Really you don’t need to read more than one chart:
If you vote for anyone other than Harris, you’re voting for Trump:
Im glad you posted this, but no both-sides smoothbrain will be convinced by it, since they are either lost on the plot, a bad faith actor, or unable to engage in real world politics.
Still saving it, just to have one more post to bash them over the head with.
It’s not about convincing a both-sidser.
It’s about convincing someone who reads an article posted by a both-sidser and goes “Hmmm… maybe they’re on to something…”
They aren’t, they really, really aren’t.
Another good one here:
"Don’t Fall for the Third-Party Trick
A progressive who stays home on Election Day — or backs Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West, or No Labels — is voting for Donald Trump."
"Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst Thälmann made in 1932. The leader of the German Communist Party, Thälmann saw mainstream liberals as his enemies, and so the center and left never joined forces against the Nazis. Thälmann famously said that “some Nazi trees must not be allowed to overshadow a forest” of social democrats, whom he sneeringly called “social fascists.”
After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, Thälmann was arrested. He was shot on Hitler’s orders in Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944."
I thought Kennedy dropped out to support Trump? Maybe I’m wrong I’m not American, but thought I heard that.
But yeah I agree. It’s just splitting the vote, the same thing happens in the UK. For a long time until this most recent election we only had the Conservatives on the right, whereas on the left you had Labour, Lib Dem’s and Greens, yet the Conservatives kept getting back in because the left wing vote was split, they wouldn’t work together to step down in certain seats to let the party most likely to be beat the Conservatives stand.
Thank god, in a weird way, for Reform UK, massively splitting the right wing vote this time around. Allowing Labour to win. If Labour don’t change the voting system to proportional representation now that they’ve finally got the chance after a 15 year wait, then they are truly mugs. They won’t though I’m sure. They are hopefully supposed to be letting 16 year olds vote which should help.
But yeah, that Hitler story gave me the shivers lol. Apparently we aren’t allowed to call Trump a fascist because it pisses off Republican voters and caused that assassination attempt (even though I swear the guy was a republican voter??)
But like; he is literally a fascist. For me personally, if someone said, “we can stop Trump from ever being elected, but the price is you have to cancel the election and just say that George Bush won and let him have another term”. I’d take that deal. I genuinely think Trump is so dangerous, it shouldn’t be a republican vs democrats thing, it should be an Americans for Democracy thing.
Article is from before Kennedy dropped out, but he’s still on the ballot in key states so it still applies.
Oh really? I don’t really get how your system works I guess lol. Cos I thought if he drops out he’s out. So he’s still running against Trump in some states basically? I would have thought he’d be taking votes from the right rather than the left though. But I probably just don’t understand your system properly tbf.
He tried to remove himself from the ballot in multiple states and was told “LOL - yeah, no.”
There are deadlines due to having to print the ballots, once you’re past a certain point, there’s no going back.
https://thehill.com/homenews/4872514-states-where-robert-f-kennedy-jr-still-on-ballot/
He’s currently on the ballot in nearly half the country:
Alaska
California
Colorado
Delaware
Hawaii
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Nebraska
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Oregon
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Ahh ok haha well that’s good at least. I can’t see any left leaning would-be democrat voters voting for the guy who dumped the carcass of a bear in… I wanna say… Central Park?
I love that they’re like “paper doesn’t grow on trees dude, we ain’t wasting anymore”.
I don’t really understand why these independents bother. Do they really think they’re gonna turn 3% (being generous) into 51%?? I don’t think so. I wonder if there’s some ulterior motive in play, like to just get their name out there and then with that name recognition, get elected into a much lower down position at state level.
Jill Stein in particular who at her BEST got 1.07%.
Generally she’s 0.1% to 0.3%.
I have given up talking to these people. I really can’t with Rule 3 because I do not believe they deserve any form of civility, and since I can’t call them out directly, I’ll ignore them while destroying their points.
The targets of my takedowns of the ‘Imma Vote Jill Stein!111one!1one!!’'s articles are the undecided and wavering voters who REALLY aren’t sold on Harris/Walz, but really don’t like Donald Trump. That’s where the ‘a vote for anyone but Harris/Walz just makes it easier for Donald Trump to steal the election’ line comes in. The ‘lost the plot/bad faith actor/naive poster’ people can’t be convinced, but we don’t have to, fortunately.
I know of a couple of Lemmy users who frequently hype third party candidates, and who will not like this analysis at all, lol.
As do I, I see the reports all the time. :)
We discount this analysis because it’s self serving. Third Way as other orgs that diminish 3rd party candidates do so in an attempt to protect their own positions of power. Voters continuing to elect neo fascists from the duopoly vote against their own interests to do the bidding of the neo fascists
The underlying fallacy, IMO, is that people think the purpose of elections is to send a message to the government, instead of choosing the government (and that all political problems can be solved by sending the right message).
The best way to approach an election is to determine the most likely scenario in which your vote would actually decide the outcome (which in practice means a choice between the two frontrunners in a FPTP system), and then consider what difference that would make in terms of actual policy (rather than symbolism).
And recognize that this alone won’t fix all the problems with government—that will require other types of involvement beyond voting.
Unfortunately, too many radicals on both sides have over-inflated senses of their own self importance. “We’re sending a message!” Yeah, no, no you aren’t. You’re actively doing nothing in order to make yourself feel good. That’s it.
On the nose. The ones screaming the loudest about Democrats supporting genocide. Or saying something stupid like blue Maga, trying to deflect from the fact that they themselves are the most maga like of any on the left. Culturally slave to Virtue signaling no matter how much it hurts them. Get an instant down vote.
If we’re going to send them a message. We should be running against them at the local level across the nation. Or better yet, coopting the party and make our candidate theirs. 3rd party presidential candidates are an exercise in pyrrhic self flagellation.
With the exception of Donald Trump, every single US President previously served as a Senator, or Governor, or a Major General, or Secretary of State, or Director of the CIA, or something. Some kind of higher office to prove their fitness in a political administrative role.
If we want a progressive president, we need progressive members of Congress and State Governors. Not only so we have an experienced candidates to put forward, but by having a significant representation people will just psychologically consider a progressive candidate to actually be viable.
And if we want progressive Governors and Congresspeople, we need progressive mayors and County Commissioners and Attorneys General to pull from. And if we want those, we need progressive City Council members and School Board members and all the other local elected offices.
These third party candidates with no real political experience shooting straight for President are so counterproductive, it’s difficult to imagine they’re anything but bad faith, intentional spoilers.
Funny how third parties always rear their heads at election time but remain almost entirely quiet the rest of the term. Where does the money come from?
I feel like the most viable path to a third party at this point:
- Ranked choice somehow becomes national law (and while we’re at it, other election reform) — yes, already very unlikely here, although it’d help Dems with reelection so under them it’s possible if they get rid of the filibuster. Gop would never.
- Splinters make a better third party, I’m thinking the "RINO"s or MAGA folk. Maybe the progressive wing of Democrars. The current third parties are pretty bad as they are given they don’t seem to target places they could actually win.
- Said faction gets more traction and the model gets tested for a few elections until it’s more normal. New paries emerge, etc.
It ain’t happening mostly cause of 1, either because the political capital would be too expensive or because it’s not ultimately in their interest. The only way 1 can happen is if it becomes a major issue and they’ve got much more lower hanging fruit, even in election rules (I’d be happy just having electrical college changed to popular vote).
National Election Reform would be great, but that would require we actually have national elections, which we don’t. :)
It’s not even a matter of 50 state elections… each election precinct is essentially it’s own little fiefdom at this point, with officials who BELIEVE they’re free to say “I aint gonna certify!” even if the State Secretary of State will put the screws to them if they do.
Holy shit you’re so right on all the districts being treated like a fiefdom. I like to think i keep up with politics but this idea has never crossed my mind. Im going to be looking at my local elections closer now.
Quick some body run as a super conservative as a third party and take away some GOP votes please.
Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election was not due to any erosion in support for Donald Trump. Rather, not only did Trump’s raw vote total increase, but in the key states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, Trump’s share of the vote actually increased.
Still mind-boggling and a source of great personal disgust while being a national disgrace. One can only hope that enough people have soured on him since then, after countless displays of racism, xenophobia, sexism, authoritarianism, bigotry, and incompetence. A twice impeached loser felon grifter that’s clearly a russian asset should not stand a chance, yet here we are. Makes me sad.
Between the people trying to give you healthcare and secure your job, and the people trying to let your miscarrying wife bleed out in the parking lot of a for-profit hospital, some morons prefer the latter. Why? “because he’s racist like me!” seems to be the deciding factor. Yes, that is why my parents are voting for him. and my mom is a poll-worker 🤦♂️
Florida 2020 graph is not visually accurate.
That’s such a messed up pie chart. It shows numerically 51% but the pie wedge is smaller than 48%. Man, I can only handle SO much in a day!!!
Not going to vote your way out of this one unfortunately
deleted by creator
How do you mean? Like number of votes, or who’s on the ballot?
I deleted that because it was poorly worded, and not well thought out.
I’m basically wondering whether a swing state is more likely to have third-party candidates on the ballot. Anecdotally it seems to me the third party candidates are attracted to the swing States.
Traditionally, third party candidates perform best in races with no second party opposition. A Libertarian or Green running against an otherwise-unopposed candidate will do 10-20 pts better than one running against candidates from both parties.
If you go back to Bush v Gore, Nader underperformed his popular approval. It was Pat Buchanan who significantly over performed in Democrat districts. And that was largely attributed to the (deliberately) poor design of the Butterfly Ballot.
These days swing states are more likely to have third party candidates because in the current case, both third party candidates are supported by MAGA millionaires who want them to spoil the election.
Oh wow, thirdway.org says you can’t have an alternative to two candidates who don’t represent you and have to choose between the candidates offered to you no matter your politics!
You don’t say!
In case any reader of this post isn’t aware: thirdway.org is the website for people associated with the Third Way which is described as a triangulation between communism and capitalism but ends up still being capitalism somehow.
Triangulation was a middle ground between Democrat and Republican ideology developed by Bill Clinton, Third Way, and the DLC. And has helped shift the entire party to the right. It has nothing to do with communism.
Garbage like this article and Third Way is self serving
Third way politics were common in Europe and there they were explicitly anticommunist. I think they were even promoted by state department cutouts. I didn’t want to make it solely about the us third way even though that website is the us third way clintonite psychos.
Whomst are absolutely anticommunist as well.
I’m just astounded that a person would post an article from the third way to make the case against third parties.
Confirmation bias
I don’t get your meaning there.
Third way is essentially a rightwing capitalist think tank posing as progressive. They, along with Bill Clinton and his DLC started the party shift to the right to in order to appeal to big money that had normally been flowing to republicans. They are opposed to third parties because it would harm capital.
Their name Third Way doesnt imply an an alternative approach to government, but representative of triangulation, the centrist approach to government, a little leftish a little rightish
Yup.
Why do other countries get more than two choices but we cant?
Largely it has to do with the form of government. Countries with many (too many?) choices are Parliamentary forms of government:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system
The US is a Presidential system, not a Parliamentary one.
No most of them started out as monarchies so they cant have parliaments. That would be a change in how the government functions, and that’s impossible.
No most of them started out as monarchies so they cant have parliaments. That would be a change in how the government functions, and that’s impossible
Well that’s not true at all. Parliamentary monarchies are absolutely a thing, the UK being one.
Awesome, that means how our government functions can be changed to accommodate several parties.
Nobody is saying the US system can’t be changed to accommodate third-parties.
What they are saying is that third-parties aren’t viable the way things are now.
You can’t elect third parties to change the system; the system has to be changed to elect third parties. Until then, voting for a third party is wasting a vote and advocating for others to do so is telling them to vote against the major party that is both more likely to win and also the one that more closely represents their values.
The exception, of course, is if one of the major parties suffers an implosion like the Whigs did in the mid-1800s. But the Dems are more unified than ever and the Republicans are brainwashed by right-wing media, so I don’t see that happening any time soon.
You’re saying the only way to get rid of the two party system is to continue to exclusively support the two parties
And the sooner you swallow that pill, the sooner you’ll realize that politics is not about emotions, it about strategy, and voting for third-parties isn’t a winning one.
Constitutional Monarchies are still a parliamentary form of government. See England as a prime example.
Theyre just figurehead monarchies, they have a prime minister chosen by parliament. The point i was making was that they are not now how they were then. They and many other countries changed into a form of government that offers several party choices for voters. But any effort to that effect here is met with immediate dismissal as being impossible.
That is just bullshit. While your president is powerful, a lot of the power of government resides within the parliament itself.
As long as US media calls candidates of other parties as “independents” your political system stais a fucked up mono party system.
To change the Satus quo, laws must put in place, like in other countries that force media to represent all parties.
In addition you have to stop with this excessive money dependent political campaigns.
Those are gatekeeping tactics designed to keep the power in the hands of the two major parties.
There is no reason why your system could not work with more competitors.
edit: also, using a voting mechanism that was good in times before telegraph, telephone and internet makes it nearly impossible for smaller parties to get anything out of an election.
There is no reason not to use the popular vote. None!
The Electoral College system blocks using the popular vote. Changing that means changing the Constitution.
And that is an issue how? Are you trying to say that the USA will be stuck with a legal framework from the 1800? For all eternity?
EDIT I like that. Downvoting is fine, but maybe explain why? Srsly I am very invested in politics, doesn’t matter if European or US. So, if I am wrong on a factual basis, tell me.
Pretty much. There is a process to change the Constitution, here’s how it works:
-
First you get a 290 vote super majority in the House. These are the people who took 15 tries to get a simple 218 vote majority to decide who their own leader would be.
-
Then you need a 67 vote super majority in the Senate, the people continually blocked by needing 60 votes to overturn a filibuster.
If somehow you meet those two hurdles, then it goes to the states for ratification and you need 38 statehouses to pass the Amendment.
By point of comparison, in 2020, Biden got 25 states + Washington D.C. so you’d need ALL 25 Biden states +13 Trump states.
BUT - Of those 25 states, only 19 have Democratically controlled statehouses, so you could end up needing as many as 19 Trump states.
Thanks. That was my rough assumption. And that worries me. While I am not a US citizen, the USA have such immense power that yout politics affect people around the world. From privacy and data protection to the simple fact if we leave in peace or in war.
I understand it is a big issue. And I hope you find a way to change that.
-
There are lots of competitors in US elections, but most are eliminated during the primaries.
When you have more than two candidates in the final round, the winner may not represent the will of the people. You can end up with a majority preferring A to B, a majority preferring B to C, and a majority preferring C to A. No matter who wins, the majority can identify a preferable candidate.
In fact, Kenneth Arrow mathematically proved that multiparty elections will always produce paradoxical results like that. That’s why the winners of multiparty elections are often decided by elite kingmakers, eg Macron.
I see the issue with a president. But most legislation comes out of the Senate. Having more then two parties represented there forces compromises. And the wishes of more people have to be considered the get the required majority.
And if the congress is more diverse, the president looses some powers, as he can not rely on having the majority at least for two years of his presidency. He also would have to compromise all the time.
Just admit it, your system is broken.
First of all, in a presidential democracy the president keeps their powers regardless of the composition of Congress (not just the Senate).
It’s true that in order to pass legislation, the President has to cooperate with Congress. But I’m not sure why you think that a more diverse Congress would “force” anyone to compromise. What actually happens is that nothing gets done.
In fact, this is why the purest multiparty democracies, like Italy and Israel, constantly fail. Multiple parties are “forced” to compromise. They can’t or won’t, blaming their opponents. The government is paralyzed and falls. New elections are held. The composition of the legislature changes (or not). Multiple parties are “forced” to compromise. They can’t or won’t, blaming their opponents. The government is paralyzed and falls. New elections are held. Repeat ad infinitum.
I am living in a multi party country. I am experiencing the hurdles and the benefits of it every single day. Coalitions have to be formed to get the majority, smaller parties getting influence because of it.
We are getting stuff like increased minimum wage, social benefits, legalizing cannabis, and more. And not because the senior partner in the coalition wants it. Because of the junior partners. They are required to form a majority, so they can state their terms also.
And yes, some countries with more then two parties in the parliament are failing. What about the US?
Got some universal Healthcare yet? A livable minimum wage for everyone including waiters?
Effective countermeasures to climate change?
No? See, also failing. And that lies in the nature of countries. Sometimes they fail.
You assume that US democracy is failing because it hasn’t delivered progressive goals. But the reason it hasn’t delivered progressive goals is that it’s a democracy, about half the country is not progressive, and there is no national consensus on those goals.
It’s true that in multi-party democracies, it is easier for a progressive minority to make its voice heard and achieve its goals. But it’s also easier for a right-wing minority to make its voice heard and achieve its goals. For example, in both Italy and Israel.
Voters convinced via gaslighting and propaganda they have no other choice.
TIL that “scientifically being able to prove the FPTP system the US uses will always devolve into a two-party system and make third-party candidates nothing more than spoilers” is “gaslighting” and “third-parties who do fuck-all for four years and curiously only show up to run for president instead of GOTV pushes and trying to win elections at local levels to build support for their party” is propaganda.
Who knew? Well, aside from everyone who knows how the US system is set up and isn’t arguing in bad faith, that is.
Third Way - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Third Way:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.thirdway.org/report/the-dangerous-illusion-of-a-presidential-third-party-in-2024
