this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
22 points (100.0% liked)

U.S. News

2244 readers
89 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:

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
 

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?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] millie@beehaw.org 19 points 5 days ago

How about we start with a third party that's actually serious about being a third party rather than just showing up every 4 years to syphon votes? Like, you know, a party that actually runs at the local level and participates in Democracy. One of the big differences between our "third parties" and minority political parties in Europe, for instance, is that theirs actually participate in government. They work at smaller levels of government rather than just expecting to somehow get a prime minister. They build coalitions. They foster voter confidence by actually doing something.

The closest thing we have to that is literally just Bernie Sanders on his own. One guy does a better job at being something resembling a third party than any existing third party in the United States. That's impressive for Bernie and absolutely pathetic for "third parties".

Second? Once those third parties build up some actual participation in government and develop coalitions, use that growing power to give themselves a mathematical chance of actually winning.

Third? Don't run a candidate until the first two are done. Because anything short of that is literally just enabling the Republicans to push both parties further and further to the right.

Do that and actually run on a platform I'd like to see more than Democratic neoliberalism and I'll put them in the first slot in my runoff or ranked choice or whatever vote. Until then? Not a chance in the world. I don't care how many times the DNC shoots themselves in the foot. Until the math is there and a party shows they're actually willing to participate in all levels of government I'm not interested in propping up one of two egotists and their "party".

I'd vote for Bernie in a ranked choice election in a second, though. I don't care if he's literally 100 years old.

[–] Seraph@fedia.io 53 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Ranked choice voting or similar.

[–] aedyr@lemmy.ca 17 points 5 days ago

This is the realistic answer. First past the post voting inherently results in two dominant parties.

[–] LukeZaz@beehaw.org 5 points 4 days ago

I'm vastly more in favor of Approval Voting, truth be told. Most anything's better than what we have now, but ranked voting systems of any sort tend to have issues similar to FPTP, whereas Approval or Score voting don't. Approval Voting is also dead simple, since the only change is that you can vote for as many candidates as you want.

[–] Dippy@beehaw.org 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I will never vote for a party that doesn't stand an actual chance of winning seats. So until there is proportional representation or ranked choice, i will not be voting 3rd parties.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

So you will always vote a straight Democratic ticket as long as there are Senate and House candidates with a good chance of winning? What if they have no chance of winning the White House? I think that that would be apparent if the people who ran Hillary, Biden, and Harris's campaigns are still involved and the strategy is still to court Republicans. Can the Democrats perform poorly enough that you would decide that you might as well vote third party (or abstain)?

[–] Dippy@beehaw.org 2 points 3 days ago

No i wouldn't abstain from voting for sure. The only way I'd vote 3rd party under the current system is if they were polling above 40%. Which is absolutely absurd in this system. That would mean either the dems or gop were decimated, but at that point the 3rd party would be the new major party.

[–] Ioughttamow@fedia.io 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What 3rd party exists that is left leaning and is running for non president positions? Green Party doesn’t count, they’re compromised

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (4 children)

Not sure what you mean. There were about four or so third parties on my ballot. There are also of course options to write-in a candidate or abstain.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 32 points 5 days ago (28 children)

If not, what would it take?

A viable third party candidate. Before anyone says it, Jill Stein is not it. Alternately, a voting method that allows voting third party without just enabling a GOP sweep (again).

It'd be great if this resulted in some major revision of the Democratic party from within, but I'm not holding my breath. I will, however, continue voting for the "less bad viable option" if the "more bad option" is on par with Trump.

load more comments (28 replies)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 12 points 5 days ago

The last successful third party was the Tea Party, which was formed by people fed up with the GOP.

We need a Guillotine Party.

[–] SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world 19 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (8 children)

A truly progressive third party that also actually has a prayer of winning. They would need a groundswell of individual small donors making up much of their campaign funding because mainstream ain't gonna fund them, so good luck with that.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 10 points 5 days ago (6 children)

Despite a billion dollars in funding, the Democrats campaign didn't have a prayer either. And I have a hard time calling their platform progressive at all. Anyone who liked it more than that of the Greens or the PSL would have just voted Republican.

[–] SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world 12 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

You're ignoring the "prayer of winning" part. Until then, I'm voting against the bigger asshole.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If you want another choice, start working for it today, otherwise you'll just be voting for the same lesser-evil ghouls in the next election. Run for office even if you don't know what you're doing. Be honest about it: "I may not have political experience, but what I do have is some principles that I will never compromise on." Loudly argue against those with bad or overly flexible principles. Get together with your neighbors and build things that help people and strengthen your communities. The democrats are never going to be what you want them to be. We can't afford the time it would take to maybe reform them.

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

The democrats are never going to be what you want them to be.

Presumably we want them to be winners, right? How is that going to happen if the same idiots keep running their campaigns and doing completely self-defeating things like talking down to crucial constituencies and wheeling out Dick Cheney from his crypt? It's looking like they can't be winners, at least not at the presidential level. So, how poorly will the Democrats have to perform that you decide that you might as well vote for a third party candidate? Would it not be enough to notice a lack of corrective action ahead of 2028 to make you reconsider your loyalty?

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding me, or I you. I've got no loyalty to the dems at all. I want a party that represents a reasonable approximation of my values to win. Dems have never really come close enough (republicans aren't even in the same universe as my values). Don't think I'm unwilling to compromise on anything though-- I kept my ballot blank til the last minute this election waiting in vain hope for a total reversal on Harris' support for genocide. That is simply a bridge to far, no matter the context.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think I misunderstood you. For my part, I do not put much hope these days in elections. It's just that for decades now I've been told voting third party meant throwing your vote away. This time you were wasting your vote (and a serious moral principle) to cast it for Harris. It's all just kind of astonishing to me, which is why I made the post.

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Gotcha, and no problem. I've been voting for 3rd parties every election since I turned 18 in 1996, and only once has I voted for a dem (to my regret). I am more or less of the opinion that voting ain't worth much (especially in most states), but that it doesn't hurt anything either. Anyone who thought they were voting "to save democracy" in an election where fucking genocide wasn't up for debate needs to reassess their relationship to reality.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Well, genocide shouldn't be up for debate. 🙃

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago
[–] AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 9 points 5 days ago

I may not be 100% staunch Dem, but maybe having an election where a 3rd party gets more coverage than just the occasional passing commercial or billboard or other absolutely ineffective advertising methods would make me more likely to switch. Until then, lesser of 2 evils and all that.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 10 points 5 days ago (9 children)

Sanders got fucked in 2016 and the Democrats who get nominated aren’t great and yes it’s partially the Democrats’ fault they got so few votes in 2024. I strongly disagree that it’s chiefly their fault, but that horse is out of the barn now, and also the barn is on fire now and connected to the house with the children inside.

There will be some incredible shit going down in the next few years. It’ll be a challenge to have any sort of elections in 2028 that have anything non-Republican in any position to win anything. I don’t think it will happen.

If you want to have a conversation about how we get left-wing values to win in future elections, start with how we fight to preserve basic freedoms like elections that don’t have Trump’s election integrity squad in charge of them, and free speech online, and the military not being used against American protestors.

I hope I’m wrong but I think some real shit is going to go down real soon. I don’t think we should assume elections are going to be normal and then plan from that assumption.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] leetnewb@beehaw.org 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I would consider voting for a 3rd party that abandons twitter and back ups their claims with credible sources.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 3 points 4 days ago

The link in the body text of the OP is not for an x.com page. If you don't want to follow the link in the header, it is just for a tweet by @jon_bois asking the same question that I am asking, referencing the revelation that Biden kept running despite his team knowing that Trump was going to win with something like 400 electoral votes.

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 9 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I’ll move if they distance themselves from the platform I believe in, or if there’s a third party candidate that happens to be enticing enough.

The platform I support, in ranked order:

  • Pro environment
  • Personal freedoms / social liberty
  • Statecraft over War
  • Higher taxes on the rich, comparatively, but not to the point of stifling innovation
  • Education, Internet and Healthcare as fundamental rights
  • Capitalism, with competition
  • Global Trade
  • Pro Union
  • Space exploration
  • Security (only at the level needed to maintain personal freedom)
  • YIMBYism
  • Reducing National debt
  • Federalism

As I see it, the Dems are still pretty aligned with that, perhaps just not in the same prioritized order, and that’s fair, because they have others they’ll lose first before they lose me.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] alyaza@beehaw.org 7 points 5 days ago

this is an interesting discussion that's gone on for long enough and been substantive enough that i'll leave it be, but as an FYI this was a better fit for the Politics section and had it been caught sooner i would have told you to repost it there.

[–] ErsatzCoalButter@beehaw.org 7 points 5 days ago
  • You are not going to vote your way out of this
  • There is no just or reasonable way to govern a transcontinental slave empire
load more comments
view more: next ›