Glad they’re taking off the gloves a little, but it’s always been a non-option to just make our lives significantly and irrevocably better like M4A or the PRO act and although they’re good at trying and failing, they never talk about the consequences as dire as they actually are with few exceptions.
That’s a nice false dichotomy you made there.
How is it a false equivalency?
False dichotomy, not false equivalency. Two different things.
Right here is the false dichotomy, considering the context of the comment this was written in reply to (the one by meatbridge) being a metaphor for voting, equating Chauvin to Republicans and Thao to Democrats.
You frame it as if we only had two choices. Which is verifiably wrong.
If we are talking about voting in U.S. federal elections, voters only have two choices. Third party candidates can not win with the current structure. If all states switched to ranked choice voting, and if states divided House seats by percentage of voters per party instead of winner-take-all for each gerrymandered region of a map, THEN there could be more than two options. I would like to see that happen.
You are correct that 3rd parties can’t win. But how is voting for either of the other two options winning? I’ve seen both in power for the last few decades, and it’s a shit-show either way.
You may not like the other options, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
Removed by mod
Because the goal of voting is to influence governance. It is not an end unto itself. Yes, you can vote for other parties. You can also vote for Donald Duck. It just has no effect.
In terms of which party will govern, there are two options. Choose the one you despise least. And then do whatever you think is necessary to end the duopoly outside of the general election.
Well, what I think is ncecessary to end the duopoly is to show both of them that I’m not going to vote for either of them, until one of them starts to do what I want. And voting 3rd party sends a signal as to what policies they should adopt if they want my vote.
I disagree. You’ll never convince enough people to pursue this strategy to matter because it involves making your material position dramatically worse for some unknown but probably very extended period of time. If MAGA rules for the next 2 decades there won’t be any way for leftists to gain power even if that did somehow result in enough people joining you. They are already moving quickly to end democracy in the US.
I think if you want to make third parties viable there needs to be electoral reform, which will have to happen with the consent of at least one of the two existing parties. Or you pursue politics outside of electoralist strategies. Which is my view, and is a much more effective way to get concessions from the existing parties anyway.
Removed by mod
It comes down to whichever outcome you think is more likely to happen. Either:
A) The Democratic leadership stops resisting, and starts doing what the voters want
or
B) A third-party will gain power
I think B is much more likely, as the Democratic leadership has clearly demonstrated that they’d rather let the Republicans win, than do what the voters want. If you want to try to make A happen, then be my guest. I hope to be proven wrong. But from watching the Dems in the past few decades, it’s clear to me that B is more likely.
You mean the Democracy where we get to vote for genocide or genocide? or how about the bombing of those kids, vs those other kids? Or how about this mass surveillance system vs that mass surveillance system?
Nice story bud. Too bad it’s full of shit.
You are trying to bring emotion to a math fight. Third parties will not be able to win under the current system.
Depends on the party.
The Guillotine Party can succeed where every other party had failed.
Tell me how the Guillotine Party is doing in Russia. Because the U.S. is heading that direction rapidly.
deleted by creator