22

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/151111

With the dust is settling from their defeat on Tuesday, it's becoming clearer that there was some incredible malpractice going on in the Democratic party. As shown in the tweet I linked, Biden delayed dropping out even though his team knew it was going to be a complete blowout for Trump. Then, we have Harris's campaign spending over a billion dollars and still losing all of the swing states she needed to win.

For all the Democrats who would never vote Republican and would have never voted third party, are you now considering voting third party in future elections? If not, what would it take?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Seraph@fedia.io 53 points 2 weeks ago

Ranked choice voting or similar.

[-] aedyr@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 weeks ago

This is the realistic answer. First past the post voting inherently results in two dominant parties.

[-] LukeZaz@beehaw.org 5 points 2 weeks ago

I'm vastly more in favor of Approval Voting, truth be told. Most anything's better than what we have now, but ranked voting systems of any sort tend to have issues similar to FPTP, whereas Approval or Score voting don't. Approval Voting is also dead simple, since the only change is that you can vote for as many candidates as you want.

[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 31 points 2 weeks ago

If not, what would it take?

A viable third party candidate. Before anyone says it, Jill Stein is not it. Alternately, a voting method that allows voting third party without just enabling a GOP sweep (again).

It'd be great if this resulted in some major revision of the Democratic party from within, but I'm not holding my breath. I will, however, continue voting for the "less bad viable option" if the "more bad option" is on par with Trump.

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 5 points 2 weeks ago

That's fair, but if the Democrats are also running candidates that aren't viable or not running viable campaigns, then you're just compromising your principles for nothing.

[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 21 points 2 weeks ago

It's about who has a chance of winning. If you're trying to argue that any candidate other than Harris had a chance of beating Trump in this recent election, you're kidding yourself.

I've said this before and I'll continue saying it: Trying to inject a 3rd party candidate into the presidential race is foolish. A much better tactic would be trying to push for 3rd party candidates in smaller races for local / state government, or congress. Doing that is a lot easier, and can make small incremental changes that add up over time. There simply isn't a realistic way for a third party candidate to compete in the presidential race until the voting system is changed.

[-] dontgooglefinderscult 7 points 2 weeks ago

Sanders and Stein would have won.

Harris never had a chance of winning. Running a far right cop for the party that is opposed to far right cops is the dumbest possible fucking move.

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 5 points 2 weeks ago

If you’re trying to argue that any candidate other than Harris had a chance of beating Trump in this recent election, you’re kidding yourself.

I'm not trying to argue that. I'm saying that it's becoming apparent that the Democratic party is in such bad shape that they had no chance to beat Trump either. If they fail to make significant changes, to their personnel and their platform, they are going to keep failing in subsequent elections. If they're going to lose anyway, then there's got to be a point where progressive Democrats start voting with some dignity for third party candidates.

[-] DdCno1@beehaw.org 12 points 2 weeks ago

A decent human being doesn't vote for the most principled candidate, they instead vote for the candidate who would hurt the fewest number of people by winning while (importantly) actually having a chance of winning.

Moral absolutism isn't moral, it results in people getting hurt, because whoever adheres to it decided for themsevles that their principles are more important than fellow human beings. The sooner you realize this, the better.

[-] dontgooglefinderscult 9 points 2 weeks ago

I will never vote for genocide, turns out there's at least 15 million like me. You enjoy being responsible for this genocide and any expansion of it Trump does, as you voted for it.

[-] Ioughttamow@fedia.io 13 points 2 weeks ago

Now we get genocide and a president who raped kids. He gets off Scot free for his crimes now

[-] dontgooglefinderscult 5 points 2 weeks ago

He was always going to get away with the pointless charges, no president will ever be allowed near a jail, they know too much.

To your first point thats not worse than genocide. Genocide is genocide. It's like infinity, you can't add to infinity meaningfully.

[-] Ioughttamow@fedia.io 8 points 2 weeks ago

I tend to think more genocide is worse than less genocide. Nice to see you don’t care about the rapes. Real ally to women and children.

[-] dontgooglefinderscult 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

No, genocide is genocide. Once you do it, you're no longer human. Doesn't matter more or less. As to your second point, read the username. Trump isn't the first pedo in office, he's not even the most famous. You're in the wrong country if you hate pedophiles in power, we haven't had a year where that's not the case.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Lost_Wanderer@beehaw.org 7 points 2 weeks ago

That's self-defeating nonsense.

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 8 points 2 weeks ago

It was actually self-defeating to run on a platform that got an (enthusiastically received) endorsement from Dick Cheney.

[-] averyminya@beehaw.org 7 points 2 weeks ago

Pasting my own comment, as I really think there was a reason for this.

"I’ve been seeing a trend for the last few years and I think it explains the shift that people have been pointing out in the Democratic party. The way in which many Democrats felt railroaded into Hillary in 2016, I think the same is happening to the Republican party, albeit more unknowingly. There is a not insignificant amount of Republicans who have been disenfranchised from voting red because that’s just what you do. It all comes down to the Republican party being split by the MAGA cult, with those Republican voters wanting to return back to the status quo of red vs. blue. Of course what they don’t realize is that the culture war that the conservatives have been imposing is what created this whole situation in the first place.

Anyway, this is where Dick Cheney comes in. Yes, a representative of that culture war that brought us here, but not a MAGA cultist. An endorsement from one of the most recognized Republicans is an attempt to move back towards the classical conservatism, away from the clamoring fervor that the Trump presidency put the country in.

That is to say, if the Green Party is meant to siphon votes from Democrats, The Classical Republican Dick Cheney is meant to appeal to the votes from Moderate Republicans and maybe convince some Republican voters who would have voted red “because that’s what you do”, to instead vote for Kamala.

This isn’t to say his endorsement of her isn’t damning and that the leaders of the Democratic haven’t been shifting away from the left. Just positing that like many of us, there’s a portion of Republicans out there who are just as tired."

I wrote this pre-election results. Can probably tell. But basically Tl;Dr Cheney is a classical conservative and his endorsement was an attempt to return to the status quo pre-MAGA, as a way to hopefully return to the Republican vs. Democrat split, instead of this 4 way split between leftist, liberal, conservative, and MAGA voters.

Obviously, that didn't sit that well with the Democrats and the leftists. I get where the campaign was coming from, I don't agree and it was a bad move, but I understand it.

[-] derbis@beehaw.org 4 points 2 weeks ago

Cheney is one of the poster names of neoconservativism, not classical conservatism

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SanctimoniousApe 19 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

A truly progressive third party that also actually has a prayer of winning. They would need a groundswell of individual small donors making up much of their campaign funding because mainstream ain't gonna fund them, so good luck with that.

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 9 points 2 weeks ago

Despite a billion dollars in funding, the Democrats campaign didn't have a prayer either. And I have a hard time calling their platform progressive at all. Anyone who liked it more than that of the Greens or the PSL would have just voted Republican.

[-] SanctimoniousApe 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

You're ignoring the "prayer of winning" part. Until then, I'm voting against the bigger asshole.

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 5 points 2 weeks ago

Yes, but as it turned out, Harris didn't have a prayer either. If you weren't voting for Trump (I assume you consider him to be the bigger asshole) it didn't matter if you voted for Harris or any other candidate. So unless the Democrats make big changes to their platform and the people running their campaigns... well, it's insanity to expect a different result. There's got to be a point where progressive Democrats decide that they might as well vote with some dignity for third party candidates.

[-] SanctimoniousApe 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Until I have good reason to believe that my vote stands a good chance of actually mattering should I do such a thing, no. There's no way of knowing the result beforehand, so I'd rather play it safer and spend it on trying to prevent the worst possible outcome. Might not always work, but then again it might.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago

This is like survivor bias.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] millie@beehaw.org 19 points 2 weeks ago

How about we start with a third party that's actually serious about being a third party rather than just showing up every 4 years to syphon votes? Like, you know, a party that actually runs at the local level and participates in Democracy. One of the big differences between our "third parties" and minority political parties in Europe, for instance, is that theirs actually participate in government. They work at smaller levels of government rather than just expecting to somehow get a prime minister. They build coalitions. They foster voter confidence by actually doing something.

The closest thing we have to that is literally just Bernie Sanders on his own. One guy does a better job at being something resembling a third party than any existing third party in the United States. That's impressive for Bernie and absolutely pathetic for "third parties".

Second? Once those third parties build up some actual participation in government and develop coalitions, use that growing power to give themselves a mathematical chance of actually winning.

Third? Don't run a candidate until the first two are done. Because anything short of that is literally just enabling the Republicans to push both parties further and further to the right.

Do that and actually run on a platform I'd like to see more than Democratic neoliberalism and I'll put them in the first slot in my runoff or ranked choice or whatever vote. Until then? Not a chance in the world. I don't care how many times the DNC shoots themselves in the foot. Until the math is there and a party shows they're actually willing to participate in all levels of government I'm not interested in propping up one of two egotists and their "party".

I'd vote for Bernie in a ranked choice election in a second, though. I don't care if he's literally 100 years old.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 12 points 2 weeks ago

The last successful third party was the Tea Party, which was formed by people fed up with the GOP.

We need a Guillotine Party.

[-] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 10 points 2 weeks ago

Sanders got fucked in 2016 and the Democrats who get nominated aren’t great and yes it’s partially the Democrats’ fault they got so few votes in 2024. I strongly disagree that it’s chiefly their fault, but that horse is out of the barn now, and also the barn is on fire now and connected to the house with the children inside.

There will be some incredible shit going down in the next few years. It’ll be a challenge to have any sort of elections in 2028 that have anything non-Republican in any position to win anything. I don’t think it will happen.

If you want to have a conversation about how we get left-wing values to win in future elections, start with how we fight to preserve basic freedoms like elections that don’t have Trump’s election integrity squad in charge of them, and free speech online, and the military not being used against American protestors.

I hope I’m wrong but I think some real shit is going to go down real soon. I don’t think we should assume elections are going to be normal and then plan from that assumption.

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 6 points 2 weeks ago

If left-wing values can't win in 2028 it will be because the Democratic candidate runs as a knock-off Republican again, which isn't going to win either.

[-] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Give it a rest. I can argue back my point of view to you, and we can go back and forth a little, and it's pointless.

I can guarantee you that people in large numbers will get their doors kicked in by the police and hauled away, and laws will get passed that make it a crime to be anti-Republican. How wide a scale and how bad that all will get isn't certain, but I think it will be pretty bad.

Your days of pointing at the Democrats as the problem need to stop, and their days of pointing at the Bernie Sanders crowd and the Palestine protestors as the problem need to stop, because even if we (edit: ~~don't~~) do put all that bullshit aside and start fighting together against the real enemy for real, we might not win. I really don't care who's right anymore. Before the election, I did. That stuff is over.

The more people who are still convinced that their own side needs to be made into the enemy in any respect, the harder that fight will get, and it'll already be hard, and bad.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 9 points 2 weeks ago

I may not be 100% staunch Dem, but maybe having an election where a 3rd party gets more coverage than just the occasional passing commercial or billboard or other absolutely ineffective advertising methods would make me more likely to switch. Until then, lesser of 2 evils and all that.

[-] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 9 points 2 weeks ago

I’ll move if they distance themselves from the platform I believe in, or if there’s a third party candidate that happens to be enticing enough.

The platform I support, in ranked order:

  • Pro environment
  • Personal freedoms / social liberty
  • Statecraft over War
  • Higher taxes on the rich, comparatively, but not to the point of stifling innovation
  • Education, Internet and Healthcare as fundamental rights
  • Capitalism, with competition
  • Global Trade
  • Pro Union
  • Space exploration
  • Security (only at the level needed to maintain personal freedom)
  • YIMBYism
  • Reducing National debt
  • Federalism

As I see it, the Dems are still pretty aligned with that, perhaps just not in the same prioritized order, and that’s fair, because they have others they’ll lose first before they lose me.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Dippy@beehaw.org 7 points 2 weeks ago

I will never vote for a party that doesn't stand an actual chance of winning seats. So until there is proportional representation or ranked choice, i will not be voting 3rd parties.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] ErsatzCoalButter@beehaw.org 7 points 2 weeks ago
  • You are not going to vote your way out of this
  • There is no just or reasonable way to govern a transcontinental slave empire
[-] LallyLuckFarm@beehaw.org 7 points 2 weeks ago

This doesn't quite apply to me, since I live somewhere with RCV and gladly use it. But:

A third party that doesn't waste my time by only running top-line candidates while ignoring every other aspect of the necessary political gains to achieve their goals. Especially when the planks of their platform are overwhelmingly in the hands of the house and senate and not in the purview of the one position for which they decided to lackadaisically run. A third party presidential win with no support in the legislature would doom any real progress that third parties could hope to achieve - giving us a figurehead with no means to enact their agenda would only dissuade voters from seeing future candidates as viable and locking us back into the same dichotomy.

[-] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 7 points 2 weeks ago

All the people who were doing that are now pushing RCV or other election reforms that would make it realistic for third parties to be able to get all the way to winning. The third-party people who are running in FPTP elections are, almost universally, either attention-seekers or deliberate spoiler candidates. Bernie Sanders, when he was running, joined up with the Democrats instead of running as a spoiler candidate, because he's making an earnest attempt at making things better.

It doesn't really matter now because we've slipped one rung down the civilizational Maslow pyramid now, and are in for a fight to preserve the right in any capacity to elect who we want in power. But, whenever we make it back out to the other side of that, it'd be nice to remember to reconfigure the system so third parties can actually win, first, and then run third party candidates after that, not the other way around.

[-] LallyLuckFarm@beehaw.org 6 points 2 weeks ago

Firmly agreed. Too many people I know forget that social progress is measured in inches and social regression is measured in yards (cm's and m's for our other friends). I'll gladly vote "no backsliding" on the top line, knowing that I can keep pressuring for progress in the interim.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 6 points 2 weeks ago

this is an interesting discussion that's gone on for long enough and been substantive enough that i'll leave it be, but as an FYI this was a better fit for the Politics section and had it been caught sooner i would have told you to repost it there.

[-] wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 2 weeks ago

Lemmy, 1 week ago: "A THIRD PARTY VOTE IS A REPUBLICAN VOTE!"

Lemmy, today: "WE SHOULD ALL BE VOTING THIRD PARTY!"

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 9 points 2 weeks ago

A week ago, a third party vote for president was a vote for Trump.

The presidential election is over. Now is the time to rejigger the political gameboard.

[-] wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 weeks ago

I will be back to comment on this thread in 4 years, when unimaginative US libs are saying the same exact thing to try to goad others into a Democrat vote.

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 5 points 2 weeks ago

The responses I've been getting so far don't seem very warm to third party voting at all.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
22 points (100.0% liked)

U.S. News

2244 readers
46 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.


Guidelines for submissions:

For World News, see the News community.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS