From a European perspective, this debate is saddening, because it results in people alienating voters if they didn’t pick the “right” option, where “right” is whatever moral position you want them to have, on the basis of putting onto them a direct responsibility of an unwanted result, from their indirect action. It is your responsibility to campaign for your own party, and this is not a way to convince people to vote, nor join your side. Your two-party political system is ruining any possibility of political debate for smaller parties, and you end up silencing the voices of minorities that aren’t represented by your two monoliths, all thanks to your holier-than-thou attitude. The people voting for Trump are the ones who will get Trump elected, not the people voting for whoever supports their political affiliations, not participating in your dirty voting shenanigans. The only thing you’re achieving is guilt tripping someone you could otherwise convince to vote for another party, and pushing them away, making sure they will not vote in your favour next time.
We had the same thing happen in France, where voters were consistently asked to vote against a party for the presidential elections, rather than for the party that represents their ideals. In 2022, upon being elected Emmanuel Macron declared “I also know that many compatriots voted for me, to block the ideas of the extreme right. I want to thank them and tell them that I am aware that this vote binds me for years to come. I am the guardian of their attachment to the Republic”, and then proceeded over the next few years to apply a political program that would make Le Pen proud. [1][2][3][4]
Here are some articles on the subject of “useful vote”, translate at your convenience :
And a quote from a random internet user, roughly translated :
No need to be from Saint-Cyr to understand that induction does not only concern cooking in the kitchen, even if it is electoral. The concept of a useful vote naturally leads to that of a… useless vote! Indeed, it may seem legitimate to think that to “have influence” on an election, it would be better to do like the others by voting for those whom the polling institutes place at the top of voting intentions. This is how for a long time, elections have been scrutinized through surveys in which respondents tell you “the trend”. The useful vote is a concept, the reason for the survey which creates the opinion of the respondents. Isn’t the real usefulness of voting to choose according to one’s own convictions and to grant a useful vote to the candidate whose program best defends our values, our interests determining airtime which has determined, finally, did his sound sound in the polls? Not recognizing this means admitting that “uselessness” leads to abstaining from voting. This is unfortunately a real trend today.
This is the only time I’ll interact on the subject, because I know how abrasive it is, but I felt some are in dire need of a reality check. You may disagree because your political culture, landscape, education… are quite different from the ones I experienced so far, but please engage in respectful discussions about it, provide sensible arguments, and don’t downvote just because you read something that doesn’t validate your feelings. If there’s someone you need to blame for Biden’s potential failure to get elected, it’s him for not running a better campaign to get enough votes, and yourself for vilifying other voters for not sheepily following your orders. These scare tactics are no better than dictatorial behaviours.
I accept to believe that you skipped the entire comment to only react to the last sentence
No, I read everything except the links. It’s the normal “Democracy isn’t real because democracy involves strategic decisions on the part of voters” spiel from people who don’t take their civic duty seriously, and instead think of voting as a kind of virtue masturbation for their own gratification instead of being involved in making political choices of the polity, which necessarily involves compromise and deeply imperfect choices.
I will not partake in discussing with you. Good day.
Always comes off as pathetic ‘last-wording’ when someone takes the time to reply “I’m not going to talk to you.” when you could have just stopped talking to them.
Maybe because I took the time to write a lenghty comment contributing to the discussion, which they purposefully decided to ignore with a snarky remark? I am open to debating on the subject, but not with an intellectually dishonest or dismissive attitude.
Welcome to politcal memes! These are our rules: Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
Please enlighten me on said point ? I’m trying to contribute to the discussion. Why would I interact with not only their, but now your dismissive comments on such a complex topic ?
@[email protected] is actively working to separate the left from the Democrats and has acknowledged as much. You have no obligation to engage with them in good faith. Their approach to rhetoric and dismissiveness of legitimate reasons why someone might find it impossible or deeply immoral to vote for a candidate that promotes genocide is fundamental to why we see such a fractured caucus today. @[email protected] isn’t interested in fixing it or addressing the concerns of people who find Biden problematic, but rather, in trotting out recycled tropes from another failed cause, the 2016 Clinton campaign.
Its a basic lesson of history in American politics that you can’t beat likely Democratic voters into voting for you. @[email protected] 's approach to this is identical to that of the 2016 Clinton campaign: You owe them your vote; Vote Democrat or else. But this approach to rhetoric is a demonstrated failure. You actually do have to meet them where they are at and address their concerns if you want to convince people of something, anything. Its what the Biden campaign should be doing, and if @[email protected] really cared about Biden’s chances in November, they too would be doing as much.
@[email protected] isn’t interested in that, and is not arguing or participating in good faith. They are working to further divide the coalition that got Biden elected, and are actively working to diminish the chances of a second Democratic term. I think they are doing so out of ignorant naivety and I do not attribute malice, but honestly, why you do things is ultimately secondary to what you are doing,
Perhaps you should tag me again, just to really emphasize that I’m being far too mean to people who only want to usher in fascism, and what I REALLY should be doing is patting them on the head and telling them how valid it is that they’re sending people to death camps to feel good about themselves. :)
Thank you and no worries on the tagging, I’ll make sure to tag you again in the future.
I appreciate you being a foil so that we can put you and your rhetoric on display. Its reflective of the broader paradigm we see playing out and is useful for people to understand.
In doing so, I think we are moving the needle by demonstrating to people that this approach (your approach; the Hillary 2016 approach) of abusing people into voting is truly costing us this election.
So thank you. I really do appreciate your willingness to just remove the mask and make it clear that you are not interested in defeating Trump this election cycle.
Since its come up a few times now and is the currently underlying the theme of this discussion, I’d be interested to get your take on AOC’s interpretation of electoralism. In context, how do you argue you motivate a base for a candidate like Joe Biden where the candidates policies are such an extreme departure from that of the voters?
In doing so, I think we are moving the needle by demonstrating to people that this approach (your approach; the Hillary 2016 approach) of abusing people into voting is truly costing us this election.
Oh, these third party voters would come back and vote for Biden, if only Biden supporters were nice to them? Is that it? How curious.
and make it clear that you are not interested in defeating Trump this election cycle.
That’s curious, considering my position is that defeating Trump is what actually matters, rather than getting fuzzies because you oh-so-nobly voted third party and let fascism win and murder huge swathes of your fellow Americans.
In context, how do you argue you motivate a base for a candidate like Joe Biden where the candidates policies are such an extreme departure from that of the voters?
Jesus. Do you really think Biden’s policies are an ‘extreme departure’ from that of the voters? I’d like to hear you lay that argument out, just for laughs.
EDIT: And, of course you couldn’t articulate the ‘extreme departure’ or even attempt to. Because that would involve examining the American electorate, which is much further right than you’d like. Predictable.
considering my position is that defeating Trump is what actually matters
I mean, you know that’s not true. We all know that’s not true, you’ve even said so yourself, and your even doing so in this response.
You don’t want to grow the base of voters for against Trump. You just want to punch on leftists because they are sticking to their morals while you can-not.
In doing so, you are costing Biden any shot he has. You could be trying to build a bridge, instead, you’ve focused on burning them down. You’ve said as much yourself. Your approach to rhetoric is directly supporting Trump, and are clearly aware of that.
Which further highlights my question. Go watch the clip. Its only 3 minutes. What do you think of what AOC has to say on electoral-ism, and how do you expect your intentional divisiveness/ fragmentation approach to rhetoric to play into that? Like, if Biden can’t get elected without leftists, and you are working to separate leftists from the Democrats, what exactly is your plan to get Biden elected?
Heres Charlemagne the God explaining this on The View, from earlier today.
You don’t want to grow the base of voters for against Trump. You just want to punch on leftists because they are sticking to their morals while you can-not.
Oh? Here I thought my morals were “Fascism is bad, and should be prevented”. Uh, thanks for informing me that my morals were actually “If I disagree with the administration’s foreign policy, I must usher in fascism as fast as possible”
Heres Charlemagne the God explaining this on The View, from earlier today.
You just want to punch on leftists because they are sticking to their morals while you can-not.
From what I’ve seen, the leftist brigade on lemmy has nothing to valuable to teach anybody about “sticking to their morals”. Their moral code seems to include such inspiring leftist principles as “Ukraine was asking for it”, “It’s always NATOs fault”, “Everything Russian/China/North Korea does is ok with me!”, “Ebrahim Raisi was a hero because he stood up against western imperialism”, and other wholesome takes we could all learn from. They really know how to stick to their leftist ideals, right?
Is this the left we are supposed to be building a bridge to? The authoritarian, tankie-ridden left, that has been so brainwashed by the notion that everything is the fault of “western imperialism/colonialism” that they will happily throw their support behind any murderous regime, even those with horrific records on human rights, women’s rights, lgbtq+ rights, so long as they are fighting against those “fascist” liberal democracies?
Anarchism I can get on board with, because I admire the anti-authoritarian philosophy behind it. But most of the leftists on Lemmy are unfortunately of the “Stalin wasn’t as bad as he was made out to be” type. There is no bridge we could build that could support the weight of all those tankies.
And to be clear, I’m no big fan of the US, and I don’t live there. But I don’t have a hate-boner for western liberal democracies in general, and definitely not if the alternative is living under just another authoritarian regime that happens to be notionally “leftist”.
Technically, the Two Party system isn’t actually a thing. It is instead simply the work of Market Forces. Multiple competitors in any market, shall result in that market being split between two competitors and an also ran. Then Market Power, if abused, shall prevent any actual competition to the duopoly. Something truly disruptive is required to change that. ATM the US has a pair of more or less captured political parties market. They are in no way an official part of the Government. Nothing in the Constitution empowers them. They should have no power at all. No say in who runs nor any influence beyond whatever PR for issues they advocate. However, they worked out how to make getting elected very profitable, and thus very expensive. Rather quickly money called all the shots. Then the manipulated monster these very wealthy and connected folks created to get elected, lost their minds because a “them” got elected President, and the “useful idiot” they brought in to pacify things with some good Fascism, turned out to be in multiple pockets and beholden to no one but himself. There is your US Political History tldr;
Technically, the Two Party system isn’t actually a thing.
Nothing in the Constitution empowers them.
This part is kind of inaccurate. Because of the constitution, we use first past the post voting, which naturally devolves into a two party system. It’s like trying to build a sky scraper out of just wood. The blueprints don’t explicitly call for it to collapse, but because of the chosen materials, it is bound to happen.
first past the post voting, which naturally devolves into a two party system
This is a myth. L’ook at the legislatures of other countries that use FPTP, and count the parties that get more than 5 seats. The UK has 6, Canada 4, Russia 5 and India, my country, 11. You certainly can have more than two parties.
No it isn’t. It happens through a well known phenomenon called the spoiler effect.
L’ook at the legislatures of other countries that use FPTP, and count the parties that get more than 5 seats
The data you’ve just quoted doesn’t support your position, and this bit about 5 seats is arbitrary.
Each of those countries has 1-2 dominant parties, with the rest being involved in name only. And as another user already pointed out to you, these countries dont use pure FPTP voting. You’ve also ignored prime minister/presidential positions, because those elections especially prove that it isn’t a myth.
Local/smaller seat positions are significantly easier to win, as there is less competition, and therefore more opportunity for 3rd parties to win. But it isn’t enough, because they still get sidelined.
The spoiler effect requires voters to vote strategically, which means no third party viability.
Each of those countries has 1-2 dominant parties, with the rest being involved in name only.
In the UK, the Lib Dems have decided which of the ‘big’ parties sits in government and which in opposition. The Bloc Quebecois is one of the major parties in Quebec. In India, the two biggest parties get 50-60% of the total votes polled, and most governments are composed of multi-party coalitions. Also about a third of states have governments led by a third party.
And as another user already pointed out to you, these countries dont use pure FPTP voting.
And as I pointed out, they were wrong. The UK, Canada and India use pure FPTP, and Russia has three big parties even if you only consider the FPTP seats.
The spoiler effect requires voters to vote strategically, which means no third party viability.
Third parties cannot win only when everyone thinks they can’t win. Labour went from a small third party to forming the government in about a generation. The BJP did the same in India. At the state level, there have been many cases of a third party coming from a single-digit percentage of the vote and winning the election.
In the UK, the Lib Dems have decided which of the ‘big’ parties sits in government and which in opposition. The Bloc Quebecois is one of the major parties in Quebec. In India, the two biggest parties get 50-60% of the total votes polled, and most governments are composed of multi-party coalitions. Also about a third of states have governments led by a third party.
I am aware. But that doesn’t really change what I’ve said. You’re comparing smaller elections for seats with a big election like the U.S. president. Those elections still have 1-2 dominant parties, etc.
Third parties cannot win only when everyone thinks they can’t win.
You’re comparing smaller elections for seats with a big election like the U.S. president.
You are right. There is a difference between parliamentary and presidential systems. Parliamentary systems reward parties that are locally strong. Presidential systems require a party to have a national base. So then, the problem is not with FPTP per se, but with Presidential forms of government.
You can’t just wish away the spoiler effect.
I have already shown multiple examples of third parties under FPTP systems. I don’t know what other evidence you expect.
Technically, the Two Party system isn’t actually a thing. It is instead simply the work of Market Forces.
It’s also Article 2 of the Constitution. To wit:
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President
That last part being the main reason there’s an Either / Or in elections, e.g. two parties. Getting to First-Past-The-Post whether via electors or total popular vote turns out to be difficult for some reason. And to your point, yes, money is a major, as they say, bitch.
Which would indeed be why it is technically, not a thing. See the natural outcome of a thing is not necessarily the intent of the thing. The two party system is as you say. But that isn’t the design of the Constitutional language. It is the design of humans themselves.
Um, no. Opposition to a Fascist Kleptocracy beholden to Theocratic Fascists is not open to negotiation. My allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy!
“I also know that many compatriots voted for me, to block the ideas of the extreme right. I want to thank them and tell them that I am aware that this vote binds me for years to come. I am the guardian of their attachment to the Republic”
I think this is the key. If Biden could acknowledge his imperfections (and more broadly, the Democrats writ large), the situation would be entirely different. I don’t think people are looking for a perfect candidate, or a perfect anything, but want to see the spirit of “towards a more perfect Union” expressed in their candidates, which is something I think Macron, in that quote, does so with flourish.
All Biden would need to do is acknowledge the genocide, make the point that while still our ally, Israel has some deep issues to work on, and then point to something like the temporary pier as them “trying”. Its all kind-of a layup politically. Israel is deeply unpopular. All Biden needs to do is dribble down court and put it in. The issue with Biden seems to be deeper, that he is personally a Zionist, and has to support this genocidal cause. Its not even clear that Trump would be less extreme in this regard. Biden is as bad as he needs to be on this issue, so it becomes a non-sequiter to make the standard “But Trump” comparison here.
It really is a failure of leadership on the part of Biden, and more broadly, on progressives not splitting the ticket and having Bernie run third party in 2016. If Biden can’t move his position significantly on this issue, he can’t win. And no amount of conservative democrats punching on leftists because they find it problematic that Biden won’t back off a genocide can fix that. As one has to meet people where they are at in order to convince them of something, anything, one also needs to meet the electorate where they are at in terms of what rhetorical approaches work, and what doesn’t. The Democrats can’t abuse the left into supporting them in November.
Here’s what a french author has to say in a book on the subject, food for thought, roughly translated :
spoiler
30 minutes. 26 exactly. That is to say six times less than it takes to go from Republic to Nation during a protest. Ten times less than it takes to run a stand on animal abuse at a punk rock concert. Fifty times less than it takes to find emergency accommodation for a family of haggard Eritreans picked up on the side of a railway track near Ventimille. A hundred times less than it takes to find the articles of the Labor Code capable of solidifying the defense of an employee suspended for supposedly serious misconduct. Two hundred times less than it takes to obtain a negotiation with management in the context of a social conflict at the Gueugnon call center. Ten thousand times less than is needed to make an eco-hamlet viable. Infinite times less than it takes to ban the commercialization of digital data. Voting offers an unrivaled time-reward ratio. In less than an hour, I accomplished my sacred duty. It doesn’t cost much, as Sarkozy said of his position against gay marriage intended to flirt with the Catholic branch. It doesn’t eat bread, my grandmother would have said, who voted as scrupulously all her life as she served dinner to her husband. […]
In the election itself, the expression doubles in volume. The ballot can contain 10 letters, sometimes 15, or even 20 in the frequent case where the candidate’s surname has particles. But this surname says nothing, nor the support given to it. There are fifty shades of support for Dumoulin, candidate for the municipal elections in Brie-en-Gueugnon. Someone adheres to her charisma, someone to her promise to take control of the Water Authority, someone to her commitment to doubling the subsidy to the badminton club that she runs, someone to her ch’tis origins, someone to her husban, professor of applied mathematics, one in her project to pedestrianize the Halles district, one in her desire to rename the Poivre d’Arvor college, another in her name because he likes mills. The bulletin can mean all that and therefore says nothing. This silence leaves the elected official an infinite margin of interpretation as to what is expected of him, a margin of deafness to the voices expressed in his favor.
In 2002, myriads of naive people hoped that during his mandate Chirac would take into account those who, among his voters in the second round, had only wanted to block the path to Le Pen. But nothing forced him to. The leader of the right was constitutionally free to interpret the ballots in his favor as he wished. Nothing distinguishes a Chirac bulletin approving his liberal-authoritarian program from an anti-racist Chirac bulletin. It was open to the new elected official to decide that 100% of the 80% obtained had wanted, not a better reception of foreign workers, but the increase in the retirement age that the National Assembly under orders would soon implement.
He is free to believe that 82% of voters declared their love for him. Dedicated to his party, the UMP. Validated his new glasses. No one could have assured him, based on the vote, that he was wrong. Seeing his five-year term heading to the right, the naive people were even more naive to feel cheated. How could the president betray an expectation that had not been expressed? As such, all the ballots could be declared invalid, even the immaculate ones, even those that no ill-mannered person has soiled with an Amy Taylor president, as a friend did at the 2021 European elections. A bulletin says nothing. The election reduces citizenship to expression, and this expression says nothing.
This has happened before, this is happening right now with Macron. His words meant nothing because his actions show he did not follow up on his statement. I think something very important voters have to consider and ask themselves : What is the plan when Biden will disrespect the votes of people who did not vote for him, but voted against Trump. Who will be considered responsible for keeping him in power, when he will enact policies that were defended by the Trump side?
Last time I met a French person was on the selection process for jury duty. The dude was rightfully shocked at the entire process. Americans do not have real political education.
No, wealthy liberal county in a blue state. It could have been that other prospective jurors were also displeased with the process but were less vocal about it, I know that was me. Trying to keep my head down so I get picked (serving on a jury while being aware of juror’s rights is one of the best direct actions you can take. use knowledge of juror nullification.)
From a European perspective, this debate is saddening, because it results in people alienating voters if they didn’t pick the “right” option, where “right” is whatever moral position you want them to have, on the basis of putting onto them a direct responsibility of an unwanted result, from their indirect action. It is your responsibility to campaign for your own party, and this is not a way to convince people to vote, nor join your side. Your two-party political system is ruining any possibility of political debate for smaller parties, and you end up silencing the voices of minorities that aren’t represented by your two monoliths, all thanks to your holier-than-thou attitude. The people voting for Trump are the ones who will get Trump elected, not the people voting for whoever supports their political affiliations, not participating in your dirty voting shenanigans. The only thing you’re achieving is guilt tripping someone you could otherwise convince to vote for another party, and pushing them away, making sure they will not vote in your favour next time.
We had the same thing happen in France, where voters were consistently asked to vote against a party for the presidential elections, rather than for the party that represents their ideals. In 2022, upon being elected Emmanuel Macron declared “I also know that many compatriots voted for me, to block the ideas of the extreme right. I want to thank them and tell them that I am aware that this vote binds me for years to come. I am the guardian of their attachment to the Republic”, and then proceeded over the next few years to apply a political program that would make Le Pen proud. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Here are some articles on the subject of “useful vote”, translate at your convenience :
And a quote from a random internet user, roughly translated :
This is the only time I’ll interact on the subject, because I know how abrasive it is, but I felt some are in dire need of a reality check. You may disagree because your political culture, landscape, education… are quite different from the ones I experienced so far, but please engage in respectful discussions about it, provide sensible arguments, and don’t downvote just because you read something that doesn’t validate your feelings. If there’s someone you need to blame for Biden’s potential failure to get elected, it’s him for not running a better campaign to get enough votes, and yourself for vilifying other voters for not sheepily following your orders. These scare tactics are no better than dictatorial behaviours.
Edit : here’s a book that will better explain what I’m trying to say https://www.editionsdivergences.com/livre/comment-soccuper-un-dimanche-delection
Ah, yes, the REAL fascism is when you tell people voting for fascism is bad. Great.
I accept to believe that you skipped the entire comment to only react to the last sentence, and I will not partake in discussing with you. Good day.
No, I read everything except the links. It’s the normal “Democracy isn’t real because democracy involves strategic decisions on the part of voters” spiel from people who don’t take their civic duty seriously, and instead think of voting as a kind of virtue masturbation for their own gratification instead of being involved in making political choices of the polity, which necessarily involves compromise and deeply imperfect choices.
Always comes off as pathetic ‘last-wording’ when someone takes the time to reply “I’m not going to talk to you.” when you could have just stopped talking to them.
Maybe because I took the time to write a lenghty comment contributing to the discussion, which they purposefully decided to ignore with a snarky remark? I am open to debating on the subject, but not with an intellectually dishonest or dismissive attitude.
Truly amazing you completely missed the very simple point I was making.
I’m sorry- did my comment ‘disturb’ you- lol. You need thicker skin but feel free to report me.
Please enlighten me on said point ? I’m trying to contribute to the discussion. Why would I interact with not only their, but now your dismissive comments on such a complex topic ?
And blocked them. I mean, these kinds of threads are a sort of gold mine. (In general, I mean, not in this specific instance)
@[email protected] is actively working to separate the left from the Democrats and has acknowledged as much. You have no obligation to engage with them in good faith. Their approach to rhetoric and dismissiveness of legitimate reasons why someone might find it impossible or deeply immoral to vote for a candidate that promotes genocide is fundamental to why we see such a fractured caucus today. @[email protected] isn’t interested in fixing it or addressing the concerns of people who find Biden problematic, but rather, in trotting out recycled tropes from another failed cause, the 2016 Clinton campaign.
Its a basic lesson of history in American politics that you can’t beat likely Democratic voters into voting for you. @[email protected] 's approach to this is identical to that of the 2016 Clinton campaign: You owe them your vote; Vote Democrat or else. But this approach to rhetoric is a demonstrated failure. You actually do have to meet them where they are at and address their concerns if you want to convince people of something, anything. Its what the Biden campaign should be doing, and if @[email protected] really cared about Biden’s chances in November, they too would be doing as much.
@[email protected] isn’t interested in that, and is not arguing or participating in good faith. They are working to further divide the coalition that got Biden elected, and are actively working to diminish the chances of a second Democratic term. I think they are doing so out of ignorant naivety and I do not attribute malice, but honestly, why you do things is ultimately secondary to what you are doing,
Perhaps you should tag me again, just to really emphasize that I’m being far too mean to people who only want to usher in fascism, and what I REALLY should be doing is patting them on the head and telling them how valid it is that they’re sending people to death camps to feel good about themselves. :)
Thank you and no worries on the tagging, I’ll make sure to tag you again in the future.
I appreciate you being a foil so that we can put you and your rhetoric on display. Its reflective of the broader paradigm we see playing out and is useful for people to understand.
In doing so, I think we are moving the needle by demonstrating to people that this approach (your approach; the Hillary 2016 approach) of abusing people into voting is truly costing us this election.
So thank you. I really do appreciate your willingness to just remove the mask and make it clear that you are not interested in defeating Trump this election cycle.
Since its come up a few times now and is the currently underlying the theme of this discussion, I’d be interested to get your take on AOC’s interpretation of electoralism. In context, how do you argue you motivate a base for a candidate like Joe Biden where the candidates policies are such an extreme departure from that of the voters?
https://youtu.be/TBoqy5Tx6U8?si=fOQucO_gJHTa3IRV&t=1631
Oh, these third party voters would come back and vote for Biden, if only Biden supporters were nice to them? Is that it? How curious.
That’s curious, considering my position is that defeating Trump is what actually matters, rather than getting fuzzies because you oh-so-nobly voted third party and let fascism win and murder huge swathes of your fellow Americans.
Jesus. Do you really think Biden’s policies are an ‘extreme departure’ from that of the voters? I’d like to hear you lay that argument out, just for laughs.
EDIT: And, of course you couldn’t articulate the ‘extreme departure’ or even attempt to. Because that would involve examining the American electorate, which is much further right than you’d like. Predictable.
I mean, you know that’s not true. We all know that’s not true, you’ve even said so yourself, and your even doing so in this response.
You don’t want to grow the base of voters for against Trump. You just want to punch on leftists because they are sticking to their morals while you can-not.
In doing so, you are costing Biden any shot he has. You could be trying to build a bridge, instead, you’ve focused on burning them down. You’ve said as much yourself. Your approach to rhetoric is directly supporting Trump, and are clearly aware of that.
Which further highlights my question. Go watch the clip. Its only 3 minutes. What do you think of what AOC has to say on electoral-ism, and how do you expect your intentional divisiveness/ fragmentation approach to rhetoric to play into that? Like, if Biden can’t get elected without leftists, and you are working to separate leftists from the Democrats, what exactly is your plan to get Biden elected?
Heres Charlemagne the God explaining this on The View, from earlier today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgI3jq3UFY8
Oh? Here I thought my morals were “Fascism is bad, and should be prevented”. Uh, thanks for informing me that my morals were actually “If I disagree with the administration’s foreign policy, I must usher in fascism as fast as possible”
Jesus. You’re serious, aren’t you.
From what I’ve seen, the leftist brigade on lemmy has nothing to valuable to teach anybody about “sticking to their morals”. Their moral code seems to include such inspiring leftist principles as “Ukraine was asking for it”, “It’s always NATOs fault”, “Everything Russian/China/North Korea does is ok with me!”, “Ebrahim Raisi was a hero because he stood up against western imperialism”, and other wholesome takes we could all learn from. They really know how to stick to their leftist ideals, right?
Is this the left we are supposed to be building a bridge to? The authoritarian, tankie-ridden left, that has been so brainwashed by the notion that everything is the fault of “western imperialism/colonialism” that they will happily throw their support behind any murderous regime, even those with horrific records on human rights, women’s rights, lgbtq+ rights, so long as they are fighting against those “fascist” liberal democracies?
Anarchism I can get on board with, because I admire the anti-authoritarian philosophy behind it. But most of the leftists on Lemmy are unfortunately of the “Stalin wasn’t as bad as he was made out to be” type. There is no bridge we could build that could support the weight of all those tankies.
And to be clear, I’m no big fan of the US, and I don’t live there. But I don’t have a hate-boner for western liberal democracies in general, and definitely not if the alternative is living under just another authoritarian regime that happens to be notionally “leftist”.
As another European it is difficult to see the Americans constantly fight over voting. The two party system is definitely the issue here.
Either way well said.
Technically, the Two Party system isn’t actually a thing. It is instead simply the work of Market Forces. Multiple competitors in any market, shall result in that market being split between two competitors and an also ran. Then Market Power, if abused, shall prevent any actual competition to the duopoly. Something truly disruptive is required to change that. ATM the US has a pair of more or less captured political parties market. They are in no way an official part of the Government. Nothing in the Constitution empowers them. They should have no power at all. No say in who runs nor any influence beyond whatever PR for issues they advocate. However, they worked out how to make getting elected very profitable, and thus very expensive. Rather quickly money called all the shots. Then the manipulated monster these very wealthy and connected folks created to get elected, lost their minds because a “them” got elected President, and the “useful idiot” they brought in to pacify things with some good Fascism, turned out to be in multiple pockets and beholden to no one but himself. There is your US Political History tldr;
This part is kind of inaccurate. Because of the constitution, we use first past the post voting, which naturally devolves into a two party system. It’s like trying to build a sky scraper out of just wood. The blueprints don’t explicitly call for it to collapse, but because of the chosen materials, it is bound to happen.
While the rest of what you said is true though.
this is not causal
This is a myth. L’ook at the legislatures of other countries that use FPTP, and count the parties that get more than 5 seats. The UK has 6, Canada 4, Russia 5 and India, my country, 11. You certainly can have more than two parties.
No it isn’t. It happens through a well known phenomenon called the spoiler effect.
The data you’ve just quoted doesn’t support your position, and this bit about 5 seats is arbitrary.
Each of those countries has 1-2 dominant parties, with the rest being involved in name only. And as another user already pointed out to you, these countries dont use pure FPTP voting. You’ve also ignored prime minister/presidential positions, because those elections especially prove that it isn’t a myth.
Local/smaller seat positions are significantly easier to win, as there is less competition, and therefore more opportunity for 3rd parties to win. But it isn’t enough, because they still get sidelined.
The spoiler effect requires voters to vote strategically, which means no third party viability.
I never knew basic math could upset so many people.
It’s truly frightening.
Fair. I had to put a cut-off somewhere.
In the UK, the Lib Dems have decided which of the ‘big’ parties sits in government and which in opposition. The Bloc Quebecois is one of the major parties in Quebec. In India, the two biggest parties get 50-60% of the total votes polled, and most governments are composed of multi-party coalitions. Also about a third of states have governments led by a third party.
And as I pointed out, they were wrong. The UK, Canada and India use pure FPTP, and Russia has three big parties even if you only consider the FPTP seats.
Third parties cannot win only when everyone thinks they can’t win. Labour went from a small third party to forming the government in about a generation. The BJP did the same in India. At the state level, there have been many cases of a third party coming from a single-digit percentage of the vote and winning the election.
I am aware. But that doesn’t really change what I’ve said. You’re comparing smaller elections for seats with a big election like the U.S. president. Those elections still have 1-2 dominant parties, etc.
You can’t just wish away the spoiler effect.
You are right. There is a difference between parliamentary and presidential systems. Parliamentary systems reward parties that are locally strong. Presidential systems require a party to have a national base. So then, the problem is not with FPTP per se, but with Presidential forms of government.
I have already shown multiple examples of third parties under FPTP systems. I don’t know what other evidence you expect.
your fiction, helpfully pointed out by the star wars characters, is based on a non-falsifiable theory. it’s not science, it’s storytelling.
It’s a graphic that shows how the spoiler effect works. Relax
it’s a fiction.
also, biden isn’t depicted in your analogy at all. he’s more like the emporer: more experienced as a statesman, older, but even more evil.
That’s kind of unavoidable when comparing politicians to what ultimately equate to super heroes and super villans.
The point of that graphic is to show how the spoiler effect works, not to say that Biden is good.
Biden is old and evil, but preferable to Trump.
that’s not a reason to vote for him if there are candidates i don’t think are evil.
It’s also Article 2 of the Constitution. To wit:
That last part being the main reason there’s an Either / Or in elections, e.g. two parties. Getting to First-Past-The-Post whether via electors or total popular vote turns out to be difficult for some reason. And to your point, yes, money is a major, as they say, bitch.
Small clarification:
*Article 2.
Yeek. Fixed, thanks.
Which would indeed be why it is technically, not a thing. See the natural outcome of a thing is not necessarily the intent of the thing. The two party system is as you say. But that isn’t the design of the Constitutional language. It is the design of humans themselves.
Um, no. Opposition to a Fascist Kleptocracy beholden to Theocratic Fascists is not open to negotiation. My allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy!
I think this is the key. If Biden could acknowledge his imperfections (and more broadly, the Democrats writ large), the situation would be entirely different. I don’t think people are looking for a perfect candidate, or a perfect anything, but want to see the spirit of “towards a more perfect Union” expressed in their candidates, which is something I think Macron, in that quote, does so with flourish.
All Biden would need to do is acknowledge the genocide, make the point that while still our ally, Israel has some deep issues to work on, and then point to something like the temporary pier as them “trying”. Its all kind-of a layup politically. Israel is deeply unpopular. All Biden needs to do is dribble down court and put it in. The issue with Biden seems to be deeper, that he is personally a Zionist, and has to support this genocidal cause. Its not even clear that Trump would be less extreme in this regard. Biden is as bad as he needs to be on this issue, so it becomes a non-sequiter to make the standard “But Trump” comparison here.
It really is a failure of leadership on the part of Biden, and more broadly, on progressives not splitting the ticket and having Bernie run third party in 2016. If Biden can’t move his position significantly on this issue, he can’t win. And no amount of conservative democrats punching on leftists because they find it problematic that Biden won’t back off a genocide can fix that. As one has to meet people where they are at in order to convince them of something, anything, one also needs to meet the electorate where they are at in terms of what rhetorical approaches work, and what doesn’t. The Democrats can’t abuse the left into supporting them in November.
Here’s what a french author has to say in a book on the subject, food for thought, roughly translated :
spoiler
This has happened before, this is happening right now with Macron. His words meant nothing because his actions show he did not follow up on his statement. I think something very important voters have to consider and ask themselves : What is the plan when Biden will disrespect the votes of people who did not vote for him, but voted against Trump. Who will be considered responsible for keeping him in power, when he will enact policies that were defended by the Trump side?
https://www.editionsdivergences.com/livre/comment-soccuper-un-dimanche-delection
Last time I met a French person was on the selection process for jury duty. The dude was rightfully shocked at the entire process. Americans do not have real political education.
Out of curiosity, was this in a Red State?
No, wealthy liberal county in a blue state. It could have been that other prospective jurors were also displeased with the process but were less vocal about it, I know that was me. Trying to keep my head down so I get picked (serving on a jury while being aware of juror’s rights is one of the best direct actions you can take. use knowledge of juror nullification.)