Yeah, I’m voting for Biden because I’m not insane, but you can’t make me like it.
I still have my Bernie sticker on my laptop. Big RIP to the future that could have been.
2016 taught me that 3rd party and no voters tilt the scale in the favor of Republicans. I’m getting flashbacks with all the comments on Lemmy here saying as much.
Funnily enough it worked in the opposite direction in 1992. But in 2000 yeah, it happened then, too. And 2016.
Bill Clinton was in many ways a blue Republican, and he fed the “both sides are the same” brain worm that still haunts american politics.
Okay.
I still legitimately have flashbacks to election night in 2016. Fuck. It’s insane that it’s almost a decade ago. I can remember it like it just happened.
Long before Bernie there was Al Gore in 2000 who lost because of a supreme court decision saying the majority vote did not matter in the US (not really, but it did decide the election and stop the Florida recounts). Not only changed the narrative on climate change for the future, but also about what matters for federal elections.
I wrote in Bernie in the Democratic primary. IDK if that even gets counted; I don’t know how it works, but fuck man, someone reads it I know, even if from there it goes straight into the “N/A” column.
With you, my bro.
Nobody wants to make you like it. It’s a duty.
deleted by creator
Biden hasn’t been the worst president, but he’s far from what we’d like and streets ahead of Trump. It sucks knowing our government is completely bought by the rich.
Splintering of the establishment left (SDP) versus the actual left (KPD) in the 1932 German elections was a big part of what allowed Hitler’s rise to power. Even while both were literally gun-battling in the streets with the paramilitary force that later became the SS, the KPD was calling the SDP “the main enemy” and “social fascists.” The SDP saw what was coming and allied with their conservative opponents to promote Hindenburg in the 1932 election, so that Hitler wouldn’t win, while the KPD ran their own candidate who siphoned off 13% of the vote.
Hindenburg still barely squeaked into power, but Hitler was the only candidate with a strong unified front behind him, and on Hindenburg’s death Hitler assumed power and immediately starting killing the KPD members en masse. The SDP and KPD blamed each other, for not compromising and thus allowing Hitler to gain so much ground instead of facing a unified opposition, but at that point it didn’t really matter who was or wasn’t at fault, and the KPD were the first grouping explicitly singled out for death once he took over.
You can read all about it in here.
I had someone on Lemmy tell me not that long ago that the lesson of this was that the KPD was right, and the SDP were the real enemy for compromising with the conservatives, and if they’d just been more left and earned the support of the real left people then the whole thing wouldn’t have happened. I do wonder what attitude in hindsight of one of the KPD people in the camps would have been to this “it’s not my job to vote for you, it’s your job to earn my support” electoral philosophy, but it’s impossible to know, because of course they all were put to death.
I had someone on Lemmy tell me not that long ago that the lesson of this was that the KPD was right, and the SDP were the real enemy for compromising with the conservatives, and if they’d just been more left and earned the support of the real left people then the whole thing wouldn’t have happened.
Yeah, that sounds like my experience on here.
The SPD ordering the execution of Luxemburg and Liebknecht kinda was an irreparable schism I think.
Ah yes, remember the part where the Spartacists had a literal armed uprising because they didn’t like the prospect of participation in a democratic government? Something Luxemburg herself voted against?
Oh, what am I saying, what I meant is “The Weimar Government should have put the gun barrel to their head and begged the Spartacists to pull the trigger on them”
She was still killed in spite of that, which was my point: establishing that the political bridge was burned; the division was not healed in time to form a united front against the Nazis.
There is no disagreement here the SPD fought the KPD and won.
They mainly used Freikorps to do it, and those Freikorps were nothing close to left wing or even democratic. They were imperialists and monarchists who formed the basis for other more infamous paramilitary groups. Interwar history is wild.
There is no disagreement here the SPD fought the KPD and won.
“How dare you fight back when I try to armed-uprising you, that is very unfair and my feelings are hurt now and so I can’t support you.”
I love the left dearly but this sounds exactly like left person logic, yes. 🙂
the division was not healed in time to form a united front against the Nazis
And again, it’s relevant that the SDP was willing to heal divisions with (at least some of) their enemies to fight the Nazis, and the KPD (from what you’re saying) were not (at least where the SDP was concerned).
I have no particular dog in this fight; I’m out of my depth now in terms of what happened and who was at fault. My point is, those bitter divisions and arguments and the justifications for them that you’re talking about – however you want to allocate blame for them between the SDP and KPD – didn’t do either of them a lick of good when the NSDAP started kicking down doors and shooting them both in the back of the head, and that’s relevant to the upcoming US election.
Why is it always a fake made up quote to respond to? It will sound however you want since you came up with it.
I really was just trying to point out that the division between the SPD and KPD didn’t start in the 30s and went back further and involved some pretty complex shit regarding World War 1 and its aftermath.
But I may have been too partizan bringing up the Freikorps: whom the SPD allied with in 1919 and some of which formed the Sturmabteilung, the Nazi paramilitary organization: in 1921. Maybe that context is too inappropriate.
I wasn’t trying to put words in their mouth; just saying how it sounded to me if they were upset that when they took up arms against the SDP in 1919, what came back to them was violent and unfair. There’s also the issue (which is maybe why I’m so unsympathetic in general) that it’s silly to still be upset in 1932 about something that happened in 1919, when the way to stay alive and keep alive a whole bunch of people who had nothing to do with either SDP or KPD, would have been for both of them to let it go and start fighting the bigger enemy.
But yeah, maybe I picked an unkind / unfair way to make the point, you’re right. And like I say, we’re into the detail points that I really don’t know about, so I am learning also from you about all of this for the first time.
I won’t launch into the end of WW1 or the civil wars and revolutions replacing monarchies and empires overnight, so I’ll just give a contextual thought.
1932 and 1919 are thirteen years apart.
Donald Trump was elected eight years ago.
It isn’t too crazy of a timeline, politically speaking. And for the germans their leadership was summarily executed by paramilitary groups sent by the government.
I have no particular dog in this fight; I’m out of my depth now in terms of what happened and who was at fault. My point is, those bitter divisions and arguments and the justifications for them that you’re talking about – however you want to allocate blame for them between the SDP and KPD – didn’t do either of them a lick of good when the NSDAP started kicking down doors and shooting them both in the back of the head, and that’s relevant to the upcoming US election.
No, it didn’t. Which is why I’m all-in on making sure that the NSDAP doesn’t win this election.
She was still killed in spite of that, which was my point: establishing that the political bridge was burned; the division was not healed in time to form a united front against the Nazis.
And you think the division between the SPD and KPD in 1933 was due to… the actions in the chaotic post-war environment of 1919, despite periods of participation in a common united front before that and the fact that the KPD’s final break with SPD cooperation came at the behest of the Stalinist USSR, which made demands the KPD, like most interwar Communist Parties, cheerfully danced to without question?
There is no disagreement here the SPD fought the KPD and won.
More precisely, “There is no disagreement that the democratic government, which included the SPD, fought the armed uprising against the democratic government, supported solely by the KPD, and won”.
I am am clearly stating the political schism between the KPD and SPD from post war Germany wasn’t mended by the time of the Nazis. More examples of that division worsening isn’t really counter to that notion.
Ignoring the extended period of a united front breaking apart because the leader of the KPD was a Soviet puppet isn’t exactly “an issue in 1919 wasn’t mended 😔”
Their deaths easily left a power vacuum that was filled by soviet leaning german communists, most especially after 1922 when the civil war ended and the soviets emerged victorious. While some of the prominent german communists that werent russian soviets… were dead.
The Nazis had formed by 1920 and the S.A. formed from some Freikorps by 1921. It isn’t like there was an expansive amount of time there.
Lmao that was me again
KPD was responding to the same economic distress as the NSDAP, they were right to believe the national populist movement would continue growing if they didn’t deliver on real material relief to the German people.
That the SPD eventually fell to the NSDAP (with hindenburg placing Hitler as chancellor, allowing him to assume power after his death) certainly doesn’t exonerate their responsibility in allowing the rise of the nazis.
That was a banger conversation, if I wasn’t on mobile I’d go back and find it.
I think I got irritated and just abandoned the conversation, but we can continue.
What you just said actually made a lot of sense and as far as I know the history, I agree with it more or less completely (and would allocate blame for Trump at most of the Bill Clinton / Nancy Pelosi type Democrats in exactly the same way for exactly the same reason)
So if it sounded like I was exonerating them I was not. My point was, once Hitler comes around it doesn’t matter; if you’re still running a 13% spoiler candidate to weaken the alternative to Hitler, and then blaming the ones who won the election because they didn’t do a good enough job of compromising with you… I mean, you may have a case, but you’ll still be dead if Hitler wins. Surely that is relevant?
They sure didn’t get the real material relief to the German people by not supporting Hindenburg; definitely not until 1945 and even then it came with some caveats.
Plenty of area of agreement I think.
I just don’t think the NSDAP would have been defeated even if the SPD and KPD somehow fully united (I probably have as much knowledge of the history as you do, or less). Fascism doesn’t work like that, it would have just continued to boil under their thin coalition until eventually they would have to put it down forcefully. Just like I don’t think beating trump in a single election will defeat the fascist movement he represents. Whoever it is that’s leading the opposition has to take (likely un-democratic) action against them if they really want to put it down, and honestly I don’t know if it’s a good thing or a bad thing that Biden wont cross that line.
Revolutionary movements generally don’t fully resolve until the conditions that seeded them change, one way or the other. That’s why it’s important that whatever coalition that forms the opposition is serious about addressing them, and in my mind simply having the coalition isn’t enough.
Just like I don’t think beating trump in a single election will defeat the fascist movement he represents
I don’t think anybody is under the illusion that stopping Trump from winning would end republican fascism.
But at the very least, delaying it is preferable. Because in that delay time we can weaken their movement, help get trans people to safety, and so on.
Then Biden should be doing what he can to make that happen, and from where I’m standing there’s at least one thing he’s doing that his base is irate about
If the one thing he needs to do to kick the can is be popular then woah is he not the right candidate
he not the right candidate
He’s the less wrong candidate. Sorry reality is this hard for you but them’s the breaks.
The leftists I know voted for Biden in 2020. Real well read, organized leftists, not online strawmen. They didn’t like it but they did it.
Of course. If I was American I wouldn’t spend a second campaigning for Biden or telling people “you need to vote!!” online, because I’d rather spend that time unionising my workplace, doing mutual aid, building up communities. Things that build real structural change no matter who’s in power. But on the day I’d still go vote for the lesser evil candidate. It takes a small amount of time. Then I’d go straight back to real work. I think most leftists do the same.
ThIs MeAnS yOu LoVe GeNoCiDe
-actual thing that gets said regularly by morons
Big bridal shower at a gay bar energy these fake leftists be bringing to the defense of America’s most vulnerable when it involves them doing something other than just showing up at the grammable protests and marches.
One of them told me any amount of collateral damage to vulnerable groups is acceptable as long as massive numbers of white moderates are executed, which will teach them a lesson. Except it will be the leftists who are executed? IDGI. It’s like they love any sort of authoritarianism far more than they love leftist economics.
Surely what will emerge from the ashes will be a stateless, classless egalitarian society and not a fascist wasteland!
And then everyone clapped.
Maybe he didn’t mean it. There’s plenty of overlap with edgy teens and the useful idiot authoritarianism fans.
It’s astounding. My only comfort is that online communities rarely reflect the makeup of the real world.
I’ll take Things That Don’t Happen for 300, Alex
Oh, cool, I was hoping my experiences on Lemmy were just a series of elaborate hallucinations.
Me too bud
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Who is that gray person supposed to represent?
They’re supposed to be an NPC, a “Non-Player Character.” The term comes from video games, but in this meme format, it refers to a person who doesn’t think for themselves, thoughtlessly repeating talking points, without engaging in good-faith discussion. Sort of like how a character in a video game just repeats predetermined lines of dialogue.
In this specific case, it’s representing a particular sect of leftists, who criticize Liberals for being uncooperative with them (or will cooperate with people furthermore to their right, such as conservatives, reactionaries, or fascists, instead of with said leftists), who also won’t vote for Joe Biden in the upcoming Presidential general election.
This is neither an endorsement nor rejection of the message, but they’re saying (this sect of) leftists are hypocrites, thoughtlessly bashing Liberals instead of working together.
I hope that answered your question :-)
Big thanks! It did answer my question and I also learned something new about this meme type.
The kind of people who say “Liberals hate leftists more than fascists” and then proceed to oppose liberal coalition candidates in situations where a leftist coalition candidate is nonviable, even though fascism is the only realistic alternative outcome to the liberal coalition candidate winning.
Unfortunately my country is filled with right wingers
democrats fund fascists: https://www.vox.com/23274469/democrats-extremist-republicans-mastriano-cox-bailey
and boosted trump into the presidency: https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
Democrats promote fascists so they can pretend that they’re heroes for running against them. Vote for biden, but don’t fool yourself into thinking that you’re not voting for a fascist, because democrats are absolutely allies of fascists if not outright fascists themselves. They would rather lose an election to a fascist than let a leftist win, 2016 is a prime example of this. As the saying goes, scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.
Define fascism
STFU
From a European perspective, this debate is saddening, because it results in people alienating voters if they didn’t pick the “right” option, where “right” is whatever moral position you want them to have, on the basis of putting onto them a direct responsibility of an unwanted result, from their indirect action. It is your responsibility to campaign for your own party, and this is not a way to convince people to vote, nor join your side. Your two-party political system is ruining any possibility of political debate for smaller parties, and you end up silencing the voices of minorities that aren’t represented by your two monoliths, all thanks to your holier-than-thou attitude. The people voting for Trump are the ones who will get Trump elected, not the people voting for whoever supports their political affiliations, not participating in your dirty voting shenanigans. The only thing you’re achieving is guilt tripping someone you could otherwise convince to vote for another party, and pushing them away, making sure they will not vote in your favour next time.
We had the same thing happen in France, where voters were consistently asked to vote against a party for the presidential elections, rather than for the party that represents their ideals. In 2022, upon being elected Emmanuel Macron declared “I also know that many compatriots voted for me, to block the ideas of the extreme right. I want to thank them and tell them that I am aware that this vote binds me for years to come. I am the guardian of their attachment to the Republic”, and then proceeded over the next few years to apply a political program that would make Le Pen proud. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Here are some articles on the subject of “useful vote”, translate at your convenience :
- https://theconversation.com/le-vote-utile-est-il-un-probleme-178185
- https://www.sudradio.fr/politique/presidentielle-le-vote-utile-est-une-arnaque-affirme-ian-brossat
- https://www.nouvelobs.com/election-presidentielle-2022/20220329.OBS56369/l-appel-au-vote-utile-peut-il-faire-retrouver-aux-abstentionnistes-le-chemin-des-urnes.html
- https://www.ina.fr/ina-eclaire-actu/le-vote-utile-un-terme-utilise-a-chaque-presidentielle
- https://www.la-croix.com/France/Politique/Le-vote-utile-vraiment-utile-2017-04-21-1200841288
And a quote from a random internet user, roughly translated :
No need to be from Saint-Cyr to understand that induction does not only concern cooking in the kitchen, even if it is electoral. The concept of a useful vote naturally leads to that of a… useless vote! Indeed, it may seem legitimate to think that to “have influence” on an election, it would be better to do like the others by voting for those whom the polling institutes place at the top of voting intentions. This is how for a long time, elections have been scrutinized through surveys in which respondents tell you “the trend”. The useful vote is a concept, the reason for the survey which creates the opinion of the respondents. Isn’t the real usefulness of voting to choose according to one’s own convictions and to grant a useful vote to the candidate whose program best defends our values, our interests determining airtime which has determined, finally, did his sound sound in the polls? Not recognizing this means admitting that “uselessness” leads to abstaining from voting. This is unfortunately a real trend today.
This is the only time I’ll interact on the subject, because I know how abrasive it is, but I felt some are in dire need of a reality check. You may disagree because your political culture, landscape, education… are quite different from the ones I experienced so far, but please engage in respectful discussions about it, provide sensible arguments, and don’t downvote just because you read something that doesn’t validate your feelings. If there’s someone you need to blame for Biden’s potential failure to get elected, it’s him for not running a better campaign to get enough votes, and yourself for vilifying other voters for not sheepily following your orders. These scare tactics are no better than dictatorial behaviours.
Edit : here’s a book that will better explain what I’m trying to say https://www.editionsdivergences.com/livre/comment-soccuper-un-dimanche-delection
These scare tactics are no better than dictatorial behaviours.
Ah, yes, the REAL fascism is when you tell people voting for fascism is bad. Great.
I accept to believe that you skipped the entire comment to only react to the last sentence, and I will not partake in discussing with you. Good day.
I accept to believe that you skipped the entire comment to only react to the last sentence
No, I read everything except the links. It’s the normal “Democracy isn’t real because democracy involves strategic decisions on the part of voters” spiel from people who don’t take their civic duty seriously, and instead think of voting as a kind of virtue masturbation for their own gratification instead of being involved in making political choices of the polity, which necessarily involves compromise and deeply imperfect choices.
I will not partake in discussing with you. Good day.
Always comes off as pathetic ‘last-wording’ when someone takes the time to reply “I’m not going to talk to you.” when you could have just stopped talking to them.
Maybe because I took the time to write a lenghty comment contributing to the discussion, which they purposefully decided to ignore with a snarky remark? I am open to debating on the subject, but not with an intellectually dishonest or dismissive attitude.
Welcome to politcal memes! These are our rules: Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
Truly amazing you completely missed the very simple point I was making.
I’m sorry- did my comment ‘disturb’ you- lol. You need thicker skin but feel free to report me.
Please enlighten me on said point ? I’m trying to contribute to the discussion. Why would I interact with not only their, but now your dismissive comments on such a complex topic ?
And blocked them. I mean, these kinds of threads are a sort of gold mine. (In general, I mean, not in this specific instance)
@PugJesus@lemmy.world is actively working to separate the left from the Democrats and has acknowledged as much. You have no obligation to engage with them in good faith. Their approach to rhetoric and dismissiveness of legitimate reasons why someone might find it impossible or deeply immoral to vote for a candidate that promotes genocide is fundamental to why we see such a fractured caucus today. @PugJesus@lemmy.world isn’t interested in fixing it or addressing the concerns of people who find Biden problematic, but rather, in trotting out recycled tropes from another failed cause, the 2016 Clinton campaign.
Its a basic lesson of history in American politics that you can’t beat likely Democratic voters into voting for you. @PugJesus@lemmy.world 's approach to this is identical to that of the 2016 Clinton campaign: You owe them your vote; Vote Democrat or else. But this approach to rhetoric is a demonstrated failure. You actually do have to meet them where they are at and address their concerns if you want to convince people of something, anything. Its what the Biden campaign should be doing, and if @PugJesus@lemmy.world really cared about Biden’s chances in November, they too would be doing as much.
@PugJesus@lemmy.world isn’t interested in that, and is not arguing or participating in good faith. They are working to further divide the coalition that got Biden elected, and are actively working to diminish the chances of a second Democratic term. I think they are doing so out of ignorant naivety and I do not attribute malice, but honestly, why you do things is ultimately secondary to what you are doing,
Perhaps you should tag me again, just to really emphasize that I’m being far too mean to people who only want to usher in fascism, and what I REALLY should be doing is patting them on the head and telling them how valid it is that they’re sending people to death camps to feel good about themselves. :)
Thank you and no worries on the tagging, I’ll make sure to tag you again in the future.
I appreciate you being a foil so that we can put you and your rhetoric on display. Its reflective of the broader paradigm we see playing out and is useful for people to understand.
In doing so, I think we are moving the needle by demonstrating to people that this approach (your approach; the Hillary 2016 approach) of abusing people into voting is truly costing us this election.
So thank you. I really do appreciate your willingness to just remove the mask and make it clear that you are not interested in defeating Trump this election cycle.
Since its come up a few times now and is the currently underlying the theme of this discussion, I’d be interested to get your take on AOC’s interpretation of electoralism. In context, how do you argue you motivate a base for a candidate like Joe Biden where the candidates policies are such an extreme departure from that of the voters?
In doing so, I think we are moving the needle by demonstrating to people that this approach (your approach; the Hillary 2016 approach) of abusing people into voting is truly costing us this election.
Oh, these third party voters would come back and vote for Biden, if only Biden supporters were nice to them? Is that it? How curious.
and make it clear that you are not interested in defeating Trump this election cycle.
That’s curious, considering my position is that defeating Trump is what actually matters, rather than getting fuzzies because you oh-so-nobly voted third party and let fascism win and murder huge swathes of your fellow Americans.
In context, how do you argue you motivate a base for a candidate like Joe Biden where the candidates policies are such an extreme departure from that of the voters?
Jesus. Do you really think Biden’s policies are an ‘extreme departure’ from that of the voters? I’d like to hear you lay that argument out, just for laughs.
EDIT: And, of course you couldn’t articulate the ‘extreme departure’ or even attempt to. Because that would involve examining the American electorate, which is much further right than you’d like. Predictable.
considering my position is that defeating Trump is what actually matters
I mean, you know that’s not true. We all know that’s not true, you’ve even said so yourself, and your even doing so in this response.
You don’t want to grow the base of voters for against Trump. You just want to punch on leftists because they are sticking to their morals while you can-not.
In doing so, you are costing Biden any shot he has. You could be trying to build a bridge, instead, you’ve focused on burning them down. You’ve said as much yourself. Your approach to rhetoric is directly supporting Trump, and are clearly aware of that.
Which further highlights my question. Go watch the clip. Its only 3 minutes. What do you think of what AOC has to say on electoral-ism, and how do you expect your intentional divisiveness/ fragmentation approach to rhetoric to play into that? Like, if Biden can’t get elected without leftists, and you are working to separate leftists from the Democrats, what exactly is your plan to get Biden elected?
Heres Charlemagne the God explaining this on The View, from earlier today.
Um, no. Opposition to a Fascist Kleptocracy beholden to Theocratic Fascists is not open to negotiation. My allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy!
As another European it is difficult to see the Americans constantly fight over voting. The two party system is definitely the issue here.
Either way well said.
Technically, the Two Party system isn’t actually a thing. It is instead simply the work of Market Forces. Multiple competitors in any market, shall result in that market being split between two competitors and an also ran. Then Market Power, if abused, shall prevent any actual competition to the duopoly. Something truly disruptive is required to change that. ATM the US has a pair of more or less captured political parties market. They are in no way an official part of the Government. Nothing in the Constitution empowers them. They should have no power at all. No say in who runs nor any influence beyond whatever PR for issues they advocate. However, they worked out how to make getting elected very profitable, and thus very expensive. Rather quickly money called all the shots. Then the manipulated monster these very wealthy and connected folks created to get elected, lost their minds because a “them” got elected President, and the “useful idiot” they brought in to pacify things with some good Fascism, turned out to be in multiple pockets and beholden to no one but himself. There is your US Political History tldr;
Technically, the Two Party system isn’t actually a thing.
Nothing in the Constitution empowers them.
This part is kind of inaccurate. Because of the constitution, we use first past the post voting, which naturally devolves into a two party system. It’s like trying to build a sky scraper out of just wood. The blueprints don’t explicitly call for it to collapse, but because of the chosen materials, it is bound to happen.
While the rest of what you said is true though.
we use first past the post voting, which naturally devolves into a two party system.
this is not causal
first past the post voting, which naturally devolves into a two party system
This is a myth. L’ook at the legislatures of other countries that use FPTP, and count the parties that get more than 5 seats. The UK has 6, Canada 4, Russia 5 and India, my country, 11. You certainly can have more than two parties.
This is a myth.
No it isn’t. It happens through a well known phenomenon called the spoiler effect.
L’ook at the legislatures of other countries that use FPTP, and count the parties that get more than 5 seats
The data you’ve just quoted doesn’t support your position, and this bit about 5 seats is arbitrary.
Each of those countries has 1-2 dominant parties, with the rest being involved in name only. And as another user already pointed out to you, these countries dont use pure FPTP voting. You’ve also ignored prime minister/presidential positions, because those elections especially prove that it isn’t a myth.
Local/smaller seat positions are significantly easier to win, as there is less competition, and therefore more opportunity for 3rd parties to win. But it isn’t enough, because they still get sidelined.
The spoiler effect requires voters to vote strategically, which means no third party viability.
I never knew basic math could upset so many people.
It’s truly frightening.
your fiction, helpfully pointed out by the star wars characters, is based on a non-falsifiable theory. it’s not science, it’s storytelling.
It’s a graphic that shows how the spoiler effect works. Relax
this bit about 5 seats is arbitrary.
Fair. I had to put a cut-off somewhere.
Each of those countries has 1-2 dominant parties, with the rest being involved in name only.
In the UK, the Lib Dems have decided which of the ‘big’ parties sits in government and which in opposition. The Bloc Quebecois is one of the major parties in Quebec. In India, the two biggest parties get 50-60% of the total votes polled, and most governments are composed of multi-party coalitions. Also about a third of states have governments led by a third party.
And as another user already pointed out to you, these countries dont use pure FPTP voting.
And as I pointed out, they were wrong. The UK, Canada and India use pure FPTP, and Russia has three big parties even if you only consider the FPTP seats.
The spoiler effect requires voters to vote strategically, which means no third party viability.
Third parties cannot win only when everyone thinks they can’t win. Labour went from a small third party to forming the government in about a generation. The BJP did the same in India. At the state level, there have been many cases of a third party coming from a single-digit percentage of the vote and winning the election.
In the UK, the Lib Dems have decided which of the ‘big’ parties sits in government and which in opposition. The Bloc Quebecois is one of the major parties in Quebec. In India, the two biggest parties get 50-60% of the total votes polled, and most governments are composed of multi-party coalitions. Also about a third of states have governments led by a third party.
I am aware. But that doesn’t really change what I’ve said. You’re comparing smaller elections for seats with a big election like the U.S. president. Those elections still have 1-2 dominant parties, etc.
Third parties cannot win only when everyone thinks they can’t win.
You can’t just wish away the spoiler effect.
also, biden isn’t depicted in your analogy at all. he’s more like the emporer: more experienced as a statesman, older, but even more evil.
That’s kind of unavoidable when comparing politicians to what ultimately equate to super heroes and super villans.
The point of that graphic is to show how the spoiler effect works, not to say that Biden is good.
Biden is old and evil, but preferable to Trump.
Technically, the Two Party system isn’t actually a thing. It is instead simply the work of Market Forces.
It’s also Article 2 of the Constitution. To wit:
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President
That last part being the main reason there’s an Either / Or in elections, e.g. two parties. Getting to First-Past-The-Post whether via electors or total popular vote turns out to be difficult for some reason. And to your point, yes, money is a major, as they say, bitch.
Small clarification:
It’s also Amendment 2 of the Constitution.
*Article 2.
Yeek. Fixed, thanks.
Which would indeed be why it is technically, not a thing. See the natural outcome of a thing is not necessarily the intent of the thing. The two party system is as you say. But that isn’t the design of the Constitutional language. It is the design of humans themselves.
“I also know that many compatriots voted for me, to block the ideas of the extreme right. I want to thank them and tell them that I am aware that this vote binds me for years to come. I am the guardian of their attachment to the Republic”
I think this is the key. If Biden could acknowledge his imperfections (and more broadly, the Democrats writ large), the situation would be entirely different. I don’t think people are looking for a perfect candidate, or a perfect anything, but want to see the spirit of “towards a more perfect Union” expressed in their candidates, which is something I think Macron, in that quote, does so with flourish.
All Biden would need to do is acknowledge the genocide, make the point that while still our ally, Israel has some deep issues to work on, and then point to something like the temporary pier as them “trying”. Its all kind-of a layup politically. Israel is deeply unpopular. All Biden needs to do is dribble down court and put it in. The issue with Biden seems to be deeper, that he is personally a Zionist, and has to support this genocidal cause. Its not even clear that Trump would be less extreme in this regard. Biden is as bad as he needs to be on this issue, so it becomes a non-sequiter to make the standard “But Trump” comparison here.
It really is a failure of leadership on the part of Biden, and more broadly, on progressives not splitting the ticket and having Bernie run third party in 2016. If Biden can’t move his position significantly on this issue, he can’t win. And no amount of conservative democrats punching on leftists because they find it problematic that Biden won’t back off a genocide can fix that. As one has to meet people where they are at in order to convince them of something, anything, one also needs to meet the electorate where they are at in terms of what rhetorical approaches work, and what doesn’t. The Democrats can’t abuse the left into supporting them in November.
Here’s what a french author has to say in a book on the subject, food for thought, roughly translated :
spoiler
30 minutes. 26 exactly. That is to say six times less than it takes to go from Republic to Nation during a protest. Ten times less than it takes to run a stand on animal abuse at a punk rock concert. Fifty times less than it takes to find emergency accommodation for a family of haggard Eritreans picked up on the side of a railway track near Ventimille. A hundred times less than it takes to find the articles of the Labor Code capable of solidifying the defense of an employee suspended for supposedly serious misconduct. Two hundred times less than it takes to obtain a negotiation with management in the context of a social conflict at the Gueugnon call center. Ten thousand times less than is needed to make an eco-hamlet viable. Infinite times less than it takes to ban the commercialization of digital data. Voting offers an unrivaled time-reward ratio. In less than an hour, I accomplished my sacred duty. It doesn’t cost much, as Sarkozy said of his position against gay marriage intended to flirt with the Catholic branch. It doesn’t eat bread, my grandmother would have said, who voted as scrupulously all her life as she served dinner to her husband. […]
In the election itself, the expression doubles in volume. The ballot can contain 10 letters, sometimes 15, or even 20 in the frequent case where the candidate’s surname has particles. But this surname says nothing, nor the support given to it. There are fifty shades of support for Dumoulin, candidate for the municipal elections in Brie-en-Gueugnon. Someone adheres to her charisma, someone to her promise to take control of the Water Authority, someone to her commitment to doubling the subsidy to the badminton club that she runs, someone to her ch’tis origins, someone to her husban, professor of applied mathematics, one in her project to pedestrianize the Halles district, one in her desire to rename the Poivre d’Arvor college, another in her name because he likes mills. The bulletin can mean all that and therefore says nothing. This silence leaves the elected official an infinite margin of interpretation as to what is expected of him, a margin of deafness to the voices expressed in his favor.
In 2002, myriads of naive people hoped that during his mandate Chirac would take into account those who, among his voters in the second round, had only wanted to block the path to Le Pen. But nothing forced him to. The leader of the right was constitutionally free to interpret the ballots in his favor as he wished. Nothing distinguishes a Chirac bulletin approving his liberal-authoritarian program from an anti-racist Chirac bulletin. It was open to the new elected official to decide that 100% of the 80% obtained had wanted, not a better reception of foreign workers, but the increase in the retirement age that the National Assembly under orders would soon implement.
He is free to believe that 82% of voters declared their love for him. Dedicated to his party, the UMP. Validated his new glasses. No one could have assured him, based on the vote, that he was wrong. Seeing his five-year term heading to the right, the naive people were even more naive to feel cheated. How could the president betray an expectation that had not been expressed? As such, all the ballots could be declared invalid, even the immaculate ones, even those that no ill-mannered person has soiled with an Amy Taylor president, as a friend did at the 2021 European elections. A bulletin says nothing. The election reduces citizenship to expression, and this expression says nothing.
This has happened before, this is happening right now with Macron. His words meant nothing because his actions show he did not follow up on his statement. I think something very important voters have to consider and ask themselves : What is the plan when Biden will disrespect the votes of people who did not vote for him, but voted against Trump. Who will be considered responsible for keeping him in power, when he will enact policies that were defended by the Trump side?
https://www.editionsdivergences.com/livre/comment-soccuper-un-dimanche-delection
Last time I met a French person was on the selection process for jury duty. The dude was rightfully shocked at the entire process. Americans do not have real political education.
Out of curiosity, was this in a Red State?
No, wealthy liberal county in a blue state. It could have been that other prospective jurors were also displeased with the process but were less vocal about it, I know that was me. Trying to keep my head down so I get picked (serving on a jury while being aware of juror’s rights is one of the best direct actions you can take. use knowledge of juror nullification.)
Liberals: “We’re on the brink of fascism!”
Also liberals: “Black rifle scary, and should be limited to only law enforcement, politicians, and the wealthy”
*liberals big mad cause they’re gonna defeat christofascism by voting republican light.
I’m not voting for Biden. Nobody I know is voting for Biden. It’s because of the genocide he denies is happening.
If you don’t vote for the guy that denies the genocide, you gonna get the guy that will aknowledge, revel in and accelerate the genocide, together with a sprinkle of killing LGBTQIA+ folk in his own country. Good job.
What if I just died instead of voting? Is it still my fault?
Could you have mailed in your vote before dying? If so, yes. I will blame you specifically.
us 👏🏻 is 👏🏻 already 👏🏻 fascist
Any point that can be made becomes stupider with the clapping emojis
i 👏🏻 don’t 👏🏻 care 👏🏻
Yes. Clearly you haven’t given a shit about anyone but yourself for a long time now.
if you don’t think the US is fascist that shows an extreme lack of empathy for prisoners, our torture victims, the numerous countries we have bombed, genocide victims, black people … do I need to go on
Third party voters get all the hate.
Management is ordering pizza for the office and sends around a sheet asking what everyone wants.
The third-party voter is the last one to get the sheet.
There are 10 votes for pepperoni and 9 votes for cheese.
The third party voter hates pepperoni, and thinks cheese is a bit boring, so he votes for the anchovies in his heart.
He has wasted his vote since cheese would be vastly preferable to him than pepperoni, and anchovies had no realistic chance of winning. That’s why everyone thinks third party voters are ridiculous.
To make this more realistic:
Management decides that the pizza choices are: sardines or anchovies.
The
workersemployees want pepperoni, but that’s not an option management allows because they are in the fishing businessThe workers want
God, I wonder if some people have ever even talked to other US voters in their lifetime.
God, maybe someone will listen to the voters for once.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx
And yet whether the current level of US support for Israel is correct or not remains deeply divisive
But sure, it’s just “the workers” with their very undivided and definitely coherent view who are getting ignored, not that the general electorate is not a particularly useful political grouping for most issues in modern politics.
Anyway you try to spin it, apologizing for aiding a state engaged an active genocide is really not a positive
No, it’s not. But “I’m going to give power to the guy who wants to offer unlimited support to Israel’s genocide AND start a few genocides at home too, as well as abolishing what democracy we do have in this country and selling out Ukrainians to be genocided by Russia” is not really an alternative that should be taken seriously.
Oooh a poll! Shall we see if it was funded by a right wing org? Any guesses as to the methodology? 20 participants? Maybe 200?! gasp dare we dream . . . 1000?!
That stuff isn’t usually in the articles for a reason
It’s Gallup, Gallup is generally reliable.
The issue is that most people do not put a great deal of thought into foreign policy, and thus often have very contradictory views - such as when most American voters approved of a No-Fly Zone over Ukraine after the first days of the war, but if asked if they would support a No-Fly Zone if it had the risk of US jets shooting down Russian planes (you know, exactly what a no-fly zone IS), half of those supporting swapped their opinion.
Gallup is generally reliable, for a pollster, so I looked:
Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted March 1-20, 2024, with a random sample of 1,016 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting.
Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 80% cellphone respondents and 20% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.
So, war-dialing and hoping (a) the person picks up (b) the person doesn’t hang up immediately © wants to give their opinion for 20 questions, and (d) yes 1,000 people out of 80 million voters. Also it was two months ago.
Not to mention, the headline is “Approve of Israel’s actions” not “Understands what diplomatic and political issues are involved”.
That’s like the message being “95% of people want ice cream for dinner, so vote out mom & dad and let’s go with the guy in the creepy van”
Where’s the poll that suggests people are ok with the Biden administration’s approach in Israel? Are there ANY polls that support it?
I see you didn’t actually read the poll I replied with. Here, let me help you out:
U.S. adults are divided about whether Biden is favoring the Israelis too much (22%), favoring the Palestinians too much (16%) or striking the right balance (21%) on the Israel-Hamas war. Fully 40% say they are not sure.
Third party presidential voters get well-deserved ridicule.
Vote third party where it has a chance and where it doesn’t be pragmatic.
Due to the electoral college a massive portion of the electorate, outside of a few key districts that swing whole states, coyld vote third party without changing the result.
I think about a third of my state who voted Democrat in 2020 could vote 3rd party and blue would still win. There are plenty of 20+ point blue districts.
So for many: voting third party sends a message, usually about a specific policy.
Now, outside the presidency though where there’s no electoral college discarding eberyone’s vote? (Or in those few swing districts?) Different story altogether and I get that. Local elections are usually the only place a chance to win exists for third party candidates.
So for many: voting third party sends a message, usually about a specific policy.
Sure, in some states you can reasonably gamble that other voters will compensate for your ‘message’, but you might as well put that message in a bottle and toss it in the ocean.
The politician that wins won’t give a shit about your 3rd party ‘message’ because they won anyway, and the politician that loses doesn’t matter because they lost. In an election where a 3rd party has no chance of winning your ‘message’ is basically “IGNORE ME”.
Yeah so I generally find most of these tactics appropriate and effective for primaries, which has only happened for President. The rest won’t happen until August.
We are still hard in primary season for the entire House of Representatives, a third of the senate, and like a dozen governors. They all have a calculus to make over how supportive or public they’ll be on issues being protestee.
Regardless a lot of this judgement should be reserved for the general election. I will be interested to see what the landscape will look like and the rhetoric sound like come September.
All fine and good in the primary but relying on the electoral college and other blue voters in your state to let you send a ‘message’ is dangerously stupid and pointless in any presidential election, and doubly so in 2024.
For the record I have only ever personally expressed how I will likely vote for Biden if he makes it to the general. I just understand the ‘message’ people are trying to send and don’t think it is worth trying to stifle or suffocate.
(That and I thought Panel 2 was referring to a third party voter at first, but the feathers are already ruffled now.)
I understand the ‘message’ people are trying to send too. I don’t have any capacity to ‘stifle\suffocate’ that ‘message’- but I don’t mind telling them they’re just tossing away their only real political ‘voice’ to shout into the void.
Voting third party also denies the reality of Fitrst Past the Post, and perpetual and well documented trend and reinforcement of duopolies.
Panel 2 appears to be a third party voter.
The duopole is not a law of nature. It is a psychological effect that the DNC and Reps keep pushing, so you never dare to think outside that box. It is the same like with stock market hypes and crashes. Everybody keeps repeating how they think the system inadvertly works, even though it has not to. Everybody that is not a fascist genocidal mass murderer could agree on one third Party and kick the DNC and Reps asses. But thanks to people telling them it is impossible, you believe it to be impossible. You are gaslighting yourself thanks to your political leaders sucessfully gaslighting you.
This generation of Americans will go down in history with failures like Chamberlain and his appeasement policies. Sucking up to whoever they can, devoid of any will to improve things or demand dignity.
Man if only there wasn’t literal research and political science theories on the topic of how certain voting systems devolve into 2 party lesser evils voting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger’s_law
Science is a liberal lie, True Leftists™ only trust their GUT.
But but but! It’s always been the Democrats and Republicans fault. Even though it’s always been this way. Even before recent changes in both parties. Even though it was this way before those parties even existed! /s
(Repeating my reply from above, to a similar comment.)
This so-called ‘law’ is a myth. Look at the legislatures of other countries that use FPTP, and count the parties that get, say, more than 5 seats. The UK has 6, Canada 4, Russia 5 and India, my country, 11. You certainly can have more than two parties.
All of those nations implement other forms of voting and mixed members representation in their various elections.
Only one of the four countries I listed does not use pure FPTP - Russia uses a mix of FPTP and party-list voting. But even if you only count the FPTP seats, and despite stuff like ballot-stuffing committed by the ruling party, 3 parties got >5 seats.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_Kingdom
The five electoral systems used are: the single member plurality system (first-past-the-post), the multi-member plurality, the single transferable vote, the additional member system, and the supplementary vote.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Canada
Although several parties are typically represented in parliament, Canada has historically had two dominant political parties: the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, which was preceded by the Progressive Conservative Party and the Conservative Party (1867–1942). Every government since Confederation has been either Liberal or Conservative with the exception of the Unionist government during World War I, which was a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals.
Russia and India are also fairly recent democracies or “democracy” in russias case, not having the time to have devolved from a multiparty system into a duopoly through FPTP, and Russia has a whole host of problems with oligarchy, corruption and putin changing the rules so he’s the one who’s been in constant power for like 20 years.
You didn’t even read that link on Duverger’s law. It already addresses quite a bit of what you’ve brought up.
Duverger’s Law is a tautology because, from a critical rationalist perspective, a tautological statement is one that cannot be empirically tested or falsified—it’s true by definition. Duverger’s Law states that a plurality-rule election system tends to favor a two-party system. However, if this law is framed in such a way that any outcome can be rationalized within its parameters, then it becomes unfalsifiable.
For example, if a country with a plurality-rule system has more than two parties, one might argue that the system still “tends to” favor two parties, and the current state is an exception or transition phase. This kind of reasoning makes the law immune to counterexamples, and thus, it operates more as a tautological statement than an empirical hypothesis. The critical rationalist critique of marginalist economics, which relies on ceteris paribus (all else being equal) conditions, suggests any similarly structured law should be viewed with skepticism. For Duverger’s Law to be more than a tautology, it would need to be stated in a way that allows for clear empirical testing and potential falsification, without the possibility of explaining away any contradictory evidence. This would make it a substantive theory that can contribute to our understanding of political systems rather than a mere tautology.
small parties are disincentivized to form because they have great difficulty winning seats or representation
The Green Party of Canada is another example; the party received about 5% of the popular vote from 2004 to 2011 but had only won one seat (out of 308) in the House of Commons in the same span of time. Another example was seen in the 1992 U.S. presidential election, when Ross Perot’s candidacy received zero electoral votes despite receiving 19% of the popular vote.
This is an empirically testable claim that has come true.
Man if only there was some alternative to the British Crown taking all the taxes in the Colonies and some sort of self determination for the people.
You have your souls crushed like the people in Sovjet Russia. The system has no alternative. Obey the system. Stop dreaming. Stop demanding a better future. The system has no alternative. Obey the system.
Oh, I’m sorry, here I didn’t realize “Don’t let fascism immediately win in this election because numerous possibilities and LIVES are extinguished by fascism” was the denial of all work towards other possibilities.
So what was the last election? And what was the election before that? This is the third time now i’m hearing. “This is the election where democracy is on the line. Otherwise we get fascism. Now is not the time to look outside the system…” And you will hear the exact same thing next election again. And then again and then again. All the while the DNC will move to whatever the Reps stood for the cycle before. Remember all the fuzz about Trumps Wall? Well Biden is building it. You think all the stuff about Trans people or the whole nonsense about furries or whatever will be exclusive to the Reps? The Dems will blow into the same horn in a few years, because enough of their white middle class voter base will have been eroded by their economic policies and need a scapegoat.
We see the same shit with “center” and “center left” all over the world becoming more and more fascist. And the Dems already started far right with some gay rights sprinkled in between. But please lets have the same argument in four years, with the goalposts being moved about what we should just accept as the “lesser” evil.
“This is the election where democracy is on the line. Otherwise we get fascism. Now is not the time to look outside the system…”
Yes, it turns out that if you don’t work on things between each election, you get the same issue that you had to deal with last election. But sure - vote in fascism this time! That way you won’t have to worry about having this little conundrum next election. :)
All the while the DNC will move to whatever the Reps stood for the cycle before.
Are you fucking serious.
Please compare the 2012 and 2024 Dem platforms, and get back to me.
Remember all the fuzz about Trumps Wall? Well Biden is building it.
lol
10$ says this is the “The money and legislation had already been pushed through but Biden didn’t use the power he didn’t have to unilaterally stop it” incident.
You think all the stuff about Trans people or the whole nonsense about furries or whatever will be exclusive to the Reps? The Dems will blow into the same horn in a few years, because enough of their white middle class voter base will have been eroded by their economic policies and need a scapegoat.
Do you…
do you not remember what the Dem Party was like on trans rights before the modern day
Fuck’s sake.
We see the same shit with “center” and “center left” all over the world becoming more and more fascist. And the Dems already started far right with some gay rights sprinkled in between. But please lets have the same argument in four years, with the goalposts being moved about what we should just accept as the “lesser” evil.
Cool. Your proposed solution, for this situation, right now, without resorting to “Everyone will magically convert to my ideology in the next six months”?
I slightly misspoke, how certain voting systems devolve into lesser evil voting. FPTP always devolves a 2 party system but something like STV or Ranked Choice open up the field to many more options with little downside.
Everybody that is not a fascist genocidal mass murderer could agree on one third Party and kick the DNC and Reps asses.
Oh, was it that easy all along? Cool, which third party are Democrats and Republicans going to agree on? After all, the voters secretly agree on all the issues, it’s just the mean ol’ representatives stopping us from coming together and singing kumbaya. 😊
“duopoly is not a law of nature”, is very, very incorrect. It is simply human nature. Market at work. Same Reason there are two “sodas” in any given area with anything else an also ran. Two big players. Just how it works when unregulated.
And the FPTP system is a law of nature? God decided in the US there can only be FPTP, while other countries have different voting systems?
Aw, sorry, in the future, I’ll be sure to give third-party voters plenty of asspats for welcoming fascism.
Yes because unfortunately the voting system of your country is broken. It’s not your fault, but you have to deal with the consequences of that.
Thanks
Any third party that a left leaning person might vote for will only help Republicans to win elections by siphoning votes away from Democrats.
In fact, that’s exactly why they exist.
So yeah, they get hate, because they’re actively trying to sabotage progressive causes and usher in fascism.
Which Third Party candidate are you endorsing exactly?
Myself? None. As I have said I am most likely voting Biden if he manages to survive. I supported Uncommitted vote in the primary because that was an opportunity for a concerted and focused effort with a direct policy message.
There are only a few instances and time windows for shaping the policies that the parties and candidates run on. That was one of those times. The next time will be during the conventions this summer.
After that we will indeed be stuck with whatever shit is left on the table to vote for in the General election. At that point nonvoters and third party voters alike will indeed have to grapple with the choices and risks they’ll make. That is when they’ll have to put their money where their mouth is.
But resigning ourselves to that now is premature, if not actually a tacit support for the status quo.
Voting third party has the same effect on the outcome as not voting. From the last presidential election, there were 24 times more nonvoters than third part voters.
They blame third parties to suppress their ideas, not because of the negligible effect on the outcome.
The 33% of eligible voters who chose not to vote could have swung the 2020 election if they voted.
Well put: third party voters are often policy focused if not single-issue (and/or extreme). Which paints a target on themselves because the alternative is reaching out to non-voters. And that requires looking into why people don’t vote or what depresses voter turnout.
As they absolutely should
