589
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
589 points (88.9% liked)
politics
19194 readers
3213 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You make valid points and we ultimately agree that we should change our voting system. But that happens from the ground up, voting for a third party in the presidential election does nothing.
What are they going to do? "Oh no, people are unhappy with the two parties...well we better dilute our power and give them ranked voting."
Never going to happen. But you can work locally to get the changes and encourage that elsewhere. Voting third party is worse than slacktavism, as it's both pointless and counter productive.
Don't try to play the game you want to be playing, play the one you're currently playing.
Can you elaborate? Do you think it’s pointless if more red voters go for third party?
The only good argument I’ve seen against voting third party comes down to: dem voters are more likely to vote third party so more voting third party means more red votes.
Like wouldn’t it be a good thing in your eyes if existing red voters voted third party?
You are demonstrating my point why it's counter productive: you're less likely to get something resembling what you want, and more likely to get something almost exactly the opposite of what you want.
To elaborate, the issue is our FPTP voting system. With rational actors, it's going to tend towards a two party system. The simple example is that if you have a progressive candidate and a liberal candidate, who both pull 30% of the vote, and some far right wing candidate that pulls the remaining 40%. . . every time the right wing candidate is going to win, and the liberals/progressives, who would be mostly happy with the other candidate left wing candidate, are going to end up with the exact opposite of what they want. So these two groups act rationally and coalesce around a single candidate, so now they get 60% of the vote and win every time, while not getting everything they may want.
So even if a third party does win at some point, which has happened in the past, it will quickly return right back to a two party system . . .usually because the third party won and the people whose vote was split realize that it was a terrible strategy.
So sure, if it was right wingers splitting the vote, I would be more likely to get what I want and that would be fantastic. But despite being dumbasses that will vote for Trump, they are still rational enough to realize that not coalescing around a single candidate would be a disaster for them, so they also have a single candidate.
And now that the parties are entrenched, there is no way that the people who have worked up through this system are going to relinquish the control they have. It has to come from the bottom up, or via some (likely violent) revolution. The latter would be more miserable for everyone, so if people really care about not having a two party system, they should be getting involved in local politics and getting it to switch the voting system first, and having that filter up. It's not easy or fast, but it's way better than the alternative.
Circling back - I initially did not respond because I thought that my response would be caustic and catty.
It seemed that the first two paragraphs you wrote were in response to me, but the rest were just the same canned responses that get shared with everyone who throws out a ‘voting is pointless’ message. And that’s not really my stance, or my comment. It kind of upset me, so I felt that I couldn’t have responded politely at the time.
It is a reasonable conclusion to draw from my statements, but I don’t believe people should refrain from voting. I just believe political parties should deliver on their promises, and if they don’t deliver, then they should stop making those promises, or make way for parties that do.
Yes.
It’s not ‘the norm’ as far as beliefs go, but I do kind of think that should be exactly what they do. They are here to lead and govern. That is what public service is. It is service to the public.
If they behave in protectionist ways for the sake of their party’s over the public interest, then they lack the mandate to represent the public.
Leadership is sometimes sacrificing the power of your party for the good of the people. But that’s also irrelevant as an argument. If democrats represent the ideals they claim to represent, then next time they have a trifecta, they should move towards expanding democracy at a federal level, rather than leaving it to states. Leaving it at the state level guarantees the sort of gridlock that holds back local organizing - only certain kinds of ballot initiatives are even seriously considered at a state level because it’ll harm that state’s power on the national stage. In terms of ideology, more U.S. citizens align with democrats than republicans (but huge numbers of left leaning folks don’t vote due to lack of representation). Their political aims would see more progress with a better represented (and presumably more engaged) populous in a coalition government where their ideas can enjoy broader support.
But they don’t run on ideas or by providing better governance. They’re a business that relies on laws and marketing campaigns to succeed in a given ‘business cycle.’
You missed the point: It is a rhetorical question. Of course they aren't going to do that. It's not how it works. These people got into power that way, and there is no way in a representative democracy that you are going to get enough of the reps who gained the power a certain way to give up that way. You are arguing what they should do, and I agree with you. But the problem is that focusing on that is just blind idealism. I'm pointing out the dirty reality of how politics works.
And this assault on "well washington democrats aren't idealistic do-gooders!" is just a counter productive position (unless you want Reps to win instead). They are humans who have human faults, and primarily made up of people who have sought out the power, so a lot of those faults are going to be amplified.
But that's the game we have right now. Ranked choice is great, but it ain't going to come from people wringing their hands over "Well, washington democrats with their slim majority weren't able to force through sweeping changes that some of their members don't even agree with!" It's going to come from getting your hands dirty locally.
It's super easy to be like "I don't like either party." Good for you. I've known plenty of edgy 14 year olds who have been able to "reason" themselves to this same conclusion. But nothing you propose is realistic or will solve it.