507
Don’t Fall for the Third-Party Trick
(web.archive.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
507 points (85.4% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4267 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If enough people are voting third party that it’s a threat then maybe the other parties should take notice and change to support the popular policies and win back support.
Also we can do more than 1 thing at a time. We should be pushing things like ranked choice voting while also showing our displeasure with the current parties where it makes sense to do so.
Giving support to third parties gives them and the issues they’re promoting more visibility to the general public.
This does not work in a FPTP system. Every vote you peel off the Democrats just enables the Republicans and sets reform back even farther. The only way telling people to vote 3rd party is helpful is if they were going to vote for the GOP. Peeling votes away from Democrats HURTS the chances of other parties to be viable in the future.
You’re looking at things through there lens of 1 election cycle.
If a third party that’s against the genocide Israel is carrying out gets say 5% of voters in deep blue or deep red states would that not be a signal to the democrats that they should change their stance before the next election?
No. If 5% of my voting base sits out over a single issue, I'm going to lose my interest in trying to triangulate their support and move in another direction to identify a more persuadable bloc of voters. That goes more if the abandonment is repetitive, and if the issues constantly change, or if the issue is something I can't bend on for electoral reasons.
If one bloc of voters is easier to please than another, then I'm moving in their direction, even if it's rightward. Unfortunately it's winner-take-all, and you're either in power or you're not. There are no half-wins.
Not funding and supplying a genocide seems to be a pretty clear and easy issue to change especially when 60%+ of democrats are in favor of it. We’re already violating our own laws by continuing to do so.
The democrats are already moving to the right even with the left continuing to vote for them. They think they can win over some centrists republicans (even though they can’t in a meaningful number) by adopting right wing policies while not losing the left because at the moment they know votes are guaranteed because “republicans worse”.
Having voters in areas that effectively don’t matter this cycle show there displeasure in the genocide we’re enabling is the least we can do to counter it.
I don't think they think that. I think we've swallowed that lie hook, line and sinker for 40 years and they will keep throwing the same bait as long as we keep biting while they keep moving right.
Oh I agree, but that’s was a whole other can of worms I wasn’t trying to get into at the moment since I’ve got a busy and long work day that’s still not over unfortunately lol
I hear you. Thanks for the reply.
I directly answered your question, and you seem to have ignored what I said. Plus you really should reexamine your assumptions about the importance of Gaza, the "ease" of withdrawing support, how much Democrats have moved rightward, and how many centrist Republicans vote for Democrats.
Your level of frustration with the process is inversely proportional to your awareness of these trends, of which Democratic leaders are likely well aware. Moreover, you seem to be valuing the strongly-held opinions of voters in non-swing states (what you're calling "deep blue states" or "areas that effectively don't matter") more highly than the maybe-less-strongly held opinions of voters in swing states. If 5% of Democratic voters in California want sushi, and 5% of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania want steak, I'm picking steak and telling the California voters to take a hike. Their opinion doesn't even register on my radar thanks to the electoral consequences of pissing off the Pennsylvanians who wanted steak.
I didn't ignore what you said. My retort to
Was that if it's a clear issue like the genocide Israel is carrying out that has a lot of strong opposition to the Democrats current position it really isn't all that hard to triangulate what the cause is.
It's been known it's THE issue the democrats are losing support for given the coverage of the non committed movement. As for how tough it is to It's literally not support a genocide that's how you please that group. It's literally following our current laws to not supply and fund a country committing a genocide.
Literally from your own link "though some questioned whether it would push them not to vote at all." In a thread where people are complaining about a small amount of people voting third party could lose the election for democrats in swing states I guess it is an important issue if it's driving even some people in swing states to not vote.
Also when the non committed movement has more support in some states than the margin of victory in 2020 I would say it's pretty important.
So genocide is alright as long as they're an enemy of Iran, that's your argument? Israel is literally the one escalating the situation in the area, pulling their support or at least threatening to do so until the genocide is stopped would actually deescalate the situation in the region.
I don't disagree they've moved left on most social issues when looking at at that long of a time span that's in the article you linked. I'm talking this election cycle Kamala has clearly shifted right from the policies she ran on in 2016.
In 1 election, that's the sample size. That's not a trend and it's against Trump who is an historically awful candidate for moderates to try and stomach. They'll be back voting R once he's gone so it's not a good long term strategy when you're alienating what should be your base to the point their considering not voting or voting third party.
You completely misunderstood what my example was trying to get across. I'm not valuing non swing state voters opinions more than swing state voters.
I understand that the swing state voters are going to have an outsized role in what each party pushes. Tactically I would be saying the voters in swing states especially should be witholding their vote unless the democrats stop supporting Israel's genocide since it would be more leverage but obviously trump getting elected isn't a great alternative which is why I didn't mention that since that's a risk.
What I was saying is that given that non swing states you can safely vote third party to show your displeasure in the genocide we're supporting and possibly shed light that it's got a large amount of importance to voters.
Edit: formatting since I’m on mobile and at work.