You're viewing a single thread.
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.
I wish there was something the current administration could do to stop the aid of this genocide AND distance himself from the opposition…if only there was a simple way to do that
So the Biden administration has no power in stopping aid? Because it’s happening rn on his watch. Whatever possible future comes is a result of actions today…
So the Biden administration has no power in stopping aid?
I really don't know how you got that from "Don't vote in the guy who wants to give more aid to Israel and start genocides at home".
What aid can they stop? Don't say something stupid like "sending weapons" or "military aid". Since you have limitless knowledge of foreign policy and diplomatic relations with Israel, give me specific examples of aid that Joe Biden can unilaterally stop that would end the Genocide™ today.
We'll even ignore the fact the Bibi said they would continue the assault on Gaza even if the United States cut off all aid. Just tell me the aid that Biden can suspend that will end the Genocide™ today.
Very little. It's largely a Congress thing. They decide who gets aid, how much, and where the funding comes from. Biden absolutely could do better with messaging. And his leadership has not done him many favors either. However, short of enacting war powers etc. There's very little that the executive branch can do directly. Which makes so much of the ire Biden is getting misplaced and suspicious.
He should do better. So should the people hyperfixating on him.
Messaging is very unclear because Biden says he will stop sending shipments of American weapons…and then doesn’t. And denouncing the ICC is also emboldening Bibi & Israel’s actions in Gaza. Biden wants to have his cake and eat it too
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/08/politics/joe-biden-interview-cnntv/index.html
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.
I did read it, and I may have arrived at a different conclusion than you.
Would you say any of those percentages add up to, “Yes, supporting the active genocide is worth supporting.” ??
Would you say any of those percentages add up to, “Yes, supporting the active genocide is worth supporting.” ??
...
Where’s the poll that suggests people are ok with the Biden administration’s approach in Israel?
This you?
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.
I dunno. Biden went from 'no upper limit' on children and civilian death in Gaza and 'no chance, none' about a ceasefire to calling for ceasefire a month after the Uncommitted campaign and recently aired conditioning aid. I don't think it is mere coincidence, but I get there's strong pushback on that idea. Though I think calling it shouting into the void is a little bit stifling.
I think that was in part the change in the ‘war’ and his growing agitation that Bibi was saying one thing and doing another. There are a lot of gears turning to prevent a lot of what we’re seeing, and then you’ve got a single, final soundbite which is all most people know of it.
I would agree it has had some effect, at least in the messaging. I would disagree we can afford it at this time though. Nationally. With a corrupt demented orange rapist in the wings.
And that's arguably true: maybe Biden would have done nothing different than he already has if everyone shut up about the matter in Gaza.
I don't see it, but I accept that it's a possibility. I'll hear that argument.
Though I think calling it shouting into the void is a little bit stifling.
I'm an anonymous stranger on the internet, it's completely your choice to be 'stifled' or not here. That's kinda pathetic.
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(tm) 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.
The five electoral systems used are …
I was talking about Parliamentary elections in those countries, since the original discussion was about the US Presidential elections. The House of Commons is elected by FPTP. Local elections use a variety of systems.
Every government since Confederation has been either Liberal or Conservative with the exception of the Unionist government during World War I
True. At the same time, the NDP and the BQ have been able to hold their ground and consistently return several MPs. They have also enjoyed much greater success at the provincial level (in BC and Quebec). How many US states have a third-party governor or House majority?
Russia and India are also fairly recent democracies
In the first four parliamentary elections in India, the number of parties winning over 10 seats were 3, 3, 5 and 8. In the latest four, it was 10, 11, 8 and 9. So, if anything, support is moving away from the biggest parties over time.
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.
you don't seem to understand that the problem is that the rule is immune to counterexamples. it's storytelling.
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
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"?
Cool. Your proposed solution, for this situation, right now, without resorting to “Everyone will magically convert to my ideology in the next six months”?
So you are saying, that the American people are by their heart genocidal mass murderers and colonialists, who enjoy not having healthcare and being crushed by rising costs of living while wages stagnate? That is what you are implying with claiming being against that is "ideological" and again you do exactly what the DNC, Reps and their rich "donors" aka corrupters want. You fight to maintain your own oppression instead of fighting against your oppressors.
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