Skip Navigation
Showerthoughts @lemmy.world AbouBenAdhem @lemmy.world

Trying to build viable third parties by voting for them in presidential elections is like trying to build a third door in your house by repeatedly walking into the wall where you want the door to be.

471

You're viewing a single thread.

471 comments

  • LOL and how do you suppose we make third parties viable? Thoughts and prayers?

    • I'm not gonna answer that question. I don't have the perfect answer ready for you.

      Instead I will tell you what happens when you vote third party in FPTP. Okay, you have a .nl TLD so I guess ssyou're either in a much better electoral situation or just picked it because it's cool, but I will use the example of the upcoming US presidential election.

      Now, let's say the race is really even and it's over. Flipping just one of several key battleground states would've placed Harris in the lead, but unfortunately, Trump won. You look at the votes in your state: Trump won by under 600 votes. Nearly 100,000 people voted for a third party candidate that's actually to the left of Harris. They would've preferred Harris, but because they voted third party, they elected Trump.

      If this sounds familiar, that's what happened in 2000. Al Gore could've won. Should've won. But 3rd party candidate Ralph Nader was further left of him and received a bunch of votes that needed to go to Gore. In Florida, he had nearly 100k votes, and the difference between Bush and Gore was literally triple digits. And it wasn't even the only state where Gore lost because of the Spoiler Effect

      It's an inherent flaw of the FPTP system and yes, it sucks. It means a vote for a third party is a wasted vote.

      • I'm not gonna answer that question. I don't have the perfect answer ready for you.

        That's okay, I don't expect a "perfect" answer, but what you're revealing about yourself by not putting forward an answer is that you don't care about our wants, you're just mad that we're not doing what you want.

        People tell me all the time voting is how to get what you want, so that's what I've done and what I'll continue to do.

        the Spoiler Effect

        Yes, I'm very familiar. Once again, I think this is just manipulating people into your desired outcome. I'm very happy to "spoil" my vote by advocating for someone I actually support, rather than throwing it away on someone I don't. The fault lies with the system, not with me.

        • The fault lies with the system, not with me.

          The fuckery inherent in the current system being not your fault does not absolve you from voting responsibly in context of the current system. If you are going to throw in a protest vote you are asserting your portion of responsibility for the practical end result of that vote.

          • It's a good thing I vote responsibly then. An irresponsible vote would be one that perpetuates the current, broken system.

            • How does a strategic practical vote within the current system perpetuate it any more or less than a throwaway protest vote?

            • Because there are more effective forms of protest that don’t guarantee with 99.9% accuracy that a fascist is elected if people vote for an alternate party (literally the case this year with the margins, and “dictator day 1”).

              Voting should be pragmatic. There are a million other ways to protest/lobby, but honestly the Democrats of today are far more progressive than 20 years ago, because of people who understand the system and change it from the inside, like AOC/Bernie.

              • with 99.9% accuracy that a fascist is elected if people vote for an alternate party

                Just straight up blatant lies here.

                There are a million other ways to protest/lobby

                I can't think of a more powerful protest.

                like AOC/Bernie.

                I would vote for either in a heartbeat but I can't because they won't be on the ballot. They will step down and insist you vote for Kamala instead. And even if they were you would insist that I not vote for them anyway because it's still "throwing away" my vote.

                When either party puts forward a candidate without immediately-disqualifying horrendous traits, I will vote for them. But that absolutely never happens. It is almost always the worst-possible candidate, without even considering their political positions. They all accept massive donations from mega-PACs and a deplorable history of selfishness and lies.

    • Not by voting for people in elections they can’t win. Vote at the local and state level or in primaries for people who will enact voting reform.

      • Like who?

        • I don't know where you live so I don't have any relevant suggestions, sorry.

          • Name anyone anywhere

            • You know that's not how elections work, but if you're genuinely interested here are some lists of third-party candidates in the US:

              You can find comparable lists on the sites of many more non-frivolous political third parties in which you may be interested, which can probably be found from their Wikipedia entries.

              • You know that's not how elections work

                WTF are you talking about? That's exactly how they work, and its what the person I replied to suggested I do about it.

                here are some lists of third-party candidates in the US:

                This is just a list of people I've been repeatedly told in this thread that I should not vote for...?

                • This thread, specifically this comment, is telling you you should vote for alternative parties at state and local levels. The idea is to build up that third party's actual presence in government from the ground up, which is a far superior strategy to splitting a critical presidential race and feeling like you've accomplished anything good.

    • Smaller elections. Get state representatives, win a few seats in the house, a few senators… When your party actually contributes to governing then you can discuss running for president. Until then you won’t beat Nader or Perot

      • And I will repeat the same thing I told the other person who said this. Who should I vote for? What politicians are supporting and advocating for reforming US elections? The answer is none of them, because they'd be lambasted and shunned for trying to upend the status quo.

    • Changing the voting system so that third parties are actually possible.

      You need a cardinal voting system, otherwise you'll fall prey to Durverger's Law and Arrow's Impossibility Theorem.

      I favor STAR, it's the best system designed to date.

      • The problem is that these systems are way more complex and have edge cases where someone unpopular gets elected. Making major changes to a system that has worked for 248 years seems like a recipe for disaster.

        • and have edge cases where someone unpopular gets elected

          As opposed to the current system, where someone unpopular always gets elected?

          Making major changes to a system that has worked for 248 years

          It hasn't worked. It's deeply flawed and we currently use the worst-possible process, rooted in ancient history.

      • Changing the voting system so that third parties are actually possible.

        And why would anyone do that when everyone takes time out of their day to express their approval for the existing 2 parties?

You've viewed 471 comments.