If there was ever a year a third party could make traction... (1 Viewer)

[tenordas]

surely this is it.

One party is running a man half the country hates - no, despises, the other is running a woman even most of the other politicians in her own party can't stand.

Where are you Libertarians? Green Party? Hello?

I thought 2016 was a real shot, but the two most viable third parties both put up unelectable morons.

All one of them needs is someone actually viable and IMHO they could sway a lot of people away from these two...

 

[Heathen]

Is it? How so? Rather than stump and pout, the French center and left banded together to thrawrt le pen's far right. Realizing that what can be lost by far right rule, they banded together to save what they can. Is that short sighted? Rather than give in to complete defeat with a Maga Alaskan senator, dems compromising on murkowski, who at least believe in the ideals of rule of law and the constitution is a long term strategy. Short sighted is pout like a child and put a bull in a China shop.

It is. Essentially calling every 3rd party vote meaningless and uncaring sounds more like putting your feelings over reason. Or rather, frustration over common sense.

You (nor I ) have mapped out every situation in which a 3rd party vote would make a difference. Acting like everything happens in a vacuum is pointless conversation. One closes their mind off to any other possibilities beyond those they’ve deemed “right” in their head.

So many have boiled down conversations that are meant to span large swaths of time to one election. Many have nervously spammed other posters with strawmen for simple differences of opinion.

I can’t make you see it my way, and honestly I’m not here to do that. I’d just rather we be able to talk about subjects like this without acting like any difference of opinion means someone is stupid or shortsighted.

Christ I was shocked at how many democratic registered voters with a significant percentage of black voters in louisiana. And we are talking about fighting for ONE additional black voting district in la. Don't show up to vote. Voter suppression. Protest vote. All the same. Short sighted. Take the ball and go home bc the player that can help you win has a sickly birthmark.

Okay? Not everyone lives in Louisiana. You gave one anecdote. Not sure what you were hoping to prove there.

People have and will continue to vote for who best represents them. Moan and complain about it all you want, but I don’t see you changing that anytime soon.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Yikes. This seems like an incredibly short sighted view.

I’d just rather we be able to talk about subjects like this without acting like any difference of opinion means someone is stupid or shortsighted.

Seems contradictory to me.

 

[UriUT]

It is. Essentially calling every 3rd party vote meaningless and uncaring sounds more like putting your feelings over reason. Or rather, frustration over common sense.

You (nor I ) have mapped out every situation in which a 3rd party vote would make a difference. Acting like everything happens in a vacuum is pointless conversation. One closes their mind off to any other possibilities beyond those they’ve deemed “right” in their head.

So many have boiled down conversations that are meant to span large swaths of time to one election. Many have nervously spammed other posters with strawmen for simple differences of opinion.

I can’t make you see it my way, and honestly I’m not here to do that. I’d just rather we be able to talk about subjects like this without acting like any difference of opinion means someone is stupid or shortsighted.



Okay? Not everyone lives in Louisiana. You gave one anecdote. Not sure what you were hoping to prove there.

People have and will continue to vote for who best represents them. Moan and complain about it all you want, but I don’t see you changing that anytime soon.

I live in reality. In the American political system. There are only two choices. That's quintessentially common sense. Ive reasoned with you about the pitfalls of a protest vote. Is it me being emotional here? In case you missed my point from my first post, protest voters are seeking maximalist returns. All or nothing. They don't want to find a candidate that closely resemble their views amongst the two choices to settle for some gains, or even prevent total losses (ie women's health, immigration, LGBTQ rights, workers rights, etc from a left leaning perspective). They view both equally bad....and folks have pointed this isn't so in this election cycle. Rather than find a candidate to compete in the primary with the most similar views, it's "well, that's that. I'm going home". Its not about "uncaring". Notice i described your views on gaza as caring? This is about ignoring that democratic norm of the winner gets the most votes...and since the winner's views won't align with my views perfectly, im not gonna participate to find the best candidate. See who's relying on feelings over reason?

And you want further evidence? Ross perot. He wasn't going to win. To a conservative's perspective, this cost Bush a reelection bc folks protested against Bush. In michigan 2016. Forgetting that green candidate's name. She garnered more votes than Clinton lost. Now libertarian votes may have made a difference towards trump. Who knows. Neither 3rd party achieved anything. More could ve showed up at obama's level and prevented Trump's win? In any case, Trump won and installed a far right sc. He nearly succeeded in an insurrection. He botched covid. Consequences.

You tell me the point? History won't give a rats arse about those 3rd party votes. Back to blair's remarks. Have a go at that self indulgence. I'm not here to change your mind as it is apparently grounded. I'm simply making the point that it is self destructive because rather than seek partial gains or prevent losses, it's an all or nothing in the reality of a 2 party system.

And btw, lousiana is about a 60 40 split (pretty evenly down party lines, but I'm going to assume the independents are pushing that 60 40). Texas is much closer to a purple state. 600k difference in votes in 2020. That's nothing if more from Dallas and Houston, or even Austin residents showed up. Beto 200k from cruz.

 

[Heathen]

Seems contradictory to me.

Language matters.

Saying that an opinion seems shortsighted is different than accusing someone of not wanting to make real change, or in your case most recently - accusing someone of wanting less democracy.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Language matters.

Language isn't an issue when being sincere and honest.

Saying that an opinion seems shortsighted is different than accusing someone of not wanting to make real change, or in your case most recently - accusing someone of wanting less democracy.

You always make strawman accusations when trying to excuse and explain away your hypocrisy.

As to me accusing someone of wanting less democracy, that person said in very clear and precise language that they don't want Electoral College electors bound to how people voted. How would you describe that. if not as wanting less democracy?

 

[bird]

Imo, the problem lies in the actual set-up of elections which includes the electoral college.

Ziblatt and Levitsky’s book Tyranny of the Minority deals with the problems very clearly. The base problem is the set up of the constitution.

 

[Heathen]

I live in reality. In the American political system. There are only two choices. That's quintessentially common sense.

It’s also common sense that there are third-party options available. That is the same reality.

Is it common sense that these parties will challenge the duopoly anytime soon? Of course not.

Ive reasoned with you about the pitfalls of a protest vote. Is it me being emotional here? In case you missed my point from my first post, protest voters are seeking maximalist returns.

I can give you one simple example where you’re wrong - at least in the sense of what you may consider “maximalist”.

Is pushing for a cease-fire in Gaza a maximalist view to you?

All or nothing. They don't want to find a candidate that closely resemble their views amongst the two choices to settle for some gains, or even prevent total losses (ie women's health, immigration, LGBTQ rights, workers rights, etc from a left leaning perspective). They view both equally bad....and folks have pointed this isn't so in this election cycle. Rather than find a candidate to compete in the primary with the most similar views, it's "well, that's that. I'm going home". Its not about "uncaring". Notice i described your views on gaza as caring? This is about ignoring that democratic norm of the winner gets the most votes...and since the winner's views won't align with my views perfectly, im not gonna participate to find the best candidate. See who's relying on feelings over reason?

The problem I see with your view and many others here is that they assume third-party voting just means something in terms of the general election.

It’s not just limited to this general election or those in the future. It’s on Downballot races, protest, votes, protesting, organizing, knock on doors, etc..

I remember so many here, moaning about the uncommitted vote in Michigan. We still have those here who tried to defend Israel in the genocide in Gaza. Time again, folks like myself and others across the country simply disagree with these views and want change. Sometimes change isn’t in the form of the worst possible scenario like you may think - a bunch of people not voting for the Democratic candidate and causing them to lose (unlikely).

Sometimes it’s just about raising awareness and bringing to light policy that the party has a stance on that is just plain and simple and popular with the people. The whole uncommitted vote in Michigan thing absolutely had some sort of tangible effect on the democratic party’s view on Gaza. Hell, Biden even commented on it and to think that none of that has played any part in his thoughts or decision-making is just having one’s head in the sand.

You could even argue that this uncommitted/third-party voter/leftist voice could have had an effect on which candidate Harris selected as VP.

And those are only a few examples. We could go down the list all day.

So yes, organizing, voting, etc for third-party can absolutely be a productive thing and can help bring views of the people support into the main stream and influence major party decision-making.

 

[Heathen]

Language isn't an issue when being sincere and honest.

Forgive me if I’m skeptical of the idea that you’re any sort of authority in this area.

You always make strawman accusations when trying to excuse and explain away your hypocrisy.

Okay.

As to me accusing someone of wanting less democracy, that person said in very clear and precise language that they don't want Electoral College electors bound to how people voted. How would you describe that. if not as wanting less democracy?

I’d probably ask more questions before jumping to accusations.

You per usual take something that someone says and contort it into the worst possible stance, then attempt to have everyone around you notice the false things that you said and attribute that falsely to the person you’re accusing.

Quite honestly, I think that you do it so often that you don’t even realize it.

 

[UriUT]

It’s also common sense that there are third-party options available. That is the same reality.

Is it common sense that these parties will challenge the duopoly anytime soon? Of course not.



I can give you one simple example where you’re wrong - at least in the sense of what you may consider “maximalist”.

Is pushing for a cease-fire in Gaza a maximalist view to you?



The problem I see with your view and many others here is that they assume third-party voting just means something in terms of the general election.

It’s not just limited to this general election or those in the future. It’s on Downballot races, protest, votes, protesting, organizing, knock on doors, etc..

I remember so many here, moaning about the uncommitted vote in Michigan. We still have those here who tried to defend Israel in the genocide in Gaza. Time again, folks like myself and others across the country simply disagree with these views and want change. Sometimes change isn’t in the form of the worst possible scenario like you may think - a bunch of people not voting for the Democratic candidate and causing them to lose (unlikely).

Sometimes it’s just about raising awareness and bringing to light policy that the party has a stance on that is just plain and simple and popular with the people. The whole uncommitted vote in Michigan thing absolutely had some sort of tangible effect on the democratic party’s view on Gaza. Hell, Biden even commented on it and to think that none of that has played any part in his thoughts or decision-making is just having one’s head in the sand.

You could even argue that this uncommitted/third-party voter/leftist voice could have had an effect on which candidate Harris selected as VP.

And those are only a few examples. We could go down the list all day.

So yes, organizing, voting, etc for third-party can absolutely be a productive thing and can help bring views of the people support into the main stream and influence major party decision-making.

To bird's point on the tyranny of the minority. You seem to be under the impression that you are better than the rest of america. Americans favor israel overwhelmingly. Your views on israel and by extension mine, is part of the minority. As I've alluded, I don't mind that primary vote pressuring Biden to act on gaza. Consequently though in the general, even Tlaib publicly supported Biden, despite biden's position on israel. Because she can be a grown up and accept that she cannot get all that she wanted. Notice, not a maximalist outcome? She didn't declare that the democratic party is nearly equivalent as that of the Maga republicans. You cannot seem to appreciate political capital. That just because you want something doesn't mean that everyone else will do your bidding. Very anti democratic if you ask me. Harris was cautious when she remarked that israel has the right to defend itself, but the death toll is getting out of hand. Notice she didn't demand a ceasefire???? Because there's not enough political capital to do so. Because your view is the minority.

And I am on record of saying grow a movement. Garner votes. Get into power to make real changes towards our israeli policy. I've reference fdr's comment to that end regarding the civil rights movement. I've even pointed out that while admirable, the student protest was in vain. It would ve been better to invest in get out the votes for example. Where are those protesters now?

 

[LA - L.A.]

Forgive me if I’m skeptical of the idea that you’re any sort of authority in this area.

Yet another strawman attack. When someone is being honest and sincere, using consistent language that isn't self-contradictory doesn't take any effort. When someone is not being sincere or honest, the more language they use, the more they say contradictory things.

No authority of any kind was asserted or needed when the truth is self-evident.

I’d probably ask more questions before jumping to accusations.

No, brother, you wouldn't do that at all. The second someone disagrees with anything you say, you immediately jump to making strawman accusations. You do the opposite of what you preach at everyone else.

You per usual take something that someone says and contort it into the worst possible stance,

This is you throwing more strawman accusations at me to avoid discussing the question that I asked you in response to another accusation you threw at me:

"that person said in very clear and precise language that they don't want Electoral College electors bound to how people voted. How would you describe that. if not as wanting less democracy?"​

You say you want to have a discussion, but rather than discuss the question I asked, you just launch more accusations at me. You do the opposite of what you preach at everyone else.