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.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
I have high hopes but my logical side says they can just be pandering like any of the other politicians: they know people support it, they know it will fail. They look good for backing it even tho they aren't worried about changing the status quo either
IIRC two states and several major cities have also successfully implemented rank choice, and in every case it's been because of Democrats.
As more and more local governments make the change, it'll become more popular and gain more support on the national level.
Lemmy is such a fickle place. Just a few days ago people were clamoring for Democrats to make a purely performative abortion vote that would be doomed to fail, merely because it would send an important signal to voters. Now people are skeptical that performative signal votes are sincere because they won't go anywhere. Not saying you, specifically, but the whiplash is really frustrating.
Second, sure, it's a low risk bill because they know it won't go anywhere, but damn isn't it good news that somebody is putting their money where their mouth is? Maybe we just need to primary in more Dems who will sign on and help push it through?
My point (i.e. the "high hopes" part) is that this sounds legit and awesome. I do my best to be an optimist, but I have been burned way to many times to not concede that there may be ulterior motivation afoot.
I hear you. Didn't mean for that to come across as an attack on you.
Apologies, in my previous comment I hadn't read clearly enough and misunderstood. I have deleted it.
"Fickle."
What are the consequences of that purely performative vote failing to achieve what it set out to? Nothing?
What are the consequences of a little orange pot dictator getting back in there with a 900-page plan to turn the country into a theocratic shithole? Not nothing?
Why wouldn't Democrats want ranked choice?
Right wing people tend to be subservient and just fall in line and vote Republican. People on the left tend to be less pragmatic and can be enticed to vote for Green or whatever even when it's obvious they won't win "because of my principles!" Someone voting Green or whatever will be very likely to choose the Democrat candidate down the list of choice before the GOP candidate. When the votes are tallied they will end up with more votes with a ranked choice system than they'd have with the current system.
The real reason why this won't happen is if the GOP have a majority since it is very much against their interests.
The DNC exists to protect incumbents. Don't be fooled, the Dems (elected officials, not voters) don't want ranked choice.
Well someone is being fooled, that's true.
Right wing people tend to be subservient and just fall in line and vote Republican. People on the left tend to be less pragmatic
People are always saying this, but is there actually evidence that it's true? The Libertarian Party regularly gets more votes than the Greens, so if anything it seems like the opposite is true. Ross Perot got the most votes of any third party candidate in history, and in both the elections he ran in, Bill Clinton won. In 2016, Trump refused to rule out the possibility of a third party run if he didn't get the nomination, and it appeared to be a serious possibility.
So is this claim just based on vibes or what?
It's been a long time since Ross Perot.
I'm basing it on trends. We saw with RFK being offered whatever he wanted as soon as it looked like he was going to take more votes from Trump than Harris. He dropped out and backed Trump. While not all of his supporters might not automatically go vote for Trump (just as not all Libertarians won't pick R for their second choice) it probably helped.
The Libertarians got what? 1/3 of the votes in 2020 than they did in 2016? Seems like they're on the decline to me.
We're seeing more of a push by various internet influencers (who knows who's paying them, LOL) to push people on the left towards voting third party. And maybe I've spent too much time on lemmy, but it seems to be working. People want to vote for Cornel West or Jill Stein.
It's probably exhausting for campaign workers to have to constantly explain they shouldn't vote third party as it might result in Trump getting in. It would be far easier to say "sure I kinda like [Third Party Candidate] too, but I like [Democratic Candidate] more because blah blah blah, but the most important thing is you go out and vote!" and be fairly confident that vote will cascade down to their candidate. The whole "don't vote third party" schtick that's going on now may just result in that person not voting at all.
A lot of emphasis now is in getting turnout. If a third party candidate can energize some turnout whose votes will cascade down to the Dem candidate, that means the third parties are helping them instead of hurting them. And what people think now about how voting third party will push the Dems more towards that position would actually be true. Right now it's not true but the internet is teaching them otherwise.
It sounds like you're basing it entirely off personal experience. But your personal experience probably doesn't give you a representative cross section of Americans.
The Greens also got 1/3 of the votes in 2020 as 2016, both times being about 1/3 of the Libertarian party.
There's also, like, some pretty big rifts in the right, between the old school establishment and the MAGA crowd. There was tons of infighting over the speaker and whatnot. Trump himself was obviously controversial, and I mentioned the threat of him running third party. If Republican voters would just line up to vote for anybody, the establishment would've never allowed things to splinter to the degree they have, they'd kick people out of the party and the voters would go for whoever they offered instead. I don't see how any of that is explainable if what you're saying is true.
I feel like part of that narrative is just seeing the right run shitty candidates and seeing right wingers vote for them, but that's because the voters have different values and preferences. They still care quite a bit about the things they do care about, and break rank when they don't get their way, and much more so than people in the left do from the numbers I'm seeing.
But your personal experience probably doesn’t give you a representative cross section of Americans.
Neither does yours. The fact is that there are Democrats pushing legislation pushing to move towards Ranked Choice Voting. It's only your personal experience that leads you to believe that it's all for show.
There’s also, like, some pretty big rifts in the right, between the old school establishment and the MAGA crowd.
Yeah but they didn't form a new party did they? And I don't think the Dems want to be dependent on the GOP running another unpopular candidate in 2028. They have campaign workers that actually talk to a lot of voters so they'd know better than either of us about the cross section of Americans.
Most people don't know about legislation that has passed, forget about proposed legislation being a thing that will influence voters. So why would they bother proposing legislation they don't really want in an effort to bamboozle people who don't even know about it?
Neither does yours.
Of course. That's why I cited a bunch of actual evidence and examples that aren't dependent on my personal experience.
It’s only your personal experience that leads you to believe that it’s all for show.
Is it? I don't recall bringing up my personal experience in that matter at all, or bringing up that matter in the first place. Nothing about my personal experience seems relevant to that question, it's not as if I have firsthand experience with politicians in Washington that I'm using to determine whether they're trustworthy or not.
Most people don’t know about legislation that has passed, forget about proposed legislation being a thing that will influence voters. So why would they bother proposing legislation they don’t really want in an effort to bamboozle people who don’t even know about it?
Now this is just silly. Are you suggesting that performative legislation never happens? It happens all the time, especially during election seasons. Just because not every person hears about ever minutiea doesn't mean that nobody ever hears about anything or that it can't influence voters. You're literally using it right now to try to influence people.
We can talk about whether this particular example is performative or not, but to rule out the entire concept of performative legislation categorically is ridiculous.
If people vote in the primaries for candidates who support ranked choice voting, then yes.
What primary? What candidate? I can't even find somebody who doesn't support genocide much less rank choice.
Check at the state level. A few states have introduced ranked choice, your state may have someone in the mix trying to make it a thing where you live!
Political regime is captured by AIPAC, they must be forced to register as a foreign agent, otherwise genocide will continue until arabs are not longer living within Palestine.