*Long term effects of a broken 2 party voting system…
FTFY
More like the Overton Window at work actually.
Biden will likely end up as one of the top 5 most progressive presidents ever. Society expects more from Democrats than they would’ve previously. There’s nothing wrong w/ that, but the argument being presented seems misguided and like both sides nihilism.
Biden will likely end up as one of the top 5 most progressive presidents ever.
Biden will be remembered as the president with dementia who butchered Gaza.
That’s unfair, he’ll also be remembered for supporting segregation
That’s unfair, he’ll also be remembered for supporting the electoral college
that’s unfair, he’ll also be remembered for keeping ICE camps from trump.
exactly. i thought Biden was the shit until Gaza. now, I dont even care about him at all. he’s just another politician.
Biden will likely end up as one of the top 5 most progressive presidents ever.
He’s not even in the top 5 now.
Ah yes, so the best option is to not vote and let them succeed unimpeded.
I’m all for voting for a better candidate, but we have a broken 2 party system, and it very much is if you don’t vote for one of the two main parties, you are pretty much just not voting at all.
I don’t vote for this person. I’m voting against that person.
Ah yes, so the best option is to not vote and let them succeed unimpeded.
Your very first lines are a false dichotomy.
Ah yes, so the best option is to not vote and let them succeed unimpeded.
The best option is to scream at anyone who isn’t fucking delighted that your side of the party has moved so far to the right that they’re supporting genocide.
No one can gripe about your shit wing of the party.
In my country we stopped voting the socdem party, because they betrayed the workers. From one election to the next they lost like half the votes.
For 4 years the conservative party ruled. But after that the socdem change their politics we voted them again and had had a fairly leftist government for the last year.
They are slacking again so I plan not to vote next election, hoping thar more people get the memo, they sink again in votes and sit to think on why people felt betrayed, and change for the better.
4 years of conservative party were worthy giving that after the socdems turned left again we conquer a lot of things that we wouldn’t have gotten otherwise if we would have keep on voting their moderate centrist version.
In the US the ruling party fills lifetime judicial appointments, which means the 4 years of conservative rule can have decades of lasting impact that will thwart any progressive policies that the next leftish government tries to implement.
Then they better fucking learn quick, huh?
You can get around the courts. FDR did.
Dems have been nothing but a doormat for the last 30 years, the party of complicity. I’m absolutely positive they’ve been playing the dupe and moving the US further to the right all the while playing the victim.
Could have fixed the electoral college but didn’t. Could have codified abortion into the constitution but didn’t. Could have filled RBGs supreme court seat without Senate confirmation regardless of the pearl clutching, but didn’t. Could have put pressure on the justice department to get their investigation done with to get the trial for Trump for treason at least started…but fuck me, they didn’t… seriously- they couldn’t put a case together in 3 years???
Could have, should have, would have. Fucking useless.
I agree, but also stand by my point. In a horrible 2 party system, they’re simply “not conservative”, and so I’m forced to vote for them. That being said, Bernie should have won.
Bernie got railroaded.
They are conservative though.
OK, what else do you suggest? Not voting? That just speeds the process up. Voting for the small but much better option? In a FPTP voting system (like the American one that I assume you’re talking about), the spoiler effect means that’s as good as not voting.
This is my issue with the leftist community in general, and especially the ml group. Because of idealism, they seem to ask for something that doesn’t exist and not accept anything else.
I think you’re missing several things. First, if the phenomenon is accurate, and it is, then the burden is on you to figure out how to stop getting played. Don’t ask other people to solve your problems. Recognize your problems, and then work to solve them directly.
Second, the spoiler effect doesn’t exist unless you’re in a swing state. But how many Americans were told that they have to vote for Harris or they’re supporting Trump, when in fact their state was nowhere close to 50/50 so realistically they could have voted for anyone?
Third, there is no single leftist community. There are many different leftist communities that overlap and agree on various points. Also, you’re suggesting that leftists are idealist, but that’s not the truth. We all recognize the current situation, and we’re trying to make a better one, but you’re not. In other words, your cynicism has caused you to throw in the towel, and to accept the current reality as permanent, unchangeable, it sucks but there’s nothing you can do, and that’s certainly true if you believe it.
then the burden is on you to figure out how to stop getting played. Don’t ask other people to solve your problems
Sorry, but how the fuck did you get to that opinion? Sharing knowledge and ideas is how humanity thrives, but unless I’m misunderstanding you you’re saying that we should each individually find a solution to the problem we are all in together.
the spoiler effect doesn’t exist unless you’re in a swing state
The spoiler effect will always exist to some extent in any FPTP system. Sure, it won’t make nearly as much difference in a one sided state as it will in a swing state, but the effect still exists, and makes it much harder for a better party to gain traction while not losing a lot of ground in the mean time.
how many Americans were told that they have to vote for Harris or they’re supporting Trump
The people that didn’t believe this and so didn’t vote are probably the reason that Trump won the popular vote, and that the republicans have a majority in the senate and the house.
you’re suggesting that leftists are idealist, but that’s not the truth
Acting like “voting for the lesser evil is evil and therefore unacceptable” seems pretty idealist to me. I’m well aware that most people here are aware of how shit the world is, and are doing their part to improve it, which is something I appreciate and want to support. It’s just that from what I can tell, the recent US election was the wrong place for idealism.
we’re trying to make a better one, but you’re not
Sorry, mate, but don’t assume. I’m not american, I’m kiwi. And since we don’t have a completely shit voting system, I always vote as a huge idealist and never vote for one of the big two, because in MMP that’s not a wasted vote.
your cynicism has caused you to throw in the towel, and to accept the current reality as permanent, unchangeable
No. I’ve just accepted that, at least for this cycle of US elections, the better approach would be playing defensive. It’s not that the current reality is unchangeable, it’s that positive change will be very slow.
OK, what else do you suggest?
I suggest that the party take the fucking hint and move to the left. But that’s not an option you will consider.
That’s absolutely an option I would consider, but it’s not an option that 99% of people can actually act on.
Well, shouting at the electorate to shut up and love genocide because it’s the “lesser” evil didn’t work.
As good as that video is, he ignores the strength elections have as damage control. Yes, large positive change needs the sort of efforts he’s describing, but ignoring voting means a bad government will have far more opportunity to undo progress.
Really, the biggest takeaway from that video is that there are more tools than simply voting and protesting, which I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with.
As good as that video is, he ignores the strength elections have as damage control.
Was supporting genocide “damage control?”
Supporting the lesser evil is damage control. Yes, Harris is far from great, but Trump is far worse.
Was supporting genocide “damage control?”
Here’s the question I asked.
That’s the question I answered.
Which would you rather support?
- Genocide
- Genocide + fascism + other bad shit (probably including genocide 2)
Pick one or give an alternative and a good reason that it will have some effect.
The lesser evil in this situation is genocide without all the other shit, and supporting that is therefore damage control
Sorry, I thought I made it clear. What Biden did when he supported genocide for you is not “damage control” even though you love him for it.
When a non-evil person reaches the conclusion that a government is unavoidably committing genocide, there next thought is “how can we bring about the end of this government?”, not “how can I maintain the good times for me personally?”. But Democrats are callous psychopaths.
Also, it’s already fascism you ghoul.
I don’t think you got the main point of the video. Not only “large” change needs these efforts. Any progressive change does. As soon as there is no pressure by mass movements, politicians will drift to strengthen their power, which means moving to the right.
So the only way to keep and maintain a progressive government is to teleport from where we are now to the desired outcome? Is that the argument of the video?
If so, that seems not currently feasible.
Maybe you should watch it, then you don’t have to ask such an ignorant question.
Sounds like you aren’t clear on what that video is suggesting either. Why should I spend time to watch a video that no one seems to have understood?
I’m quite clear: electoral politics is merely a distraction for left/progressive forces. Rather, you should organize with your fellow exploited siblings and built opposing power structures from the bottom up.
He demands the opposite than wishful thinking, or “teleporting”.
OK, what else do you suggest?
Not many ask.
Because of idealism, they seem to ask for something that doesn’t exist and not accept anything else.
This is my issue with almost everyone. They believe they already know what others think, that no one could possibly have an alternative that they’ve not already considered.
My suggestions are as follows: Consider that your scope of evaluation is only one cycle. As a consequence there may be nuance in system function that you’d not considered. Then ask the same question but in good faith.
Do you simply have no answer, or are you withholding them so you can feel smug?
Do you simply have no answer, or are you withholding them so you can feel smug?
false dichotomy
not many ask
Yes, they do ask a lot, at least a far as I’ve seen. I still haven’t seen a good alternative to voting for the lesser evil in a FPTP system.
They believe they already know what others think
My opinion on that was based on the whole “don’t vote for Harris, she’ll support genocide” thing I saw earlier this year. If I’m wrong about that, or anything else, I’m more than happy to be corrected.
no one could possibly have an alternative that they’ve not already considered
Most people don’t think that no one could have a good alternative, they just don’t know of anyone who does.
your scope of evaluation is only one cycle
You’re assuming that’s my only scope. Both the short term and the long term are important, but from what I’ve seen the short term tends to get ignored in this sort of community.
bad citizen. Bad!
do you mean of not voting for them?
people don’t vote, democrats lose, they think it’s because they’re too far left and move further to the right. meanwhile republican victories embolden them to push even harder into fascism
people don’t vote, democrats lose, they think it’s because they’re too far left and move further to the right.
People vote, Democrats win, they think it’s because they moved to the right and so they move further to the right. The sun comes up in the morning and they move further to the right.
I’m not an American but I would argue that Biden’s resignation was in part due to people threatening to not vote. This wasn’t a move to the left but organized threats of not voting can make a difference.
Personally, I would vote for the lesser evil unless there was some kind of organized movement. Where I live, we have more than 2 evils to choose from and I choose the smallest of them.
Biden was incapable of clearly communicating verbally for 2 hours straight in a debate. I’d argue that Biden stayed in as long as he did to enable them to feel empowered to force another Kamala on us rather than having to deal with a Warren, Sanders or even a Buttigieg winning the Primary. Kamala was 6th in line in the Primary when she dropped out in 2020.
Good point
I vote for them, they move right. I don’t vote for them, and vote third party, they move right. I join their party and vote in their primary’s for progressive candidates, they move right.
It’s almost like a bunch of really old, well off, lifetime establishment government folks just actually want to be conservative authoritarians. At BEST they are stuck in a mindset of 1969’s ideas of what progressive politics are because that is when they became politicians.
They’ve obviously lost the thread and who could blame them? They’ve been locked up with conservatives for 50+ years. That would be enough to have me blow my brains out.
The point is the whole DNC is a rotten corpse. Maybe at one time the candidates had an ideology but now they’ve fought every fight they’re willing to fight and just want to be old and not bothered. Except they don’t want to give up their power. Which is frightening. From their perspective they’ve only made it this far by clenching tight to power for as long as they could and can’t imagine a world where they just live at harmony with people around them. They lose all their clout. No one needs them anymore and they rot to nothing. That’s the fear at least.
Everyday I’m more convinced the thing that got us where we are is American hyper competitive mentality. We have to work endlessly. We have to score the best grades. We have to make the most money.
Why can’t we just take pride in living peacefully. This is what all the Trumpers are upset about, honestly. They want to be able to live in their podunk town. Doing their unimportant job. Liking the same things their mommy and daddy liked and be unbothered. Culturally that’s fucked and we’ve seen why but idealistically it’s fine. We need unimportant people to do unimportant things and be more or less just like the ones who came before. So why not reward it?
I’m rambling.
Us commies weren’t always “far” left.
Removed by mod
Oh my. You win the argument today!
Thank you, thank you for taking the time to put together such a meaningful and well thought-out comment. We are all slightly better off because you paused your surely very important work and gave us your insights.
Removed by mod
a system where you get served only two options to vote for but are held responsible for the outcome instead of those who limited the available options in the first place?
eh yes, you are right, this is stupid.
as a completely unrelated sidenote:
“winner takes it all” is the actual opposite of democracy, no matter how the voting was done, and this fact can already be read 1:1 within those 4 simple words 😉
Removed by mod
Care to explain?
The argument is when there are more than 2 options a majority of people would not have selected the “winner” over any of the other individual losers. Therefore majority rule is an illusion, democracy is self-contradictory!!!
However, by reducing the options to just 2 you no longer have the same result and “democracy” is more “self-consistent”. You can do this in a fair/Democratic way by “simulating” the pairwise interactions (IE ranked choice voting, pairwise majority rule, etc.) or by establishing a false dichotomy (2 party systems, left v right spectrum, etc.).
This is not ‘not a thing’ but it’s a really old idea and is largely solved (ie. Distributed networks like the social media platform we are currently on, or stuff like this).
However, the claim isn’t entirely misplaced as modern social institutions refuse to implement any of those methods because it would be against their best interests as those in power are deeply unpopular (yes, especially your favourites whoever that may be). So yes almost all “Democratic” systems you interact with on a daily basis are inherently self-contradictory on the most cursory of examinations, but they dont have to be.
Removed by mod
I just wish those campaigning were required to provide policy ideas/plans for what they want to do, and where they want the money to come from. In an ideal world I would give the candidates 0 face time, possibly even no names to the public at first. (Would never work but would be interesting)
The options get a set of questions framed around current events, past events, and possible future events that they would give detailed responses to how they would have, would currently or would plan for those events. No party affiliations known. Eliminate contenders from the list by most accepted answers from the lists bringing it from say 50 candidates to 25, then 10, then 5, the 3 then 1. The election period is 6 months. No prior rallys, no posturing, no ads, and no names tied to the responses so no one cares about popularity.
The President is whomever wins 1st, Vice President 2nd, and 3rd place is placed on stand-by but works directly with both members to stay informed. If at any time a person makes decisions as president that the other 2 do not believe coorelate with the responses they gave to the people, they call an emergency vote to veto that directive, and recall a ranked choice vote where the population votes for all 3, where the 1st takes the presidency, 2nd VP, 3rd taking the back seat.
Would be fucking crazy, but at least itd be more fun than what we have now…
I don’t think it’s crazy in the slightest and see no reason why it “would never work”, it’s just not a conservative idea. Why did you feel the need to minimize it so?
Removed by mod
Democracy is mathematically impossible.
if democracy was not possible, how does it come that the greek did democracy and it is said they were once overrun in a war because of beeing democratic? if something was a cause for a turn of a war, i pretty much believe it to really exist, no matter what some kind of half baked formulars “predicted” once.
if democracy existed and your math says thats not possible, i’ld guess your math might simply be ‘slightly’ wrong about it or was created with (un-)intentional biases in mind ;-)
just to note:
in the history of human predictions based on thought through and wordly/mathmatically described rules, the most common thing afterwards was, that those rules and also their predictions were just fundamentally wrong and biased.
Or we can go directly to the bottom frame like we’re gonna do - but go ahead and keep rationalizing why your moral pedestal was too lofty to vote for Kamala.
Only fascists can be accurately represented by Kamala Harris.
So you really think we’re better off with Bonespurs? Cuz realistically he was the only other viable choice, and reality trumps moral purity pedestals.
Too many commenters here do not understand anything about how any of it works, especially how first past the post voting works. Progressives do not seem to understand that the system has not rejected them, but the voters have.
It is mostly relentless propaganda for the oligarchs that has captured the country. That’s the problem, and it is not fixed by any of the suggestions here.
IMO the only way around this problem in the USA is to either (A) get a third party to the point of legitimacy where people will take them seriously be winning seats in the house and senate, and eventually running for the presidency, or (B) win a primary in one of the two major parties. By election day there is nothing to do but vote for the least worst option.
Gotta switch to Approval Voting for single-seat elections and the proportional variant for legislatures.
Your caption totally doesn’t match these graphs.
‘The lesser evil’ might as well be left (leaning) from the majorities POV. In that case the shift would be to the left. And furthermore you seem to be assuming that this shift continues because you keep voting for the ‘lesser evil’?
I think that’s contradictory. Voting for someone is telling them you like their course best. Why would they change their course if they are already getting the votes? (Or leading the polls?) They would only do so to capture another parties audience - and only if their own ideas are not popular (enough). So the contrary is true: Parties tend towards whoever is getting more votes.
Having to vote for a ‘lesser evil’ just means your system is broken, corrupt, or you feel like you have no other option. In functioning democratic systems, you will see fluctuations based on the general sentiment towards current topics. What’s currently going on tends to have a much more significant impact on voters than any ideals.
To give you a very simplistic example: Economy bad -> People vote for guy who (they think) will fix it. This was a big factor in Trumps victory for example.
With only manufactured circumstance tomfuel completely arbitrary result.
Wow.
Stay in school, kids.
There is a better way! Ranked choice voting means no more voting for the lesser of two evils. Look into fo yourselves and others - vote to change the voting systems near you!
Five states banned RCV this past election. You’ll never guess which group made that happen. But hey, both parties are bad.
RCV won’t fix bourgeois democracy anyway.
Not in isolation, no. We have it in Australia, but we’re not socialist.
But I’d say first past the post voting is antithetical to democracy and one ought to fight to remove it.
Fixed
Yep, that’s why I always vote for the bigger evil.
Accelerationism is more ethical than neoliberal denial. By voting for the bigger evil you’ve made yourself the lesser evil.
