this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
340 points (87.3% liked)
politics
25300 readers
3305 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're right. Better to just actively or indirectly (through inaction) support the party that is currently actively revoking civil rights on a national scale, and planning to rig/end elections to stay in power indefinitely. That will fix the broken system.
That's what gets me about this whole thing. There's plenty of core of truth to the idea that the Democrats are very bad, although yes the alternative currently is infinitely worse. There are thousands of things that any given person could do to try to fix that or work for better things in American politics. Refusing to elect Democrats anymore, no matter what, is 0 of them, and will make things quite a lot worse.
It's like punishing your child for bad grades by refusing to feed them anymore. One, it doesn't address the problem, two, it will make even the thing you say you are upset about and trying to fix, infinitely worse.
Functionally, things are the way they are because the people that want to change things for the better do not make up the majority of people yet. Plenty of the boomers are still happy with the status quo since most of it doesn’t directly impact them. Gen X even was more right leaning than the boomers in 2024.
Just looking at the number of people that actually vote, neo-liberal boomers and Gen Xers will still be dictating policy for another decade at the least. If they aren’t progressive, most of the policy getting passed will not be either.
This isn’t even taking into account the way that land has more power than people in the US either. Sparsely populated red states hold just as much power in the Senate as New York or California. The House is currently capped on the number of Representatives as well, meaning that those small red states are over represented and larger blue and purple states are underrepresented.
The best shot at changing anything before another decade passes is by starting locally to each of us. We can try to do what New York City did and implement an alternative voting system in our own cities, that will help immensely to get more people like Mamdani in office. If we garner enough support at the city and local levels, we might even be able to be like Maine or Alaska and get an alternative voting system in place at the state level.
Alternative voting systems are pretty much the only real way third parties will have a chance to get off the ground and have a seat at the table on a national level. The main reason for that is because it helps mitigate the spoiler effect; where your preferred candidate and the safe candidate knock each other out allowing your least preferred candidate to win elections.
Want to help? Get the word out about alternative voting systems and organizations that promote them. Get involved locally.
Underrepresented Fediverse Social Media Accounts:
Involvement Links:
Who said to do that? I certainly didn't. I push for parties that and actions that are actually trying to do something against the current party. The Democrats are the ones that have spent their time propping up and actively supporting the current party.
You started this conversation by advocating for not voting for Newsom if he is the only candidate with a chance against the GOP. If your "other parties" have fractional support of the democrats come general election day, they're not viable alternatives and your vote for them is functionally identical to not voting at all.
By all means, I 100% support advocacy for change, for reform, for new people and ideas in power. But we also have a shitty voting system that means you usually need to pick the least of two evils come election day. And you need to be practical and make peace with that. I wish we had something like Approval voting where there was no push to a two party split and everyone could vote for every candidate or party they like, and I would support voting reform in that direction all day every day, but that is not what we have now.
And I've seen what happens when Democrats have power. They support the Republicans, build out the systems that the Republicans want, fight against meaningful change for the working-class, and screw over their voters. Functionally, they are worse than doing nothing at all. Why should I support them when they fight against the things that I want?
3rd parties have been fairly innefective at a national level, yes, but so have the Democrats.
That's simply not true. Neither about how they are universally supporting Republicans and fucking people over as a whole, nor that doing nothing is better. They are individuals, not a monolith, and the party is built from those individuals, not a static set of policies, principles and practices. It can be changed if you do something about it. And doing nothing does not acheive that. Best case scenario, doing nothing results in the same outcome, worst case it causes the worst outcome. Doing nothing is a cop out that makes you feel like you took some moral high ground while ultimately either not mattering at all or playing into the hands of the people who would do everything they can against your ideals. If you want to effect change, particularly for the democratic party, support and advocate for a new candidate with better ideals and resolve (or even run yourself), then primary out the useless incumbents. Far easier to do that then to suddenly see mass third party support giving them power to make change.
They are a party of sociopathic individuals who spend more time fighting against their voters than they do fighting for them.
Yes, they can change, and the fastest way to get them to change, is to make them realize that they don't have my support until they start fighting for what I want. But they keep fighting against what I want, and are pretty open that they don't really care.
If you want to try to reform them, go ahead. I have no problems with that, but I also have no faith that you will succeed. I think you'll have just as much luck getting the Republicans to change as you will the Democrats.
In the meantime, I've long abandoned them, in favor of parties that are actually doing something for their voters.
The message they are getting is that the majority of active voters are voting for the GOP. They are not competing for non-voters or people that uselessly vote for third parties without a chance, they are competing for voters. If you are incentivizing them to change in any way, you are incentivizing them to move right and court more moderate republican voters. Your strategy is inherently self-defeating.
Yes, they are competing for GOP voters, rather than trying to pull in leftists. When leftists are on the ballot, they get a ton of votes, but the Democrats spend their time shooting down leftist candidates, because they don't want to actually change. They have a choice: Pick up the voters that aren't voting for one of the big-two parties, or pull in the right-wing voters. Which has been more productive in the past few elections?
Hint: It's been the former.
Right, we dont disagree about that. And that is maddening as hell. But, again, the way to fix that is by voting out the incumbents, the same old lifetime career men that just want to maintain their positions rather than to seek change. Refusing to vote for the entire party at all because of them just removes your voice, one of the more critical reformist voices, from the conversation, from the vote that ultimately matters.
Again, we agree. The old guard are morons who are trying hold onto their old school party tooth and nail and are dragging it down. I want to take the party back from the old codgers and give them the boot. I want new voices, young voices, pissed off voices, and I get that by voting for them. I get that by making sure that the party itself isn't incentivized to move farther right. I get that by participating in the debate and through advocacy. Not by abandoning them wholecloth because the DNC is corrupt, so my voice doesnt matter anymore. We have to change it from within.
I do wish that other parties were viable on a national scale. I do. But they are nowhere near it. By all means, vote them into office when it is between them and a dem. By all means vote your conscience when the stakes are low or the choice is safer. But if a right wing nut job is the likely outcome of a split vote, especially on a national scale, please for the love of god, dont split the vote.
I think our disagreement boils down to this: You think there's a higher likelyhood that the Democratic ledership changes their ways, than there is that a third-party gains power.
I'm in direct opposition. I think there's a higher chance that a third-party gains power, than there is that the Democrats start fighting for what I want.
Prove me wrong. I'd love to not be "politically homeless", and have one of the big-two fight for what I want. But the Democrats have been very clear that they'd rather lose, than fight for what I want.
Ehh, not exactly. You think there is a higher likelihood than I do that third-party gains power spontaneously without any indication that they are catching up to, much less overtaking either of the two major parties. When the winds of progress start making themselves apparent and a new legitimate challenger enters the stage, I will, of course, seriously consider them. Until such time though, my vote will go where is has a chance to matter in the current election.
I also acknowledge, though, that the Dems are doing very little for me and other progressive currently, nor even for your typical liberal. Short of not actively trying to dismantle the US government and our democracy, they are not exactly a shining light in the darkness that is our current situation. But while they are the only left-of-Fascism party with any chance in the running, I will continue to do what I can to correct their direction from a position that matter to them, as one of their voters. At the very least, if nothing else, they MIGHT be concerned about losing me if they go too far too fast to the right. But if I already dont vote for them and they arent moving in a way that is likely to reabsorb my vote, they can just forget about me. Can't boycott something you already dont buy.
Why would they think this? You've openly stated that you will vote for them no matter what. They don't need to care about you, because you've already given up the negotiation.
Imagine you went to your boss and said: "Hey, no matter the outcome of this conversation, I'm gonna keep working here until the day I die. I will support you no matter what. Now, lets talk about giving me a raise."
Do you think you are gonna get that raise?
No, I said I will vote for them while they are the lesser of two evils and while no one else stands a chance. If they shoot to the right, a d become functionally indistinguishable from the GOP, or if a viable and better alternative presents itself, I'm gone.
You are saying the same thing as I am, with more words.