They are technically a third party though.
Yeah, but I think she’s highlighting how there’s so much hate and vitriol directed at third parties that people should change their mindset and see them as independent voices.
Yes, they’re essentially the same thing, but lately, the term “third party” has been unfairly tainted by negative connotations from both major parties.
That’s called legitimate criticism. And it’s not unfair, she just doesn’t like criticism.
I don’t think it’s a legitimate criticism though. But you’re certainly welcome to your opinions on that.
They’re a spoiler party.
They’re a spoiler party.
Calling them a spoiler party only reinforces the power of the two-party system that stifles real choice. Third parties actually push important issues into the spotlight, challenging the status quo. And they give voters more options. We need more than this duopoly that we are under.
Calling them a spoiler party only reinforces the power of the two-party system that stifles real choice.
No, I mean that being spoliers is their function. They exist to siphon votes off Democrats, not as a side effect of gaining votes for a sincerely held belief in any cause, but as a cynical and deliberate attempt to decrease their chances and increase Republicans’ chances.
No, I mean that being spoliers is their function. They exist to siphon votes off Democrats
It’s absurd to claim that third parties are nothing more than tools to weaken the Democrats.
Many of us who champion third parties do so out of a fierce belief in the need for real, transformative change—not to play into the hands of the Republicans.
I’m beginning to think that maybe your real aim is to keep people shackled to the same two-headed beast that fears any challenge to its power.
And now I think you’re just another mouthpiece for the duopoly, terrified of the revolution that true independent voices could spark. And you are only saying this stuff to confuse people and make them second-guess themselves.
A 23 day old account desperately shilling for third parties and telling everyone else they are a “mouthpiece”…
Really?
How long should I have an account before I can start posting stuff I am interested in? I didn’t see a timing reference when signing up.
Can’t say before posting inflammatory shit.
Something to consider before posting inflammatory shit… It’s almost like your content means more than your age… but you’re focused on what?
Can’t say before posting inflammatory shit.
So because I am not voting for your candidate, and I believe in workers rights, this is “inflammatory shit”?! Say what, brother?!
but you’re focused on what?
I’ve already posted my opinion and views. I’m not sure what you seem to be unclear about. What can I help you understand, friend?
It’s absurd to claim that third parties are nothing more than tools to weaken the Democrats.
I didn’t say third parties. I said the Green Party in particular.
Who is a third party and doesn’t changed anything in my reply. It seems to me that you’re trying to stir up confusion and discontent because you fear the change that threatens the status quo. What party do you really work for?
To hear centrist Democrats say it, I’m a shill for Putin himself because I don’t like the Bidenyahu genocide. To hear you say it, I’m a shill for Democrats because I don’t like your spoiler candidate and her spoiler party.
To hear centrist Democrats say it, I’m a shill for Putin himself because I don’t like the Bidenyahu genocide. To hear you say it, I’m a shill for Democrats because I don’t like your spoiler candidate and her spoiler party.
Sounds like you’re caught in the crossfire of a broken system that labels anyone who challenges the status quo as a “shill” for one side or the other. Welcome to my world.
But let’s be real—standing against genocide and calling out the failures of the two-party system doesn’t make you a shill for anyone. It makes you someone who refuses to accept a false choice between two evils.
Whether you support third parties or not, the real fight is for a democracy that represents all voices, not just the ones convenient for those in power.
But it’s hard for me to feel sorry for you when you’re so adamant that Jill Stein is a shill for the Russians and Republicans, parroting the same baseless accusations that keep real change from happening. And those are the same accusations that you’re now facing yourself.
Third parties actually push important issues into the spotlight, challenging the status quo. And they give voters more options.
Jill Stein has run for public office a total of 8 times. Of those she was successful in getting elected and completing her term one single time. This office was: Lexington Town Meeting, a representative town meeting, the local legislative body in Lexington, Massachusetts. 3 years later she ran for the same office and won again…but then resigned during her term. source
This doesn’t look like a realistic candidate interested in a political career to change policy. How is this giving voters more options?
I’s about challenging a rigged system and giving a voice to those who are fed up with the same old politics. Her campaigns have always been about pushing the boundaries, forcing issues into the spotlight that the two-party system would rather ignore.
If you measure success by who stays in line, she’s not your candidate.
But if you value someone who stands up, even when the odds are against them, then Jill Stein represents the fight for real change.
Third parties are the relentless pulse of revolution, defying the chains of the status quo and daring to ignite the flames of true change in a system built to silence them.
Acknowledging the reality that third parties cannot win under the current system is more useful in moving towards the alternatives you want that endlessly banging your head against the wall by running and supporting futile campaigns.
It’s not that we haven’t found the right moment or candidate. The electoral system in the US simply prevents third party candidates from being functional alternatives. You need to reckon with and change that reality if you want real alternatives.
Recognizing the flaws in the system is crucial, but waiting for the “right moment” without challenging the status quo only ensures nothing changes.
I personally think that supporting third parties is part of the fight to break down those barriers and push for the alternatives we need.
How do you see these campaigns leading to reforms needed to break the two party stranglehold? Are these candidates working together to raise awareness on the issue? Or are they just looking to boost their own brand without actually achieving anything? To me it looks like the latter.
There are organized movements to get rid of the electoral college and first past the post voting. But I haven’t seen any of these candidates participating. Why not spend your energy posting about those organizations instead?
Breaking the two-party stranglehold isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution, and while I don’t have all the answers, I do know that raising awareness and running independent campaigns are crucial parts of the struggle.
These candidates are out there challenging the system, putting pressure on the establishment, and inspiring others to question the status quo. Just because they aren’t always front and center in every movement doesn’t mean they aren’t contributing to the fight.
It’s a multi-front battle, and every effort counts in pushing for real change, even if it doesn’t fit neatly into one box.
Brother, it’s not a matter of choosing one battle over another—it’s about fighting on all fronts.
I can raise hell about the stranglehold of the two-party system while also supporting efforts to abolish the electoral college. Revolution doesn’t demand we pick and choose our fights—it demands we fight them all, with everything we’ve got.
You mean: it clarifies the reality of the situation - that the spoiler party has zero chance of winning.
You call it a “spoiler” party because it shakes the chains of the very system you’re too comfortable in.
The reality of the situation is that this so-called “zero chance” is exactly what terrifies the ruling class—because it’s a reminder that the people are waking up. Spoiler or not, the fight is about breaking the stranglehold of the two-headed beast that’s been robbing workers blind for generations.
Until there’s a third party that can get more than 1 to 3% of the vote, they are all “Independent Parties”.
Most folks just don’t understand the scale involved.
Party registration:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states
Democratic - 48,019,985
Republican - 35,732,180
Independent - 34,699,567After that, literally every other party is an “also ran”. The largest of the independent parties is less than 1.5% the size of the Democrats. 1.490%. The Greens are 1/3rd of THAT size.
This isn’t even a comprehensive list, “No Labels” is absent, likely due to their complete inability to function.
American Independent - 715,712
Libertarian - 710,123
Independence Party of New York - 388,779
Green - 240,198
Independent Party of Florida - 195,333
Independent Party of Oregon - 134,996
Constitution - 131,901
Independent Party of Louisiana - 110,653 b Peace & Freedom - 110,576
Independent American Party - 58,331
Working Families - 55,352
United Independent - 20,976
Alaskan Independence - 18,983
Common Sense Party - 17,322 b New Jersey Conservative - 16,104
Independent Party of Delaware - 9,807
Socialist Party USA - 9,198
Natural Law - 6,549
Reform - 5,900
Women’s Equality - 4,468
Approval Voting - 4,046
Independent American Party of New Mexico - 3,889
Unity - 3,215
Better for America - 3,180
Oregon Progressive - 2,928
Working Class - 2,693
United Utah - 2,285
Party for Socialism and Liberation - 1,369
Bread and Roses - 1,127
Ecology Party of Florida - 1,108The power of third parties lies not in immediate victory but in challenging the status quo and pushing the political conversation forward—every movement starts small.
You can’t challenge anything at 1.5% the size of the ruling parties.
You can’t challenge anything at 1.5% the size of the ruling parties.
1.5% is definitely pretty small, but it’s telling that both major parties work hard to keep third parties off the ballots. It suggests to me that even this small percentage has the potential to challenge the status quo.
call them whatever you want but they are only viable in Maine, Hawaii and Alaska. i wish more third party candidates would run in disguise as Democrats or Republicans and push for Rank Choice Voting vs running third party. But I understand their value as to platform ideas and influence the two main parties, but that is so slow.
I mean we have Tactical Voting in the primaries why can’t we have tactical running. Hell the Republicans do it all the time look at Tulsi and those two parties that are the opposite. Where is the Greens (Jill excluded) I would call that a coalition under a different name. sometimes you have to do it out in the open sometimes you got to do it 5th column style.
I’m with you on this—while I lean more socialist, I think you’re right. The Green Party needs to step up and make some real progress, and a stealth mode campaign is smart.
That said, I love how our third-party options seem to send the duopoly into a frenzy, exposing their fear of losing control.
How about “Putin’s Useful Idiots”?
But she’s not running for Putin.
I’ll stick with calling them naive.
Are they building a coalition toward ranked choice?
They are naive at best… BUT malicious in appearance.
The fight for ranked choice voting is crucial, but it shouldn’t be an excuse to dismiss third parties. Supporting third parties now is how we build the momentum for change, including reforms like ranked choice voting.
The more we challenge the status quo, the more pressure we put on the system to evolve.
Sub out the term “affect”.
Sub out damn near anything… “Change” should matter more than your BS rhetoric. Where can you point to change?
What change have you affected? What’s your accomplishment?
What have third parties done, other than fail at every goal?
What have third parties done, other than fail at every goal?
The Populist Party in the late 19th century pushed for direct election of senators, which later became the 17th Amendment.
The Socialist Party of America, under leaders like Eugene V. Debs, advocated for policies like the eight-hour workday, child labor laws, and social security—many of which were eventually implemented by the major parties.
More recently, the Green Party has kept issues like climate change, electoral reform, and corporate influence in politics at the forefront of national discourse.
Third parties may not always win elections, but they succeed in driving important issues into the national conversation and pushing the political landscape toward real change.
And hey, if third parties don’t accomplish anything, then why is the Duopoly always trying to get them removed from the ballots?! I mean, if they don’t do anything, then you guys have no reason to fear them or be angry with them. Right?
Yea and Nader brought in seat belts yet also specifically gave us GWB.
Can we please have the seatbelts without the conservative mass murderer or is it a package deal?
Is there no nuance or do you want to force GWB on the entire world just to feel your point?
The idea that third-party candidates are responsible for the failures of the duopoly is a desperate lie spun by those who refuse to hold their own parties accountable.
Blaming Nader for Bush’s rise is a convenient way to avoid facing the deeper rot within a system that constantly fails the people, choosing corporate interests over the lives and safety of everyday citizens.
Blaming Nader is a recognition that WITHIN this system you either work for change or admit defeat.
You get out of the hole before telling everyone how shitty they are for being in the hole.
Or you make enemies and tell everyone they are shitty cause the hole is full of shit. You’re doing a good job with the latter.
Well, at least you’re not calling me—or anyone else—a Russian asset today. So, brother, I’ll take your “naive” comment in stride. I genuinely respect and support your right to your opinion, even if we see things differently.
I don’t really see the Russian asset thing as being real. It seems like Stein made some dumb choices in terms of travel and meetings but I think we’d see it more in her policy if she were a Russian asset. I remain suspicious of Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump’s Russian ties.
Stein is clearly an asset to Russia. As is trump. You could be an asset to Russia as well. Being an asset doesn’t mean that you’re an agent of. Just that your actions are beneficial to them.
By that logic, anyone that is critical of Harris in any way is a Russian asset. I suppose I should just quit talking to anyone just in case it benefits them? (I will still vote for Harris regardless)
By that logic, anyone that is critical of Harris in any way is a Russian asset.
That’s definitely the kind of logic most Lemmys use. I know because I’m on the receiving end of it every day on here. Lol
Stein is clearly an asset to Russia.
So now standing up for working people, fighting for real democracy, and refusing to bow to the corrupt duopoly makes someone an “asset” to Russia?
What a convenient smear for those too terrified to confront the broken system that keeps the working class in chains.
Jill Stein, and every other brave soul who dares to step outside the corporate-controlled parties, is an asset not to some foreign power, but to the people of this country who are desperate for a real voice.
If the establishment shakes with fear when we talk about revolution, then maybe it’s time for them to realize that the true “asset” is the power of the people, rising against the tyranny of the few.
Is she standing up for anyone but herself. Let’s do a cost benefit analysis.
200+ years of American history have shown equivocally that 3rd parties can’t win a presidential election. Nor break double digit percentage of the popular vote nationally.
So best case scenario for Stein is that she loses the election and has no significant influence over it. Worst case she pulls enough votes from Democrats who she “agrees” with on many issues. To allow Republicans whom she “disagrees” with more to win.
Now, if your best case scenario is the same as not running. Why would you choose to run? Why waste time, money, and resources for nothing. When that time money and resources would be infinity more effective in a local or state election. Logically you wouldn’t. Logically if you were statistically more likely to help the worst candidate you would abstain from running. But she is running. She will lose, and she is pulling from the only group capable of defeating Republicans. So if she is as you claim. Fighting for working people. Then it is irrational and illogical for her to run.
Now let’s consider the opposite. When would it be logical or rational for her to run? Well since she cannot win. And since she will not influence the Democratic presidential candidates in any way. Therefore being unable to promise Working Families anything in any capacity. The most generous logical interpretation is that she’s in it for publicity for herself. To raise her National profile. And to enrich herself. Not caring about the actual Working Families that she will hurt. Because she herself is insulated. You know what the logical / rational less generous explanation is. Though you yourself would deny it. Being so self radicalized. Similar in so many ways to the magats. That you only care that people say the things you want to hear. But forget to check on how they do with relation to the things that you want to see them do. Leaving yourself looking foolish in the end.
You argue that third-party candidates like Jill Stein are ineffective and potentially harmful, but this overlooks a fundamental issue: the duopoly stifles genuine political discourse and limits choices for voters.
Sometimes running a third-party campaign isn’t only just about winning; it’s about challenging the status quo, pushing important issues into the national conversation, and holding the major parties accountable.
Stein’s candidacy isn’t about personal gain; it’s about giving a voice to those who feel unrepresented by the Democrats and Republicans. Rather than conceding to a flawed system, third-party candidates push for the change that millions of Americans desperately need.
Though you yourself would deny it. Being so self radicalized. Similar in so many ways to the magats.
Comparing someone who fights for workers’ rights and social justice to MAGA supporters is a lazy and flawed argument.
Standing up for third-party candidates and challenging the political status quo doesn’t make me “self-radicalized”; it shows a commitment to real change, not just settling for the lesser evil.
If you think that’s the same as blind allegiance to a demagogue, then you’ve missed the point entirely.
You argue that third-party candidates like Jill Stein are ineffective and potentially harmful
It was more a statement of fact that an argument.
but this overlooks a fundamental issue: the duopoly stifles genuine political discourse and limits choices for voters.
The system does it. Has done it for over 200 years. The parties themselves are interchangeable and a symptom, not the problem. Neither are the parties monolithic either. The Democratic party in fact gives voice successfully to many disparate groups. Not all of which I agree with, or think is adequate. But I can point to real accomplishments. But I’d like to see you argue otherwise. What have presidents from 3rd parties. Who don’t exist because they’ve never won. Given us policy wise.
Stein’s candidacy isn’t about personal gain; it’s about giving a voice to those who feel unrepresented by the Democrats and Republicans.
You are free to shout into the void. But what does shouting into the void accomplish. Trump gives voice to bigots and racists. And has accomplished mathematically infinitely more for them. Having a voice means nothing when it is ignored.
Comparing someone who fights for workers’ rights and social justice to MAGA supporters is a lazy and flawed argument.
How is it flawed. They say they’re doing the same thing. But have actually accomplished some of it. So you can say you are different at least in that metric. But is accomplishing nothing really that moral or virtuous?
Standing up for third-party candidates and challenging the political status quo doesn’t make me “self-radicalized”; it shows a commitment to real change, not just settling for the lesser evil.
Whether or not you settle for it you will get the worst or second worst when it comes to presidential elections. As an anarchist I don’t care if you vote, or who you vote for. it’s your vote. I’m just pointing out mathematical reality. And that people rightfully disliked false or undeserved self righteousness. Outside of the limited state and local offices groups like the green party hold. (Which I think are good) People like Stein if even inadvertently, stand to do more harm than good at a national presidential level. Again, mathematically and statistically provable. You’re still welcome to vote for them. But you’re not any more virtuous or riteous than the people or groups you’re criticizing. And realistically they aren’t giving anyone a meaningful voice. Judging based on actual accomplishments.
Serious question. Why did Sanders, an independent, run for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Totally agree. And I think that calling her a Russian asset or a Trump plant, gives way too much credit to the conservative party. They are definitely not smart enough to do things like that without fucking it all up. lol
