Neither, unfortunately, but we have a two-party system, and one side is openly fascist, so I would advise that anyone who doesn’t like fascism vote for the other non-fascist (arguably less-fascist) party.
I don’t like voting for the “lesser evil” and wish things were better, but voting for unviable candidates out of a sense of blind idealism is worse, because it empowers the most regressive movements to succeed.
We don’t currently live in a real democracy, but we have a chance to turn things around. If you decide to give up and let the fascists win, you’re one of the bad guys.
Sure, that’s obvious to you and me, as seasoned internet users. But we can’t expect lawyers and career politicians to understand such things. They must be ignoring it by accident.
The reality is choosing between the two major parties is choosing hurting now or hurting later. Neither will actually do any good. It’s pointless to vote for anyone other than a 3rd party, at least then you’re not voting for evil.
The reality is choosing between the two major parties is choosing hurting now or hurting later.
False.
They’ll both hurt now but one will clearly hurt less.
One will also do more good than the other.
3rd party during the final election won’t get anything accomplished, because that third party literally has no representation in lower positions of government.
Part of building a viable alternative is getting enough votes for consistant ballot access and other resources that are afforded by default to the two primary parties. Winning comes in degrees.
Yet Jill Stein vanishes for four years between Presidential elections and does absolutely nothing to support a third party coalition at the state and local level.
And she somehow deserves your vote for simply not being a D or R? Yeah nah.
Idk about your state, but that is the case here in MD with Greens and the Working Class Party. Also true for the Working Families Party in other states. Presidential elections have a purpose in generating attention, though.
Okay let’s see. We have a large part of the population who just won’t vote. Voter apathy is real.
Of the Democrats and Republicans, you have about 2/3 of each party that are voting like it’s a sports team. They’ll never change and they’ll never think.
The thinking people who vote for each party understand that the third party has no chance and they’re trying to sway things generally in their direction.
So the third party victory plan, if I have it correct, is to overcome voter apathy, and also to sway some people who are voting like a sports team from both parties.
If that’s your plan for victory, then you don’t have a plan for victory. And you’re just wasting your vote.
Call me cynical, but I think third parties are funded by people outside the country to sway the election. Just like they only thaw out Jill Stein every 4 years to steal votes from the Democrats, and then they park her in a Russian freezer somewhere for the rest of the time.
The ONLY chance the US had for a third party was back when Teddy Roosevelt ran in the Bull Moose party. He was already a president with a major party and wanted another run but the party didn’t like his socialist agenda. (I’m simplifying)
If he would have won, we probably would still have a 2 party system. 1 of the parties would have adapted to the Bull Moose party.
We need to elect people that will support the change to RCV. Dems seem more favorable to this.
The problem is that you’re relying on “vote blue and hope they give us electoral reform out of the kindness of their hearts.” It’s not a real strategy. Dems have a clear incentive to not enact voting reform, because they survive off of being the lesser evil and effectively coercing people into voting for them. And if you say that we should vote for Dems conditionally to them (genuinely) supporting RCV, that’s one thing, but if you’re just supporting them regardless then any ideas you have about RCV are meaningless because in practice those ideas aren’t affecting your actions in any way.
It’s like seeing that your car won’t to start and thinking the solution is to drive it to the mechanic. The whole problem is that you can’t drive it anywhere. In the same way, the whole reason we need electoral reform is the same thing that prevents it from happening, that we don’t have any mechanism for advancing policy goals in the current system. You can’t rely on a broken system to fix itself.
What we need is to realize that the current system is FUBAR and organize non-electoral strategies (for example, strikes and demonstrations) to advance policy positions, and we need a dedicated party that’s focused on that strategy and able to lay out a clear platform to that end.
I’m not sure I fully understood that . But the first step in any change is ranked choice voting. If we had that then we could do three parties or more.
As it stands, we’ve devolved into a two-party system and neither party will give up control.
If you have a path to change the system of governance, that could be worth pursuing. But voting isn’t a path to that - just a form of harm reduction within the system.
You still buy groceries - even though you may hate the process of handing over your net worth for something that helps sustain your life and want to change that.
Which of the two major parties stands against capitalism again?
One of them is the “Openly advocates for billionaires” party and the other is the “Discretely advocates for billionaires” party.
Neither, unfortunately, but we have a two-party system, and one side is openly fascist, so I would advise that anyone who doesn’t like fascism vote for the other non-fascist (arguably less-fascist) party.
I don’t like voting for the “lesser evil” and wish things were better, but voting for unviable candidates out of a sense of blind idealism is worse, because it empowers the most regressive movements to succeed.
We don’t currently live in a real democracy, but we have a chance to turn things around. If you decide to give up and let the fascists win, you’re one of the bad guys.
We need Ranked Choice Voting and Mixed Member Proportional districting to reduce the need for strategic voting.
Sure, that’s obvious to you and me, as seasoned internet users. But we can’t expect lawyers and career politicians to understand such things. They must be ignoring it by accident.
did you even comprehend what they said?
If the choice is fascist or less fascist then neither is worth voting for.
People will hold a vote to see if everyone gets punched in the face three times or once. Would you not vote for only one punch?
Your outcomes are between the candidate who will hurt you and yours less vs the candidate who will hurt you and yours most.
If you’re lucky, choosing to not vote will still lead to the candidate that will hurt you and yours less.
Be as pedantic as you want: this is the reality of it.
Do whatever outside of the election season to change that but once the final polls happen, those are the only choices you have.
It’s like when you get beat up and you’re on the ground. You try to protect your vitals and hope you’ll survive to fight another day.
Not voting is idiotic and lazy.
I never said anything about not voting.
The reality is choosing between the two major parties is choosing hurting now or hurting later. Neither will actually do any good. It’s pointless to vote for anyone other than a 3rd party, at least then you’re not voting for evil.
False.
Which third party has a chance to actually win or do something and isn’t just throwing your vote out?
Part of building a viable alternative is getting enough votes for consistant ballot access and other resources that are afforded by default to the two primary parties. Winning comes in degrees.
Yet Jill Stein vanishes for four years between Presidential elections and does absolutely nothing to support a third party coalition at the state and local level.
And she somehow deserves your vote for simply not being a D or R? Yeah nah.
She basically works for Russia.
If that was really the strategy they would start with local elections.
Idk about your state, but that is the case here in MD with Greens and the Working Class Party. Also true for the Working Families Party in other states. Presidential elections have a purpose in generating attention, though.
All of them, complain about non-voters not voters.
Okay let’s see. We have a large part of the population who just won’t vote. Voter apathy is real.
Of the Democrats and Republicans, you have about 2/3 of each party that are voting like it’s a sports team. They’ll never change and they’ll never think.
The thinking people who vote for each party understand that the third party has no chance and they’re trying to sway things generally in their direction.
So the third party victory plan, if I have it correct, is to overcome voter apathy, and also to sway some people who are voting like a sports team from both parties.
If that’s your plan for victory, then you don’t have a plan for victory. And you’re just wasting your vote.
Call me cynical, but I think third parties are funded by people outside the country to sway the election. Just like they only thaw out Jill Stein every 4 years to steal votes from the Democrats, and then they park her in a Russian freezer somewhere for the rest of the time.
“They won’t actually fix anything but they might win” is an unbelievably terrible argument
No. It’s “which of these two horrible choices might we influence to make some progress”
You don’t get a third choice for the big things. It’s mathematically and literally impossible.
Social reality isn’t tethered to logic. A mind virus can open the possibility for a third party victory, math be damned.
We’re already past the first step where the general population is tired of the two current options.
Yeah, but hope is not a strategy. What’s the path to making that happen?
…are you trying to say that it’s mathematically impossible for a third party to be viable?
Because wow, the entire western world outside the US would like to have a word.
The ONLY chance the US had for a third party was back when Teddy Roosevelt ran in the Bull Moose party. He was already a president with a major party and wanted another run but the party didn’t like his socialist agenda. (I’m simplifying)
If he would have won, we probably would still have a 2 party system. 1 of the parties would have adapted to the Bull Moose party.
We need to elect people that will support the change to RCV. Dems seem more favorable to this.
The problem is that you’re relying on “vote blue and hope they give us electoral reform out of the kindness of their hearts.” It’s not a real strategy. Dems have a clear incentive to not enact voting reform, because they survive off of being the lesser evil and effectively coercing people into voting for them. And if you say that we should vote for Dems conditionally to them (genuinely) supporting RCV, that’s one thing, but if you’re just supporting them regardless then any ideas you have about RCV are meaningless because in practice those ideas aren’t affecting your actions in any way.
It’s like seeing that your car won’t to start and thinking the solution is to drive it to the mechanic. The whole problem is that you can’t drive it anywhere. In the same way, the whole reason we need electoral reform is the same thing that prevents it from happening, that we don’t have any mechanism for advancing policy goals in the current system. You can’t rely on a broken system to fix itself.
What we need is to realize that the current system is FUBAR and organize non-electoral strategies (for example, strikes and demonstrations) to advance policy positions, and we need a dedicated party that’s focused on that strategy and able to lay out a clear platform to that end.
You mean where they have ranked choice and a completely different voting system which changes the math?
You got me to learn something new today!
I’m not sure I fully understood that . But the first step in any change is ranked choice voting. If we had that then we could do three parties or more.
As it stands, we’ve devolved into a two-party system and neither party will give up control.
Oh is it time for “Both Sides” already? Forgot to mark my calendar
It’s always time for bOtH sIdEs, because BoTh keep bOtHiNg.
Yes, i know one is pro-church and the other is pro-trans.
My problem is that they are BoTh anti-union and pro-Epstein. That’s the rub.
Sorry if reality offends you
If you have a path to change the system of governance, that could be worth pursuing. But voting isn’t a path to that - just a form of harm reduction within the system.
You still buy groceries - even though you may hate the process of handing over your net worth for something that helps sustain your life and want to change that.
Voting is still worth doing, but certainly not all one should do.