Not at all. You’d have to be well detached from reality to think that. Our first past the post voting system ensures there will always be two major parties. Whatever the parties are.
What Republicans understand. Is that it’s easier to win. By taking advantage of the ignorance and hyper radicalization of 3rd parties. They can pull at the disparate groups that vote for their opponent. Basically neutralizing them. Making it much more likely for Republicans to win.
Until we switch from first past the post, 3rd parties will continue to be irrelevant.
The irony here is that the very system you’re defending is the one that keeps real change from ever happening. Clinging to first-past-the-post and dismissing third parties only strengthens the stranglehold of the status quo. If the system is so inevitable, why fear those who dare to challenge it?
West is only on the ballot in 12 states. He literally couldn’t win if he won every state he was on the ballot and there is no reason to believe that he can win even on estate. This is reality however we react to it. It can only practically at the state level be changed by working within the existing parties to make ranked choice or some alternative system the reality. If you build enough support for that you may in the future have a chance of having third parties that can actually win.
In the meanwhile we have to vote for the only party who can protect Democracy in reality because they are on the ballot in every state and essentially virtually locked in for 226 EC votes. If we do that we get to continue working towards that instead of ending democracy in the next 4 year cycle.
I’m not voting for West, and I didn’t write the article, so I don’t really have anything to say about your concerns. But I am not voting for Harris or Trump either.
You have to engage with the system to change it. As we have throughout history. We didn’t get women’s suffrage via 3rd parties. Blacks didn’t get the right to vote by organizing as a 3rd party. Third parties didn’t give us the new deal. The irony is that you refuse to understand that. You want to end first past the post there’s 2 options. Neither of which involve 3rd parties. The first is using one of the major parties to pass voting reform. The other violent revolution.
You speak as if the system handed us progress on a silver platter, as if women, Black folks, and workers didn’t have to spill their blood and sweat in the streets, fighting tooth and nail against the very powers you claim we should trust.
Third parties may not have given us all the wins we need, but they pushed the conversation, forced the hand of the establishment.
And if you think true change can only come from within the duopoly or through violent revolution, you’re blind to the reality that the system you’re defending is rigged to keep the people in perpetual chains.
You speak as if the system handed us progress on a silver platter, as if women, Black folks, and workers didn’t have to spill their blood and sweat in the streets, fighting tooth and nail against the very powers you claim we should trust.
Quote where I said that. It doesn’t exist. Because it’s a strawman argument. And a weak one at that. Regardless of the struggles leading up to it. It was always one of the major parties that put it over the finish line. And of those struggles. None of them involved candidates for president from 3rd parties. Because they’ve always been irrelevant for nation wide elections.
Third parties may not have given us all the wins we need, but they pushed the conversation, forced the hand of the establishment.
This is an argument for a topic we weren’t discussing. A deflection. Link any significant change directly to a losing 3rd party presidential candidate. With evidence, logic and reason. You can’t. Because they’ve been irrelevant for 250 years.
And if you think true change can only come from within the duopoly or through violent revolution, you’re blind to the reality that the system you’re defending is rigged to keep the people in perpetual chains.
I don’t think that. It’s what has happened. It’s a statement of fact. Not an opinion. And ironically, people like yourself are a significant part of how they keep the system rigged. Incapable of focusing, or accepting the realities of situations. Or showing solidarity with those fighting to actually change things. Instead tilting at windmills quixotically.
Hi! I feel like we just talked about this - there are quite a lot of Democrats who are actually currently pushing, with some level of success, for reforming the voting system away from the duopoly-favoring FPTP system.
It doesn’t make a lot of sense either for you or for some Democrat to support introducing 3rd parties in a big way into the existing FPTP system, splitting the vote and leading to a Republican win. It makes perfect sense to support reforming the system so that 3rd parties can gain traction without being spoiler candidates.
I wonder why you are fighting for that first thing and not that second thing. Seems like fighting for that second thing would make more sense, yes? Definitely more sense than somehow criticizing the Democrats for not wanting the first thing.
Since your goal is obviously good leftwards progress and victory for left wing causes, and all
Of course they’re appealing—they’re scared and desperate to keep people from having any choices beyond the duopoly they cling to so tightly.
Not at all. You’d have to be well detached from reality to think that. Our first past the post voting system ensures there will always be two major parties. Whatever the parties are.
What Republicans understand. Is that it’s easier to win. By taking advantage of the ignorance and hyper radicalization of 3rd parties. They can pull at the disparate groups that vote for their opponent. Basically neutralizing them. Making it much more likely for Republicans to win.
Until we switch from first past the post, 3rd parties will continue to be irrelevant.
The irony here is that the very system you’re defending is the one that keeps real change from ever happening. Clinging to first-past-the-post and dismissing third parties only strengthens the stranglehold of the status quo. If the system is so inevitable, why fear those who dare to challenge it?
West is only on the ballot in 12 states. He literally couldn’t win if he won every state he was on the ballot and there is no reason to believe that he can win even on estate. This is reality however we react to it. It can only practically at the state level be changed by working within the existing parties to make ranked choice or some alternative system the reality. If you build enough support for that you may in the future have a chance of having third parties that can actually win.
In the meanwhile we have to vote for the only party who can protect Democracy in reality because they are on the ballot in every state and essentially virtually locked in for 226 EC votes. If we do that we get to continue working towards that instead of ending democracy in the next 4 year cycle.
I’m not voting for West, and I didn’t write the article, so I don’t really have anything to say about your concerns. But I am not voting for Harris or Trump either.
Then you care less about our democracy than I do
You have to engage with the system to change it. As we have throughout history. We didn’t get women’s suffrage via 3rd parties. Blacks didn’t get the right to vote by organizing as a 3rd party. Third parties didn’t give us the new deal. The irony is that you refuse to understand that. You want to end first past the post there’s 2 options. Neither of which involve 3rd parties. The first is using one of the major parties to pass voting reform. The other violent revolution.
You speak as if the system handed us progress on a silver platter, as if women, Black folks, and workers didn’t have to spill their blood and sweat in the streets, fighting tooth and nail against the very powers you claim we should trust.
Third parties may not have given us all the wins we need, but they pushed the conversation, forced the hand of the establishment.
And if you think true change can only come from within the duopoly or through violent revolution, you’re blind to the reality that the system you’re defending is rigged to keep the people in perpetual chains.
Quote where I said that. It doesn’t exist. Because it’s a strawman argument. And a weak one at that. Regardless of the struggles leading up to it. It was always one of the major parties that put it over the finish line. And of those struggles. None of them involved candidates for president from 3rd parties. Because they’ve always been irrelevant for nation wide elections.
This is an argument for a topic we weren’t discussing. A deflection. Link any significant change directly to a losing 3rd party presidential candidate. With evidence, logic and reason. You can’t. Because they’ve been irrelevant for 250 years.
I don’t think that. It’s what has happened. It’s a statement of fact. Not an opinion. And ironically, people like yourself are a significant part of how they keep the system rigged. Incapable of focusing, or accepting the realities of situations. Or showing solidarity with those fighting to actually change things. Instead tilting at windmills quixotically.
I’m still voting third party.
And the oligarchs thank you
Why would they thank me? I’m not one of the people in the article, nor I did I write the article.
Hi! I feel like we just talked about this - there are quite a lot of Democrats who are actually currently pushing, with some level of success, for reforming the voting system away from the duopoly-favoring FPTP system.
It doesn’t make a lot of sense either for you or for some Democrat to support introducing 3rd parties in a big way into the existing FPTP system, splitting the vote and leading to a Republican win. It makes perfect sense to support reforming the system so that 3rd parties can gain traction without being spoiler candidates.
I wonder why you are fighting for that first thing and not that second thing. Seems like fighting for that second thing would make more sense, yes? Definitely more sense than somehow criticizing the Democrats for not wanting the first thing.
Since your goal is obviously good leftwards progress and victory for left wing causes, and all
Splitting implies that we would ever vote for your candidate. We’re not Democrats, we don’t vote for Democrats.