromise.