You're viewing a single thread.
Or - OR, okay, you could do the work to build a more progressive party! It’s still legal! For now. So.
Have you done that? No? Oh, - so it’s - okay, you have, but it’s still about a thousand people? Well, hey, that is definitely a start. Say, do you think maybe those ‘about a thousand’ people could convince enough people to vote for a candidate that will defeat the fascism they’re clamoring for? Hm? What’s that? Oh, uhhh about sixteen weeks. Yeah. . . . Mmmmnnnno, there’s not really a “budget”, it’s sort of BYOB, y’know. Bring Your Own Budget. Ha ha. So - yes?
In Canada there is a second left-leaning party called New Democratic party. And in last election they got 16% of votes compared to 33% of Liberal party and 34% of Conservative party. And there are two more parties with significant number of voters - Bloc Quebecoise and Green.
In Germany, Netherlands and most other European countries there are similar distribution between multiple parties. Why is US so different ?
The short version is that the Constitution says the President is the one who gets the most votes. The Electoral college says there are only 548 votes, and they are mostly all awarded by each of the states to one victor (first-past-the-post).
The practical result is that if a party can only win 36% of the vote in a state, they get 0 electoral votes. Because of that, a two-party system has more or less been the norm.
It’s not ideal.
Sorry to repost, but coincidentally I made a comment a few days ago answering this:
First past the post elections is the answer. If we had ranked choice or runoff elections, more parties would appear.
Instead, in FPTP, every vote that is not for one of the two highest-polling candidates is objectively a wasted vote. Game theory dictates that the only rational choice is a vote for one of those two candidates, since the possibility of a third party gaining enough votes to win in any single election is nearly infinitesimal. So instead of many parties, all candidates self-sort into one of the two viable parties. Any candidate that does not is a protest candidate or deluded, but in either case, there is no hope of actually winning.
So what about primaries? The primary system decides the candidates, but even that is tainted by FPTP, because primary voters have to guess which will perform better in a FPTP general election and often vote against their ideal candidate in the hopes of winning (or, not losing) the general.
In short, until we structurally reform elections to be ranked/STAR/runoff/etc to remove the punitive effect of voting for your actual ideal candidate, we're stuck with a prisoner's dilemma election every time.
You see, when liberals ask leftists to support anti-fascism, it's actual a PRO-fascist request because liberals aren't leftist enough.
But when self-proclaimed leftists demand that liberals be stripped of support in an election against fascists, for being insufficiently pure, that's actually anti-fascist, because giving fascists more power is anti-fascist.
What does that even mean? I hope you know at least.
"Online Leftists complain that liberals aren't really antifascist (and are, in fact, pro-fascist) because liberals don't do enough to fight fascism outside of their own movements, while Online Leftists simultaneously (and hypocritically in light of this accusation) refuse to support antifascist movements that aren't led by leftists."
It rhymes