This is the kind of mindset that keeps people from voting third party… “You’re just throwing away your vote” and it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, because enough people believe it, and either don’t vote as a result, or vote disingenuously, that nobody votes for third parties that they actually want in office.
The problem is self reinforcing too.
The fact is, if enough people are brave enough to “throw away their vote” by going for a third party, the momentum may push others that either are not voting, or are voting for a party they don’t believe in, to vote for the third party that doesn’t normally have a chance, to actually add their voice to the mix and those people may be enough to actually swing towards a third party.
This rhetoric is the exact same crap that OP is complaining about.
I understand why people don’t want to “throw away their vote” on a candidate that isn’t likely to win, which is why we need voting reform and an alternative to the FPTP voting that we currently “enjoy”, so people can vote for who they actually want, and still not “throw away” their vote if that candidate doesn’t get enough votes to get in.
Which makes it even more important for the right to maintain the current voting system. By gerrymandering the hell out of the districts, they can dilute more centrist and left-leaning areas into several strong conservative areas nearby, or concentrate undesirable voters into a single district, which is vastly out voted by the surrounding districts.
The whole thing has been manufactured to optimise the capacity for success for those who do not win the popular vote.
IMO, it’s insane that a party can consistently win the popular vote, but not consistently win elections. It’s crazy.
I don’t know. I know you are talking in general and not just this specific election, but for this cycle, if millions of people who would normally vote democrat are instead “brave enough to go for third-party”, they are not just throwing away their votes. They would be helping Trump get elected in a landslide, and there is a credible risk they would lose the ability to vote at all in the future.
That’s a fair argument. You’re right, I’m talking generalities. I’m not American and it’s easy to forget how close you guys are to a vote.
Big picture, yeah, there could be a movement. Realistically, it would only really happen if the voting system changed… Short of a major revolution or upheaval, that’s not going to happen… Sooooo…
There is no mindset keeping people from voting third party. It’s impossible for anything but a two party system to result from a First Past the Post system. It’s not a bug, as they say, it’s a feature.
There is no momentum, it will always fail. Go to Wikipedia and look up the article “Political Parties in the United States”. They have a chart showing the popular vote break down going back to Washington. Check out 232 years of history telling you how ineffective and useless it is to vote 3rd party in our current system.
You have to get rid of the Electoral College and FPTP FIRST, before a vote for an alternate candidate will ever have any meaning. This isn’t my opinion. It’s reality, and it’s time you joined it.
Only when it’s a first past the post system and one of the top two candidates is a fascist dead set on ending democracy and becoming a dictator. Outside that specific scenario it’s much less cut and dry.
There’s additional stipulations, the most crucial being the dictator thing. It’s also much different in parliamentary governments, where you can vote for a number of parties that oppose fascism who can then form a coalition; most liberal democracies work that way. But it would be easier for the US to adopt ranked choice voting than to switch to a parliamentary system, so first past the post is what I chose to critique.
There’s additional stipulations, the most crucial being the dictator thing.
The perception of a particular office-holder as a “dictator” is a very relative thing. Go look up the history of a few of our more notorious governors - Brigham Young, Huey Long, Frank Merriam, George Wallace, my own home state governor Greg Abbott - and how they flagrantly abused their powers to impose their whims on their constituents. Depending on which side of the fight you’re on, the label of “dictator” sticks firmly or slides right off.
You’ve also got your Lincoln and FDR types - folks who absolutely were “dictators” from a legalistic perspective, but were vital to the continuation of the nation as a whole.
The thing about dictators is that they’re often very popular. Sometimes even popular for good reasons. So even without a FPTP system, a guy taking 50%+ of the base vote because the constituency wants a strong man with a plan in high office is going to get what they asked for.
it would be easier for the US to adopt ranked choice voting
It would be functionally impossible to adopt ranked choice voting, as this would require a supermajority in the legislature (who all won their seats FPTP) to approve it or a Constitutional Convention (a thing that has never happened in our 235 year history) to be called by a supermajority of state legislatures (who also all won their seats FPTP) to change the system by which they secured their seats in a manner you believe would put those seats at risk.
All this to get a system that will still produce dictators any time a right-wing media blitz shifts popular opinion too far in Trump’s direction.
Also he was the first president in history to refuse a peaceful transition of power and attempted to overthrow the democratic process.
It would be functionally impossible to adopt ranked choice voting…
You don’t go about it from the federal level. States control their own elections. We could use state-level ballot measures to let the public vote for ranked choice voting state by state.
Except in this case Trump has promised to be a dictator
So did his icon, Mussolini, who won office in a landslide.
Also he was the first president in history to refuse a peaceful transition of power
But not first administration. Hoover’s secretaries conspired towards the Business Plot, to remove FDR and replace him with Smedly Butler. Allen Dulles’s CIA repeatedly undermined Kennedy after Kennedy fired Dulles in the wake of the Bay of Pigs invasion. The Saturday Night Massacre was all that kept Nixon from holding office in the face of impeachment. Eugene Debbs was imprisoned by political rivals in an effort to keep him from so much as campaigning. And that’s not even mentioning the fucking Civil War, which erupted in direct response to Lincoln’s successful presidential run.
When it comes to keeping republicans from taking power and enacting Christian nationalism, how is that different than not voting?
It’s not. I think they were just doing a tongue in cheek joke that 3rd party voters think they are beating the both sides argument but they aren’t.
This is the kind of mindset that keeps people from voting third party… “You’re just throwing away your vote” and it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, because enough people believe it, and either don’t vote as a result, or vote disingenuously, that nobody votes for third parties that they actually want in office.
The problem is self reinforcing too.
The fact is, if enough people are brave enough to “throw away their vote” by going for a third party, the momentum may push others that either are not voting, or are voting for a party they don’t believe in, to vote for the third party that doesn’t normally have a chance, to actually add their voice to the mix and those people may be enough to actually swing towards a third party.
This rhetoric is the exact same crap that OP is complaining about.
I understand why people don’t want to “throw away their vote” on a candidate that isn’t likely to win, which is why we need voting reform and an alternative to the FPTP voting that we currently “enjoy”, so people can vote for who they actually want, and still not “throw away” their vote if that candidate doesn’t get enough votes to get in.
Which makes it even more important for the right to maintain the current voting system. By gerrymandering the hell out of the districts, they can dilute more centrist and left-leaning areas into several strong conservative areas nearby, or concentrate undesirable voters into a single district, which is vastly out voted by the surrounding districts.
The whole thing has been manufactured to optimise the capacity for success for those who do not win the popular vote.
IMO, it’s insane that a party can consistently win the popular vote, but not consistently win elections. It’s crazy.
I don’t know. I know you are talking in general and not just this specific election, but for this cycle, if millions of people who would normally vote democrat are instead “brave enough to go for third-party”, they are not just throwing away their votes. They would be helping Trump get elected in a landslide, and there is a credible risk they would lose the ability to vote at all in the future.
That’s a fair argument. You’re right, I’m talking generalities. I’m not American and it’s easy to forget how close you guys are to a vote.
Big picture, yeah, there could be a movement. Realistically, it would only really happen if the voting system changed… Short of a major revolution or upheaval, that’s not going to happen… Sooooo…
There is no mindset keeping people from voting third party. It’s impossible for anything but a two party system to result from a First Past the Post system. It’s not a bug, as they say, it’s a feature.
There is no momentum, it will always fail. Go to Wikipedia and look up the article “Political Parties in the United States”. They have a chart showing the popular vote break down going back to Washington. Check out 232 years of history telling you how ineffective and useless it is to vote 3rd party in our current system.
You have to get rid of the Electoral College and FPTP FIRST, before a vote for an alternate candidate will ever have any meaning. This isn’t my opinion. It’s reality, and it’s time you joined it.
You don’t need to worry about me messing up your two party system.
We have similar bullshit in my country.
And I’m sorry that you believe this. Truly I am.
Democracy is when you only have one choice and if you don’t choose it then you’re no better than a fascist.
Only when it’s a first past the post system and one of the top two candidates is a fascist dead set on ending democracy and becoming a dictator. Outside that specific scenario it’s much less cut and dry.
That is the overwhelmingly most common form of liberal democracy.
There’s additional stipulations, the most crucial being the dictator thing. It’s also much different in parliamentary governments, where you can vote for a number of parties that oppose fascism who can then form a coalition; most liberal democracies work that way. But it would be easier for the US to adopt ranked choice voting than to switch to a parliamentary system, so first past the post is what I chose to critique.
The perception of a particular office-holder as a “dictator” is a very relative thing. Go look up the history of a few of our more notorious governors - Brigham Young, Huey Long, Frank Merriam, George Wallace, my own home state governor Greg Abbott - and how they flagrantly abused their powers to impose their whims on their constituents. Depending on which side of the fight you’re on, the label of “dictator” sticks firmly or slides right off.
You’ve also got your Lincoln and FDR types - folks who absolutely were “dictators” from a legalistic perspective, but were vital to the continuation of the nation as a whole.
The thing about dictators is that they’re often very popular. Sometimes even popular for good reasons. So even without a FPTP system, a guy taking 50%+ of the base vote because the constituency wants a strong man with a plan in high office is going to get what they asked for.
It would be functionally impossible to adopt ranked choice voting, as this would require a supermajority in the legislature (who all won their seats FPTP) to approve it or a Constitutional Convention (a thing that has never happened in our 235 year history) to be called by a supermajority of state legislatures (who also all won their seats FPTP) to change the system by which they secured their seats in a manner you believe would put those seats at risk.
All this to get a system that will still produce dictators any time a right-wing media blitz shifts popular opinion too far in Trump’s direction.
Except in this case Trump has promised to be a dictator: https://youtu.be/aX0iAmz9iLM?si=PbFCWr6CvpJ-nlXc
Also he was the first president in history to refuse a peaceful transition of power and attempted to overthrow the democratic process.
You don’t go about it from the federal level. States control their own elections. We could use state-level ballot measures to let the public vote for ranked choice voting state by state.
So did his icon, Mussolini, who won office in a landslide.
But not first administration. Hoover’s secretaries conspired towards the Business Plot, to remove FDR and replace him with Smedly Butler. Allen Dulles’s CIA repeatedly undermined Kennedy after Kennedy fired Dulles in the wake of the Bay of Pigs invasion. The Saturday Night Massacre was all that kept Nixon from holding office in the face of impeachment. Eugene Debbs was imprisoned by political rivals in an effort to keep him from so much as campaigning. And that’s not even mentioning the fucking Civil War, which erupted in direct response to Lincoln’s successful presidential run.
Second verse, same as the first. Five states have banned ranked choice voting in the last two months.