That sounds too much like work and not enough like bitching.
Makes me wish we had some serious third parties in this country, and not two grifting perennial presidential-election also-rans
The lack of viable ones is less a result of effort on their part or desire for them among the electorate, and more to do with the nature of our voting system. Its hard to develop a viable third party when the system one is operating in mathematically guarantees that only two parties can be seriously competitive with eachother in nationally significant elections, and those parties are already established. They can be competitive in local elections that the larger ones dont put as much effort into, but the only times theyve ever gotten to the presidency have been the couple times when one of the two major parties basically collapses and gets replaced with a different one.
They can be competitive in local elections that the larger ones dont put as much effort into,
That’s my point, though. The two biggest third parties in this country aren’t competitive in local elections, because they put even less effort in local elections as the two major parties do. They make a performative shot at the presidency every four years, and that’s about fucking it. The Libertarians are slightly better (god, what a sentence to gag on) on this than the Greens, but not by much.
There are more than just two third-parties if that’s how you want to refer to them. There were three others you didn’t mention in my state, all different on policy. Third-party doesn’t by default mean green or libertarian.
They said “biggest”, not “only”.
Which I will admit is only partially accurate, the AIP (a paleoconservative party, far right) is the largest after the Libertarian Party (which is not even remotely libertarian in policy). Then Green (which doesn’t actually do anything on any of the ideologies they claim to support), followed by another christian nationalist party, and then parties so small they are a margin of error on the national stage at best, combined.
Single-state parties have no relevance nationally.
Still, a lot of people are seemingly treating all third parties the same as they do the Green party, which then affects all of them in public opinion.
At the national level, yes. The only thing they are is a spoiler party in federal elections. Hopefully that changes in the future, but to do that we need to get away from FPTP, and those 3rd parties need to go local first to get recognition.
Local level is an entirely different territory, and there are quite a few third parties in offices.
But in a federal election? Yeah, they are only a spoiler, nothing else.
But see you are doing exactly what I said, applying criticism of the Green party to all third parties. Its the green party that doesn’t participate in local elections. I don’t mind third parties trying different strategies. For better or for worse, whatever the green party is doing at least gets it talked about a ton, which has to be worth something.
I like the sentiment and suggest taking it a step further.
If they aren’t starting at the local level then they aren’t serious about the national level regardless of when they start discussing the next election.
I’d have a lot more respect if there was a third party candidate running for my district’s house seat.
That would mean they’re actually trying to build election infrastructure.
Running for office costs lots of money and time. There are seats that go entirely uncontested, because the incumbent is too popular to challenge. I would love to see a 50-state Green strategy, too. I just don’t know who the 500+ candidates are supposed to be.
That would mean they’re actually trying to build election infrastructure.
I’m not sure where this “Greens never try to build anything” theory of politics came from. But if you think partisanship is savage at the national level, wait till you try and run as a Green candidate for municipal office. Talking about bike lanes in the wrong kind of county gets a certain kind of person shooting mad.
City elections are a mess on a good day, and a lot of it really boils down to which person the Mega-Church, the Millionaires, and the Morning Zoo Crew decide to endorse.
Oh I don’t mean they need to contest every seat that’s an unrealistic standard. But they certainly aren’t going to be a real choice until they have election infrastructure in every state. So we’re looking at about 100 elections of varying offices. And yeah, that takes time to build. Showing up in the last 6 months of the presidential campaign every 4 years is not how you get elected. AOC and others have shown that mainstream democrats are vulnerable in some of those seats that aren’t usually contested. And yeah you’re going to get gerrymandered out of seats a few times until you have a large enough group in the state legislature.
Saying it’s too much work to expect for a third party is just ridiculous. Nobody is going to just hand you a victory on the national stage.
But they certainly aren’t going to be a real choice until they have election infrastructure in every state.
Infrastructure costs money and manpower. Money tends to come from people looking to buy political favors. You can’t dole out political favors if you’re not in power. So power entrenches itself, with a single party dominating a particular seat by way of a patronage system.
And yeah, that takes time to build.
It has been built. Show me a state and I’ll show you a Green Party chapter. But it also decays without reinforcement. And it decays rapidly when the party becomes a scapegoat for deficiencies in one of the Big Two.
We see this with Libertarians as well. Every time the GOP loses, they take a big chunk of blame. People lose enthusiasm as they start getting yelled at by MAGA psychos accusing them of being Deep State agents of the Dem Party. Etc, etc. And eventually, they fold back into the GOP, rather than solidifying as their own party, when the GOP big dollar donors entice them into the tent again.
I suspect that’s what we’ll see with Greens. A mix of public shaming and private bribing will reincorporate them into the Dem Party where they can be more easily controlled.
Can’t, Democrats practice party suppression.
Eh, First Past the Post is party suppression, tbh. When the math pushes us towards two parties, a third party is always at the cost of some other party that is nominally “on the same side”.
How dare one political party oppose another political party! It completely flies in the face of what an election is supposed to be about. /s
Blocking ballot access is anti Democratic.
Could you have maybe posted this when it was relevant to this election cycle?
Oh nope, you’re just here for the karma.
Take your fucking block and EAT IT RAW
Change only happens when its convenient /s
I’ve been staring at this for two hours but I still don’t get it.
And it was only posted 8mins ago, impressive
Are you going to explain it or are you going to just keep making fun of my math skills?
Outside of the uses in math and physics, time can be seen as a recurring pattern of ages or cycles.
The first three panels state the obvious and the fourth doesn’t make sense to me.
and that’s ok
You are being made fun of.
If you make fun of someone and they don’t get get it, did you really make fun of them?
People talk about it all the time. Ron Paul was a household name. People we’re talking about RFK JR a year ago. People were talking about 3rd parties due to Biden’s stance on Palestine. People were talking about it after that first debate. All that’s fine, but it only makes the two main parties sweat within 30 days of election. That’s when all the “throwing your vote away” rhetoric ramps up.
Rather than doing better, working harder, or standing on better policy to turn out the 35% of people who don’t vote, it’s easier to vilify 1% of the people who do. That’s a problem.
If you give up and vote for Democrats or Republican’s: -you are voting for putting people in prison for marijuana. -You are voting for a party that will pretend to care only to watch key legislation die because 2 senators said “no”, despite being from the party that claimed to want the change. -You vote for 2 more years of a locked government. There is no solution to the problems the 2 parties have created by voting for either of them. Nothing ever gets permanently better under either Democrat or Republican. They are the problem. -Don’t use Geordi to support your ruling class. Geordi comes from a world that got rid of boomer parties and they run the freaking galaxy.
No, no, no! It’s not the systemic oppression of the poor and PoCs that’s the issue. Or that basic civil rights can be voted and legislated away by a fascist minority. It’s because a handful of people don’t personify the system’s problems into Trump’s facade.
Your frustration with the system is valid, but you’re missing the point. The time to argue about the rules of the game is not in the middle of the game. Between rounds the rules should absolutely be examined, changed, and balanced for the better, but once the game has begun you can only play within what has already been established.
Don’t argue with the pootinbot
To be fair, Kamala is our third Presidential candidate this year. 😂
You are a bad actor and so are half the people replying to you
you are voting for putting people in prison for marijuana.
Harris has made Cannabis legalization a campaign promise.
You are voting for a party that will pretend to care only to watch key legislation die because 2 senators said “no”, despite being from the party that claimed to want the change.
You are literally complaining about democracy here. If you want more “yes” votes, elect more Democrats.
You vote for 2 more years of a locked government. There is no solution to the problems the 2 parties have created by voting for either of them. Nothing ever gets permanently better under either Democrat or Republican. They are the problem.
Democrats bring progress, and Republicans bring regression. I don’t see how not voting is a solution to this problem. If you want progress, vote for the people who bring it.
Don’t use Geordi to support your ruling class. Geordi comes from a world that got rid of boomer parties and they run the freaking galaxy.
Star Trek isn’t real.
If you can’t see daylight between the parties, and hold that they are identical rather than one being markedly less awful than the other (note: less awful, they still have are awful in their way), then you are as annoying as the people who were screaming back in 2021 that anyone who wasn’t voting Biden in 2024 is a monster (please, tell me again how criticizing Biden is the worst thing I can do to keep Trump out of office). Y’all are catastrophizing so hard that you’ve forgotten how to build political power, and are relying on big orgs to do it for you.
Both agree on the point and the proper meme format
I wouldn’t worry about it. I’m told that 3rd party voters are too small a bloc to bother trying to earn their votes.
As I understand, it is true that non-voters are already counted out in statistical predictions, so in essence- yes. 3rd party voters while potentially helpful, are irrelevant to the actual numbers counted towards elections.
Please tell that to the people posting 100 memes a day about 3rd parties wrecking the election.
3rd party voters are too small a bloc to carry a candidate, and pandering to that bloc at the expense of alienating moderates is strategically stupid.
It’s like you’re building the tallest tower. In a tight contest, every block helps, and a small block might be the difference between a success and failure if the competition is close enough. But trading a big block to get a smaller block is just plain dumb. There’s no reason to “earn” something that’s mutually exclusive with a more valuable something you already have.
The bourgeoisie politicians will be materially fine win or lose, it’s the prole voters who will materially suffer due to their “strategic” 3rd party vote. It stands no chance of winning, and there’s no mechanism to associate it with specific complaints. 3rd party voting isn’t even effective at the intended goal, it’s just a bad play.
But hey, go ahead. FA, FO.
Math is hard, though, can’t they just treat voting like a fun self-indulgence and not something that affects peoples’ lives?
The dems are FA and will FO. Opposing genocide is not “pandering”.
Again, the Democratic politicians will be just fine if they lose, the rest of us won’t.
Plenty of people aren’t fine now, and the democrats don’t care. Elections are won by politicians and campaigning. You can be mad at voters all you want, but it’s up to politicians to go out and get the votes.
I’ve said the same thing twice which you have ignored both times:
The politicians will be fine. The people who suffer are the voters. It is up to the voters to vote in their best interest. You can be mad at politicians all you want, but you have to look out for yourself, and sometimes that means holding your nose and voting against the evil that poses a greater threat to you, your loved ones, and the vulnerable among us.
Who suffers when you proudly declare that fascism lite didn’t do enough to earn your vote, while fascism extra strength rounds up minorities and declares women to be property?
Nobody is going to suffer from my vote or non vote.
Women, immigrants, and minorities are “nobody” I guess. Cool, good to know.
Nah dawg. Check my post history (don’t actually), I’ve been advocating (and been getting heavily downvoted) for supporting third party candidates for years
Third parties in the presidential campaign only allow people to vote in a non tactical way. If they actually want to do anything they should start on square one which is to get a single candidate into congress.
The strategy for presidential campaigns should always be to run, get the message across, watch polling, withdraw, endorse until they are big enough. When big enough then open up coalition talks and affect policy by promoting voter reform and couple of key policies.
Doing just the presidency is good for publicity but incredibly inadequate.
Or the democrats could deal with the fact that there is a substantial group of people that don’t trust them or the republicans. Better not talk about why that might be right?
I think there is definitely political space for a left wing populist anti establishment party, you can either do it with Bundnis Sahra Wagenknecht type of party proper anti corruption social democrat or green.
Unfortunately the Green party is who everyone talks about but there are other third parties, and especially ones that participate in local elections more. I am interested in reading more about the Bundnis Sahra Wagenknecht party style though, thank you for referencing it.
This is not a post about supporting third parties, which is still pointless anyway. This is a post about third parties themselves doing nothing in non-election years. If you aren’t a third party candidate this post isn’t about you.
It is about them, just not in a positive way.
BTW, for some reason I have them tagged as “Tankie Dumpo”, no idea why.
And you are no closer to accomplishing your goals…
There is a reason socialists in the US vote for the democratic party: we have influence in participation and have been granted concessions.
socialists in the US vote for the democratic party
If you’re voting for the democratic party then you are not a socialist. Politics aren’t just a feeling you have or something you say you believe in, they’re actions that you take.
I didn’t realize putting Marx in your name entitled you to the ability of gatekeeping socialism from everybody who doesn’t live in your imaginary socialist world and instead have to deal with the political realities of the system they are operating in.
Imagine for a moment that you are a pacifist. But then you join the military, go overseas, and kill hundreds of people. Should you get to call yourself a pacifist? Of course not!
Same theory here. If you think socialist thoughts, speak socialist words, and then support capitalist parties - then you my friend are a capitalist. There are plenty of ways to do socialist praxis within a political system where the electral system has been entirely captured by capitalist interests, so don’t you waste your tears crying about “gatekeeping”.
I don’t support capitalism.
I live in a capitalist world and currently only have a choice between capitalism that can be negotiated with, or full blown fascist flavored capitalism.
If you hate liberalism more than you do fascism, you aren’t a socialist.
Liberalism and fascism are two sides of the same coin, like a “good cop” and a “bad cop,” the only thing that distinguished the fascism of mid 20th century Europe was that it was being applied to Europeans, rather than its typical targets.
But that doesn’t actually matter in this case, because both of the options on offer for Americans have participated enthusiastically in bringing fascism to American communities. The Dems are the ones currently backing Israel’s genocide and escalation, the Dems are the ones who built the cages and the Dems are the ones currently throwing kids in them.
Biden could shoot someone on fifth avenue and you liberals would still think that he’s somehow better than Trump.
I am confused because Trump made the comment regarding committing murder on 5th Avenue as explanation of his cult’s loyalty, but you are claiming that is a Biden thing. I’m also unsure of the relevance, seeing that Biden isn’t one of the two choices you are being given to elected as your next president…
I’m regards to Palestine, there are two options: the democrats and working towards a peace deal, or Trump, who wants to finish the job of eradicating Palestinians. Voting for anybody but Harris is a vote for total eradication in this case, and I’m not going to let you pretend that isn’t the case if we are to continue this dialog.
My goal is to never vote for the Dems or Republicans after 2016 so thanks for telling me I’m no closer but I think I am.
Knowing that I’ve made that commitment to myself let’s me vote for the candidates I actually want, without fear of “causing the worse of the two” to win
Pretending a spoiler candidate has a chance of winning and getting zero percent of what you want doesn’t make you more moral than the people who vote for the furthest left candidate with the ability to win and getting 5% of what you wanted.
We have an obligation and a moral duty to fight fascism at the ballot box. Voting for a fascists’ spoiler because the spoiler pretends they are on your side is not strength on your part, it is cowardice.
We have an obligation and a moral duty to fight fascism at the ballot box
Nah the whole thing is a joke. The Dems are corrupt but the Republicans are worse, so I feel a moral obligation to support neither.
If you admit that Republicans are worse, than you have to admit that voting for spoiler candidates who help elected Republicans is the worse option than just voting democratic.
You can’t admit that Republicans are worse than use what little political capital you have to help them while pretending you are more moral than those of us who vote democratic.
You are just sniffing your own farts and pretending you are better than those of us who you leave behind to actually make the decision to help as many we are given the ability to.
Your point would make a lot more sense if the continuous “Dems vs Republicans” for decades didn’t bring us to this point. But alas, we’re in a bad spot where “this election” is the “most important” one yet. Yeah right lmao. Cya at the ballet box
No, you won’t see me at the ballot box. You will be getting high off the false morality injection voting for some dingbat gives you, while I will be trying to prevent a fascist with intentions of being a day one dictator from taking power.
So you’re the kind of person staring at a forest but all you can make out is a tree. I do imagine that kind of willful ignorance helps to comfort you. The reality is the best you will ever influence, while feigning ignorance to how things actually work, is a tree. Maybe one day you will open your eyes and recognize the potential influence for change you could have harnessed if your kind attempted to constructively change things within the constraints we were born into rather than cutting off the face of your allies while being or feigning ignorance in reality.
Nah I’m the kind of person who realizes a constant vote for the “lesser evil” is a slow slip into facism, and I would rather rip off the bandaid instead.
Nah I’m the kind of person who realizes a constant vote for the “lesser evil” is a slow slip into facism, and I would rather rip off the bandaid instead.
“I want fascism as fast as possible” is a hell of a take, but one that seems frighteningly common amongst .ml users.
The far-left people actively saying “Don’t vote for Dem” making an easier win for Trump are probably the most stupid people of the bunch.
Revolution is not happening anytime soon, meanwhile let’s do something with what we have.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
No, because I actually understand how capitalism works and know that screaming at the most marginalized people to “VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO” won’t change anything even in the face of genocide.
Removed by mod
Yes I do, now cry about how your moral universe will smite me while Kamala bombs kids.
Its just fucking wild watching the pro-gun lot declare Kamala and Joe Biden to be committing genocide when you know for a fact that they’d have a meltdown if you applied the exact same logic to Walmart or the owner of the gun the child shot the school up with.
Don’t get me wrong, America needs to stop selling Israel weapons, other than Iron dome related and very limited defence stuff. Thats the road map to peace in the middle east right there.
But I could watch them try and take the moral high ground over it all day. They literally have no idea they’re doing it either:
"No, clearly they know that, ultimately, many of those weapons will be used to commit atrocities, including killing children. A brief look at the numbers shows it to be inevitable. As such, any government that allows to sale of these things is also culpable and has to put an end to it.
Again, not idea they’re doing it, at all.
But hey, who knows, maybe the other guy, the one in bed with the gun-toting too psycho-christians, maybe he’ll “turn their back on Israel.”
Maybe i got you wrong and if so i apologise but i had to get that off my chest all the same.
Haha the audacity Western libs never ceases to amaze me. You’re comparing a genocide to a tragic but at all equivalent. American children are not endanger of being erased from existence. And most of the shootings are driven by the right wing fascism in your own government and society.
Well it looks like this one’s as good as any:
I’m voting party for socialism and liberation and you can too!
They’re running Claudia de la Cruz on a platform of Palestinian statehood and an end to arms shipments to Israel.
Psl is active outside of presidential elections, active outside of elections in general and is expanding!
In our electoral system, a vote for a third-party is a waste, and any resources dumped into them is a bigger waste.
A socialist is going to prefer Harris over Trump, but by voting a third party instead of Democrat they’re effectively supporting Trump. When the election comes down to the wire, they’ll be the ones responsible for a second Trump term.
This has already happened. People voting for the Green party over Al Gore are the reason we got 8 years of Bush.
I don’t mind the odd asshole who refuses to play ball, so far up their own ass they think they’re so special and that the spoiler effect doesn’t apply to their vote.
If that is, they’re silent about it.
The second they start advocating for others to join them in their stupidity, they go from a harmless idiot to an active threat to democracy, exactly as bad as the MAGAt they likely are.
My vote isn’t a waste. It is counted like any other.
My vote for psl isn’t support for trump. It doesn’t count towards trumps total. Would you say the people unwilling to vote democrat are more responsible for the events of a trump term than the people who didn’t vote at all? Than the democrat party for running a bad campaign? Than the administrative regime that puts its plans into action?
You are mistaken about bush v gore. The Supreme Court installed bush and the Florida recount wouldn’t have changed the result because it wasn’t the whole state recount needed to actually flip the electoral college. Gore won Florida but the recount wasn’t in enough precincts to show that. I have no love for the greens, but they’re not why we got bush.
Maybe you can’t speak for what socialists prefer. It’s really odd to say it’s third party voters’ fault your preferred candidate didn’t win rather than your candidates fault they did not attract enough voters.
If everyone left of the Overton window promise to vote for the Democrats regardless of what policies the Democrats propose, what prevents the Democrats from moving to the right?
All the other elections every year. The party pays attention to the local and state elections. It matters tremendously. And in the mean time you are improving your local government that effects your everyday life.
Voting 3rd in the presidential election is a waste if the party hasn’t spent any time building support in existing government structures of power though.
Does a third party have some special avenue around an obstructionist house and senate that we all haven’t seen so far?
People can vote for the candidates they like locally even if they don’t like the top of the ticket. I didn’t say anything about down ballot elections.
And you still don’t have any answer for my question.
No… THAT is my answer. You asked what would prevent the Dems from sliding right and that was my answer. It’s the same thing that caused the Republicans to slide right.
You have the example in the Tea party movement to see how it effectively changes the party when down ballot voting shifts.
That’s how it’s done. There’s recent proof of it.
PS: You didn’t answer MY question.
Oh yeah, you’re the guys throwing nails on the road outside my wife’s school once a month. Hard pass.
May I see the school and nails?
E: I have looked and cannot find anything on news sites or social media that references this. If you have a way for me to learn about my chosen party sabotaging a road in front of a school please provide it.
This presidential election is not the time to be pushing the PSL party. Even if they were much more popular than they are now, they aren’t on enough states ballots to get to 270 even if they won every state they’re in.
Focus on getting PSL candidates into house and Senate seats and making them more mainstream, not taking votes away from Democrats when the alternative is still Trump.
If winning the presidential election was all that mattered you’d have a good point.
My vote for psl doesn’t take a vote away from democrats because I would not vote for the democrats.
I support third parties but I’d not vote for them because then the vote doesn’t count. Voting in local elections is another story though and especially in safe state elections. Third parties should force parties to the negotiating table for running as a coalition when they have enough support.
The votes count. I know because I worked elections and saw votes counted and then saw the tally released by my local election board that reflected those votes.
How exactly should third parties accumulate enough support to force the two main parties to the table if people don’t vote for them?
You do, just not during the presidency.
How come?
As a firm believer in the need for a strong labor party to struggle for the rights of working people as an absolute bare minimum to advancing the struggle for human rights, individual freedom and working class power (while it isn’t by default a guarantee for any of those things as it would require the participation of growing masses to even begin to take these problems on,) this party doesn’t exist in this election. Principles don’t count for shit, only power matters. Before engaging in any safe state strategies, better make sure your math is impeccable since the Republicans can lose the popular vote and still win the election. We can build power for the future, but keep Trump out for now.
If the democrats lose because of people voting for the party that best represents them, then the democrats should maybe consider representing all groups of people in good faith.
Blaming the third party voters is a good way to shame them into agreeing with you in some cases, but in others it has the opposite effect.
The pro Russia party doesn’t represent any American.
And you are crazy if you think the democrats or republicans would allow the green party to exist any longer if there was proof they were actually a Russian party, right?
The US famously only ever made one political party illegal, and it’s not enforced now because it’s unconstitutional to do so. The best they can do is what they are doing. Highlighting the evidence.
Not trying to sound argumentative, but I have only seen anyone post the picture with Putin at the table with the Green party nominee. Would you be able to reply with any other evidence you have seen?
I’m not trying to shame anyone for their vote and I cant blame anyone for not feeling represented by the Democrats. If the Greens are actually the party that represents you, go wild. But I doubt it. But voting for Democrats is unlikely to be voting for your interests either.
Everyone has different priorities, that’s the nature of political difference. But if we are going to be strictly rational, then its important not to vote against our interests either. This isn’t an appeal for lesser evilism, this is an appeal to do what we need to do in November to protect our communities and neighbors from becoming victims of even more state violence than they are under Democrats. But leading up to that day, and on every other day after we build for power. Democratic, organized, working class, educational party work that empowers instead of alienates. Some people have already begun this work but more people need to get involved, and not out of moral imperative, but out of hope and proof that a new way is possible and inevitable if we can actually create such a party.
But the fact is it hasn’t been built, we have become comfortable in our exploitation and alienation, and frankly political confusion. A Trump presidency is too dangerous, to deny that he and his creepy cadre fully intend to deliver mass suffering on millions is misguided; and to accept it but do nothing to prevent it is egotistical. If you want to live by your principles we have to create the orgs that will make it possible, we have to shake the system to its foundations, and not just when there is a genocide or a murder of an unarmed black man by cops; but every day. so that when it’s time to take to the streets we can show out in greater numbers and organization than ever before, and really scare the ruling class, not to gain concessions but to make it clear that their days are numbered as a class.
This can’t be achieved with voting by any possible measure. There is no way to vote that will begin to achieve this. All we can do is slow the bleeding a little longer to create the conditions where we can actually do this work together. So vote against the petty tyrant, vote for the party that we would prefer to resist; that still gives at least lip service to democracy rather than abolishing it in every way they can. And understand that the work hasn’t even begun to ensure our future.
What is wrong with campaigning or supporting the party that represents you best, and then voting differently when you are in the booth? The point is the pressure. To some, their third party vote only matters as a point of dissent, it won’t affect anything. In my state I don’t feel comfortable placing a protest vote for the presidential race, but also Democrats tend to represent me relatively well as I was born on the privileged side of things, most of the bad things that have happened to me were actually my fault. If any of that calculus changes though, who knows, I might not even be comfortable voting democrat knowing it could lose my state to republicans.
Their is logic behind a protest vote for president though, for some perspectives. To some, the winning party never adapts or changes, its the losing party. If you want democrats to reform, then for some the only way to do that is to take your vote from them. If the democrats really think the republicans are the end of democracy, then show us by committing to what the people want and need. In this perspective, the democrats villianize the republicans so that there is a bigger bad casting a shadow they can hide in. For a group of people that find it almost as hard to trust democrats as republicans, it can complicate things.
Its hard, like I said I come from privilege, and have no experience with the democrats personally screwing me over, but plenty of others do, and I can’t discount that perspective. I chose to vote democrat nationally, and third party locally, although I did not choose either the green or libertarian parties.
I appreciate the logic behind a protest vote, and I can sympathize with the circumstances that furnish such a vote. But I believe my logic is pretty sound, acknowledges the very real problems obvious to people who may be choosing to make such a vote, and hopefully makes an alternative case based on similar experiences and human needs to perhaps vote differently. I won’t make a moral judgement against people for this, I have a fairly complicated system of ethics. I know people with high levels of political education who I often agree with, but who are advocating for protest vote, safe state strategy, and the like. All I can do is make a case that maybe people haven’t heard before. The votes will be what they are, for a maintenance of a sad ineffectual status quo that doesn’t relate to people, or for much much worse. That’s how I see it, bit I don’t believe it is right to browbeat others into seeing my views, perpetuating a situation that only benefits the Democrats. But there is a real world with real people and real consequences. If people vote different than I’d like but doing so helps them to reckon with reality as it exists and not as it presents itself to us, then that is itself a bit of a victory as well.
I don’t understand why the logic doesn’t apply both ways though. If you shouldnt vote third party in contested states, then you should in ones that aren’t. I think that would say a lot if most democrats voted third party in those situations. I could get behind it if it were applied both ways, and it would be a great way to have a third party actually get enough popular vote to make a difference.
I’m very aware of the argument behind a safe state strategy, like I said I know a lot of people capable of sophisticated political analysis who are making that decision.
What I said was that if you are planning on making a “safe state” type calculation, and advocate for such a strategy then you had better know for sure your state is safe, and the states of the people where you might advocate for that strategy are also safe. I don’t think a protest vote is much of a protest, but I also know that the uncommitted movement which had made no small impact on the electorate in bringing awareness to this unconscionable genocide inflicted on innocent people, underwritten by both political parties, uncommitted has been advocating for voting third party. I think this is a miscalculation and false equivocation, but that movement has done good work and brought people into grassroots political engagement who were not engaged before. For them, voting is a tactic, but their strategy is to raise awareness of the Palestinian genocide, in which they have been successful. There are people who are very engaged with political action who weren’t before, and they are voting with their principles.
But uncommitted is not a political party that can defend those principles. I want a workers party. And I want Trump to lose. I also don’t think the Greens are a way to get that party, regardless of their electoral strategy. Those are my priorities. If they differ from others I can understand that. But I don’t have to agree with it and I certainly aren’t required to advocate for it. All I can do is present the situation as I see it and speak truth to uncertainty. I have a fair amount of certainty even with all of the hedging I’m doing for subjective opinion and difference of priorities. We won’t know until the votes are cast and counted, and apparently once the incoming presidency has successfully transferred power against the (likely more sophisticated than 2000) attempts to subvert the results of that election.
All I can do is speak to the different factors as I understand them and present a coherent argument for action based on coherent logic. I don’t think I contradicted myself, I think I addressed your concern in my very first post. Buy if I have contradicted myself then I’m willing to explore that, as contradiction is the beginning of dialectical inquiry.
You didn’t contradict yourself, I was asking for clarification because I didn’t understand you fully.
I don’t really think we are all that far about on the substance of this, and we could probably debate the nuance for ages for no gain, so I won’t.
The main thing I think is important is that people don’t fall into the trap of thinking there is only one broad perspective that should be valid for everyone, which I don’t think you are doing.
As an aside, do you have any sources I could read about the 2000 transfer of power? I was so young then, and growing up people never posited it as a coordinated attempt to subvert the election. I have heard a bit about it in the past years but had trouble finding information on what had happened.
