• bradinutah@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is the way. It is possible and unlikely to have a third party win under the right conditions, like with how the Republican Party became a national party after Lincoln was elected as a third party candidate. But ultimately there will always only be two parties with the outdated FPTP voting method. If only George Washington knew about and pushed for a better voting system than FPTP.

      • Norah - She/They
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        3 months ago

        I don’t think they really existed yet in his era. You’ve got to remember that Australia, a much younger country, invented the secret ballot. It was known as the “Australian Ballot” for a long time.

        • bradinutah@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          Better systems existed but to your point, they were not well known.

          Leaders today, with access to Wikipedia if not researchers with Nobel prizes, do NOT have this excuse.

          • Norah - She/They
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            3 months ago

            Well yes, obviously. The issue with today is that the incumbency of the system makes it hard to change

        • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          I don’t think they really existed yet in his era

          In 1294-1621 the election of the Pope used Approval voting. Venice also used it.

          Australia, a much younger country, invented the secret ballot

          The election of the Pope required secret ballot since 1621. And the concept existed since Ancient Greece and was used in elections and courts of Roman Republic.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        IMO, it’s not the full story to say the Republican party was a third party that year. The previous opposition to the Democrats had a rift and came apart. I think you are underselling what “the right conditions” are. This is more like a new party filling a void.

        That year the Democrats themselves (regressives as this was well before Southern Strategy) split into two. Running both a candidate for “states’ rights” style slavery and another for “fuck you, slavery everywhere” style slavery.

      • index@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        All it takes is a bunch of celebrities endorsing third parties and it’s done. At some point in your lifetime you will probably see a third party winning in the usa and it will simply happen with media and celebrities redirecting everyone vote. It happens all the time in other countries: people get tired of the local rulers and to keep protests and disorder at bay the government through mass media redirects attentions to a new and fresh party that already got bribed and corrupted by the ruling class.

    • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      3 months ago

      In Australia government funding is distributed to political parties based on the number of first preference votes they get as well so even if your first choice doesn’t get in, you still helped them by putting them first.

    • index@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      Math doesn’t decide what people vote, they are free to vote anything they want. Parties don’t automatically side with each others because another is most likely to win. This video is rooted in the mindset that politics and elections are a horse race between left and right.

      What’s preventing third parties from winning it’s not math but the propaganda and the power of the red and blue party. The ruling parties didn’t become this powerful mathematically. Over decades and centuries the ruling class paved their way and ensured their power with violence and repression.

  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    No, no, THIS time protest-voting to allow fascism will work to usher in a real left-wing movement in this country, promise! /s

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      this way of thinking assumes that having “muhh team” win will result any change, when historical record shows that the two party system has degraded quality of life for most people over last 40 years with no end in sight.

      but sure keep voting for your team lol we can revisit this topic when we are all living hand to mouth and have even less economic power

      • roofuskit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        3 months ago

        That is not at all what the comment you replied to meant. Anyone with reading comprehension would know that.

          • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            31
            ·
            3 months ago

            Splitting the vote allows an opening for fascists to take control with a minority of support, like they do.

            • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              ahh yes… muhh team right, vote for my guy, trust me bro 🤡

              Anyway, the two party regime is the same guy, y’all can keep doing these mental gymnastics but people are taking notice. why keep doing the same thing and expect different result?

              You can keep voting for your “guy” while some will vote third party as protest vote to deny the regime legitimacy.

              • ochi_chernye@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                18
                ·
                3 months ago

                Can you see that you’re arguing against fictitious strawmen? You seem to be operating under the delusion that for all the dumb normies who have “bought into” the existing two-party system, politics is just a game that they play without understanding. You’ve reduced them all to NPC’s who lack the capacity to reason; obviously their only motivation could be mindless conformity to their “team”.

                Is it your contention that it doesn’t matter what party controls the branches of government, because they’re both the same? While this is factually inaccurate, it would at least be in line with the actions you’re advocating. Speaking of which, how exactly do you imagine a “protest” vote would deny the subsequently elected government legitimacy? What force and effect do you foresee that action producing? Because anyone with a working knowledge of our electoral system can tell you that the only discernable result will be the empowerment of the minority party, which in this case seeks a fascist overthrow of our democratic system.

                What you’re doing here is applying shallow, childish logic to a complex and nuanced problem, while pretending to have some high-minded motivations which—if they exist at all—clearly haven’t been thought through.

    • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      No you won’t.
      But if you put the door in while building the house (local and primary elections) you’ll have installed it at the right time.

      • metaStatic@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        so not only would you have an extra door you’d still be smarter than people voting 3rd party in a first past the post system. Win/Win

      • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Depends on how cheap the drywall is.

        You may avoid brain damage, but your get cancer form the dust on the way through.

    • OpenStars@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      Especially if you ram that not-door long, hard, deep, and strong enough, really get up in there and penetrate that wall. If you run out of steam you could even switch to an electric appliance, but in that case be gentle (though not too gentle…).

      Um… I’m not sure where this is going, and at this point I’m afraid to continue? 😔

    • Caveman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      You’ll get a boatload of spoiler effect elections until people start voting tactically again. Third parties need to start locally and not participate in the presidential elections for a long time.

      There is a path to voter reform by creating hung parliament and require voter reform in a coalition agreement. Once dominant running for governor or a senator becomes possible.

      • _thebrain_@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        3 months ago

        I have high hopes but my logical side says they can just be pandering like any of the other politicians: they know people support it, they know it will fail. They look good for backing it even tho they aren’t worried about changing the status quo either

        • minnow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          37
          ·
          3 months ago

          IIRC two states and several major cities have also successfully implemented rank choice, and in every case it’s been because of Democrats.

          As more and more local governments make the change, it’ll become more popular and gain more support on the national level.

    • Lauchs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      If people vote in the primaries for candidates who support ranked choice voting, then yes.

        • Lauchs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Check at the state level. A few states have introduced ranked choice, your state may have someone in the mix trying to make it a thing where you live!

        • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Political regime is captured by AIPAC, they must be forced to register as a foreign agent, otherwise genocide will continue until arabs are not longer living within Palestine.

  • roofuskit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    3 months ago

    But but, building a real third party from the ground up in local elections and/or changing our voting system from first past the post takes a lot of time and real effort. That’s a lot of hard work. It’s a lot harder than just showing up to one election every 4 years and casting a vote that makes you feel like you’re special and smarter than everyone else.

  • a9cx34udP4ZZ0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    3 months ago

    “Why would I vote for a primary party candidate who supports ranked choice voting when I can just throw my vote away on a third-party candidate that will never be elected? I’ve got principles!”

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      3 months ago

      Because apparently throwing your vote away will somehow convince politicians to move left or something, despite all the evidence that it won’t.

      • MisterScruffy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        The Republicans move right during the general, and are sometimes pulled that way by the libertarian candidate (or rfk jr). The Dems usually don’t get pulled left because they’re so focused on moving to the right during the general to try to get the moderate republican vote

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      Voting for either side is just accepting the status quo.

      Third party vote today is just laying ground work for a generational fight. There is no other way to get the attention from the politicians.

      They rule on behalf of donors and two party system ensures they ways win, they just take turns.

      • petrol_sniff_king
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        There is no other way to get the attention from the politicians.

        And if those politicians are so keen on ignoring you, why would they listen to this? Oh, you voted for Cornel West because you’re “unsatisfied,” literally who cares? The status quo wins again, goodbye. Say hello to the camps.

        • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Say hello to the camps.

          is the new DNC FUD we get for voting third party?

          yes please put me into fema camp staffed by obama death panel, my DNC komissar 🤡

          • petrol_sniff_king
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            You didn’t answer the question.

            If the DNC doesn’t listen anyway, why would a 3rd party vote “get attention from them”?

            • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              I stated my position on this issue all over this thread.

              But for you here again dear:

              This tactic will only work if peasants are able to upset the regime sufficiently. a constant 3-5 percent every election, they will have to take notice. double digits they will have to start planning around it.

              This is a generational tactic, it will take several cycles to get the message across IF AND ONLY IF we can get 2-10% of voters of to go third choice every single election across all elections.

              This is a guerilla, asymmetric tactic. No doubt about it.

              But it very low cost from personal perspective but can be easily scaled if public sentiment turns.

              Once, we got the regime asking questions we can start getting proper 3p candidates in places. Or people can start now on them… but everybody can start denying the regime legitimacy today.

              • PaintedSnail@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                And what happens in the mean time? Third parties almost always take votes from the Democrats. (That is to say, most of the people who vote third party would have voted Democrat if the third party was not on the ballot.) This gives a huge advantage to the Republican party on close elections. The result is further entrenching of the party that has the larger vested interest in not reforming the system. As a result, any generational movement has no chance of succeeding because the party that directly opposes their goal is always in power.

                (To expand: since Democrats lose votes to third parties, they are the ones who would greatly benefit from any kind of ranked choice voting, so they tend to support such reforms. Since Republicans benefit more from FPTP, they tend to oppose such reforms.)

                It’s all well and good to send a message, but that message will be received by the people who benefit most by ignoring that message.

                The better method is to get people in power now who support election reform, get those reforms passed, then third party candidates become viable.

                • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  And what happens in the mean time?

                  The same thing that has been happening since at least the 80s. Quality of life will continue to slowly degrade, less natural child birth, more immigration, more work, less pay, higher taxes.

                  Your comment hinges on the idea that “if we just vote for democrats this one more time, they will finally reverted the course”

                  I don’t believe this position. I know most people still do. Hence why this is will be a generational change as more and more people become disenfranchised they will stop voting for either party. We are already partially here but the regime got away because nobody cares about low voter turn outs.

                  I am shilling fuck NOT VOTING, VOTE AGAINST THESE PARASITES.

                  If you are a dedicated Democrat, then vote Democrat. That’s how voting works, everybody gets a their vote and they can do with it as they please.

                  I don’t understand how “I am taking away votes from Democrats”

                  Why would I care? These people are not my friend, family or “team”

                  Together with Republicans, the Democrats are the regime the elites use to oppress working people. Why would I engage with a bad faith actor?

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Ranked choice voting seems like a great way to create huge political instability. Let’s take the system that has worked decent for 248 years and completely replace it with something less well tested. We already have uncertainty we don’t need to mess with the system more.

      • Acamon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        3 months ago

        You don’t want to mess about with that democracy nonsense. We’ve had a monarchy that has worked decent for a millennium, and you want it replace it with some untested, newfangled system?

  • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    3 months ago

    Primary elections are how parties change. Primary elections are how the Republican party became what it is today. They are often the highest-leverage vote you can cast if you’re in a solid district.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yup. People don’t realize there is already a not horrible approximation of runoff voting that still avoids the spoiler effect.

      And just look at what happened when Sanders realized that. He went from being a meme about how nobody watches C-SPAN to one of the more influential politicians on the Left.

      • NewNewAccount@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        Remind me who won in 2016? How do you think all those Bernie supporters felt about the election that was still very much influenced by FPTP dynamics.

      • davidgro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Primaries are still subject to spoiler effects and such.

        In my very blue state this year where the top two in the primary go on to the general, there was a local position which had a whole bunch of well qualified Democrats vs just a couple of Republicans. (Incumbent not running)

        The dem vote was split enough that we very nearly had just the two Republicans in the general. Like less than 60 votes away.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          And there are scenarios under runoff voting where similar can occur (e.g. two seats, 2 right wing, 4 left wing) and is where the “election theory” aspect of things that certain folk are still bitching about (because that is the most important thing to have happened in the past 8 years, clearly). The party needs to take the results of the primary and downselect who actually runs to avoid splitting their own vote.

          No voting system is perfect. But people should really understand what we have and what their NEED improves and fails to improve rather than just insisting “new is better”.

    • reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Primary elections aren’t democratic either (see party delegates). I feel like people who say this are rarely politically engaged in their communities. Same with the people who say to get involved in local city politics to make change.

      Ultimately you’re supporting a facist system that is historically atrocious and currently financially supporting a genocide almost singlehandedly but go ahead and keep telling people that the best way to maintain some semblance of moral character is to vote in this sham.

  • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    3 months ago

    You’d need to grow the third party / greens by having them become a viable party in local elections and state elections first. The greens have failed to do that. Which means they have no chance except to spoil the election.

    • MisterScruffy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      Big money donors will never allow green candidates to get into significant office. Money runs politics and billionaires own entire state houses these days

      • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        True. I think about it now as a kind of physics problem. You have political energy measured in dollars on each side. Volunteers to help bring the political message across for free can be converted into dollars too. There are a lot of people concerned or outright scared out of their minds about environmental concerns like climate change. One sight has multiple orders of magnitude more political energy to spend. For example on counter measures, or boosting extreme vegan voices to cause disruption, advertising or media stories or think tanks or lobbyists. And the “technology” to manage this political energy is rapidly advancing too. So no amount of “this is the right / wrong choice” argument is going to change anything. There is only power.

      • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        There are big money donors, which are not billionaires. The most common one are unions.

  • Westdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    3 months ago

    Want to build a viable third party for presidential elections? Start small at the city/county level and eventually you will have candidates at the state/federal level. Today’s city council is tomorrow’s senator/president. Does it really surprise anyone that a relatively unknown and unproven candidate outside of the two major parties doesn’t get any traction in a federal election?

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      we aint getting elected viable third party until the two party regime is denied legitimacy which is done by not voting for either party. deny them engagement by voting third party, anyone really.

      • Westdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        So you don’t agree that starting from the ground up won’t work? Why not? Too much effort or takes too much time?

        • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          If you are talking about viable third party candidate, then my position is: current political stage has no room for one hence why i shill more a narrower scope goal of “deny the two-party regime legitimacy”

          Something that people can get behind, act upon individually and directly while avoiding getting sucked into political left/right circle jerk.

          Bigger picture would obviously involve a proper 3 third party candidates to upset the duopoly. Either by winning outright or forcing the two parties to provide concessions to the voters instead of current “get fucked peasants, I am serving my corpo daddies”

          These 3p candidates need for voting public set the stage for them by making third vote a viable path for a politician/movement.

          My original thesis enables this while not getting into the political weeds but it does not stop others from building on it. If people got their 3p, then they should shill it! Even if every person votes for their own guy but sufficient amount of people do it, then it would still lead to awkward situation why are there 9% of voters who did not chose “regime”

    • MisterScruffy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      That takes money, lots of it and the 2 main parties have huge corporate donors who will never give money to an environmental party

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    3 months ago

    768 votes wth is wrong with Americans bruh

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Tehreek-e-Insaf

    If you can create a successful grassroots political party in an environment where your party members and constituents are constantly attacked, murdered, bombed, jailed, tortured, votes faked, votes destroyed, and vote miscounts, you can definitely pull it off in the USA.

    It took Pakistan only 20 years to cause a collapse of their corrupt 2 party system and challenge the military dictatorship. People never believed PTI would mount any sort of challenge, but they did by building a solid populist movement, despite facing all of the above.

    The “you must vote the lesser evil” is a fallacy that both parties in the USA perpetuate in an attempt to convince you to believe 3rd party voting is a waste of time.

    You can’t just sit back and complain about the rigged system like “but muh first past the poll voting” as if either Democrats or Republicans will change the system in any way to make it easier for their rivals.

    This is exactly why I dislike the Democratic party in particular so much. They are a corporate monolith that pretends to care about your leftist demands by handing out pennies worth of change to get your vote, then the second they refuse to actually significantly change something you demand, they have the audacity to blame you, the voter, for not sucking up to their shitty policies when they inevitably lose the election.

    Current case in point: "There is no genocide in Gaza, and we believe we can win without our constituents because our opponent is a mentally insane baby ".

    Shittiest take on this community by far.

  • TehWorld@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I was a proud third party voter for a long time but changed my mind after watching CGPGrey’s video about first past the post. It’s not really ABOUT trying to change minds but FPTP voting rules really do mean that a two party system is bound to very basic human psychology.

      • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yet we still always have the Liberals or the Conservatives in power… the power always ends up consolidated anyway, at least here in Canada.

        • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          Don’t think of it as politics, think of it as a regime. They control the political process and switch spots based on public sentiment.

          The political process is a charade as long as people keep voting in polarized way. The propaganda is there to keep us polarized. Most Anglo sphere appears to be infected at this point.

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          That makes sense logically. At the end of the day people lead toward groups with shared views. A lot of the issue tend to be yes/no like answers which creates two parties

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    3 months ago

    Look up The Moral Majority and Jerry Falwell.

    Falwell made himself a big deal in the GOP by getting his troops to show up at every single local Republican event with enough votes to make sure that they got everything they wanted. It started small with sheriffs and county clerks, and then Congress members.

  • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    3 months ago

    If only there was some kind of proven road map where countries who has been dominated by their ruling elite using the two party trick went on to form a kind of labour movement that forced a third choice on the ruling class…

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    3 months ago

    Some of these third party people could get elected to the senate if they tried, but have to try for the top job with no experience because their ego can’t take that they don’t know everything.