U.S. News

2244 readers

81 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.

Guidelines for submissions:

Post the original source of information as the link.
If there is a paywall, provide an archive link in the body.
Post using the original headline; edits for clarity (as in providing crucial info a clickbait hed omits) are fine.
Social media is not a news source.

For World News, see the News community.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rs5th@beehaw.org

alyaza@beehaw.org

Powderhorn@beehaw.org

What will it take for staunch Democrats to vote third party? (x.com)

submitted 5 days ago by CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work to c/usnews@beehaw.org

96 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/151111

With the dust is settling from their defeat on Tuesday, it's becoming clearer that there was some incredible malpractice going on in the Democratic party. As shown in the tweet I linked, Biden delayed dropping out even though his team knew it was going to be a complete blowout for Trump. Then, we have Harris's campaign spending over a billion dollars and still losing all of the swing states she needed to win.

For all the Democrats who would never vote Republican and would have never voted third party, are you now considering voting third party in future elections? If not, what would it take?

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] LallyLuckFarm@beehaw.org 7 points 5 days ago (2 children)

This doesn't quite apply to me, since I live somewhere with RCV and gladly use it. But:

A third party that doesn't waste my time by only running top-line candidates while ignoring every other aspect of the necessary political gains to achieve their goals. Especially when the planks of their platform are overwhelmingly in the hands of the house and senate and not in the purview of the one position for which they decided to lackadaisically run. A third party presidential win with no support in the legislature would doom any real progress that third parties could hope to achieve - giving us a figurehead with no means to enact their agenda would only dissuade voters from seeing future candidates as viable and locking us back into the same dichotomy.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

All the people who were doing that are now pushing RCV or other election reforms that would make it realistic for third parties to be able to get all the way to winning. The third-party people who are running in FPTP elections are, almost universally, either attention-seekers or deliberate spoiler candidates. Bernie Sanders, when he was running, joined up with the Democrats instead of running as a spoiler candidate, because he's making an earnest attempt at making things better.

It doesn't really matter now because we've slipped one rung down the civilizational Maslow pyramid now, and are in for a fight to preserve the right in any capacity to elect who we want in power. But, whenever we make it back out to the other side of that, it'd be nice to remember to reconfigure the system so third parties can actually win, first, and then run third party candidates after that, not the other way around.

[–] LallyLuckFarm@beehaw.org 6 points 5 days ago

Firmly agreed. Too many people I know forget that social progress is measured in inches and social regression is measured in yards (cm's and m's for our other friends). I'll gladly vote "no backsliding" on the top line, knowing that I can keep pressuring for progress in the interim.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The viability and practicality of third party presidential candidates isn't relevant to the question. If the Democratic party doesn't change and keeps losing, what good does it do for Democratic progressives to keep compromising for it when third party candidates with better platforms are available?

[–] LallyLuckFarm@beehaw.org 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

what would it take for you to vote third party?

^ that was your question, and telling me my reasoning behind the answer I gave isn't relevant to what it would take me to vote third party is farcical and asinine, and that's being generous

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

So then no amount of failure or lack of corrective action on behalf of the Democratic party would get you to cast a vote for a third party presidential candidate?

Edit: I mean if you didn't have RCV.

[–] LallyLuckFarm@beehaw.org 3 points 4 days ago

With fptp, other better leverage points exist than dividing progressive voting share at the top. That's our opportunity (as I see it) to state that we would like to keep the progress we've made, however small it might be. Downballot races all the way down to town boards are how we can push the legislation and policies we wish to see signed into law to achieve further progress. Success there also allows for more leftist/progressive people to be the pool for presidential candidates.

[–] wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Lemmy, 1 week ago: "A THIRD PARTY VOTE IS A REPUBLICAN VOTE!"

Lemmy, today: "WE SHOULD ALL BE VOTING THIRD PARTY!"

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 5 points 5 days ago

The responses I've been getting so far don't seem very warm to third party voting at all.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 4 points 5 days ago

It's not the Democratic Party is going to learn anything from this. Might as well set that bitch on fire and try to get something else going.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments