Point B: This is wrong and you’ve obscured the idea.
" we ( potential third party voters ) must vote for them because we ( left voters as a whole ) are voting for them "
It’s not circular logic, they are two different groups.
So as someone who wants the DNC ( and the GOP ) to disappear, here’s what I think are the important questions:
At what point does a third party become viable?
How do you build support for a third party when the spoiler effect is real and everyone knows it?
IMO a good idea would be a threshold system. So anyone can join the party and say, " I will vote if there are X commited voters ". If not, the party stands down. They get to build support without spoiling the vote.
This is all theoretical of course since the US may have just had it’s last election.
I have an answer for 1. and that answer is “Never”. a third party is never viable as long as we have First Past the Post voting.
As for 2, you don’t put any effort into third parties until after we fix the voting system. You work within the system and push for voting reform, or else it will never happen, and we’ll be stuck with First Past the Post forever.
The game plan is to push for one of two options, either Approval or STAR. Those two voting systems are the only Condorcet compliant systems that can fix our mess of an election system. There are some other fixes that come afterward, like ditching Primary elections (they’re not needed under Approval or STAR) and ditching the electoral college, but those can come after we fix the core problem.
To reiterate, you cannot solve anything of the problems of our system from outside it. You must hijack one of the two parties and use that to fix things. The same way the Evangelical racists hijacked the Republican Party in the 70s and 80s.
you cannot solve anything of the problems of our system from outside it.
So, so many people simply can’t grasp this. They want to use some imaginary cheat code to get what they want, immediately. That’s not how this, or a lot of things in life, work. Change in politics comes from lots and lots of effort from within the system to change the system. That or violent revolution. But the catch with violent revolution is that in the chaos that ensues, worse forces can fill the vacuum. Not to mention all the dead people.
I’d argue that violent revolution never results in something better. Those worse forces will Always move to seize power.
Violent protest is good, that coupled with people talking shit out like reasonable adults can result in something good, but there’s always that point where some unelected jackass comes in to murder the old guard, and then slaughter anyone who was working within the system to make things better.
Point B is not “wrong”, and you have not showed it is. The population as a whole is responsible for selecting the best candidate. These subdivisions, “right”, “left” and “really left” or however you want to depict them, are just cultural constructs (yes, like the election system itself) that affect people’s decision making on how to vote. Like any other idea.
How does a third party “become viable”? Define “viability”. Any party is “viable” in this system with a few votes on ballot petitions, associated paperwork, and the population voting for them. Again, this points to circular logic. It creates an impossible, circular dilemma if a population is deciding not to vote for a party because they think the population is deciding not to vote for a party. As long as they have that literally insane mentality, the third party is impossibly out of reach, like any other religious or irrational mentality, or any mentality in general, that successfully govern’s people’s behavior. What else do you want to hear? A “third party” becomes viable when they realize the insanity of that thinking and reject it.
How does a third party “become viable”? Define “viability”. Any party is “viable” in this system with a few votes on ballot petitions, associated paperwork, and the population voting for them.
Hmmm. I wonder how a population comes to vote for a 3rd party in significant enough numbers to win a national election. Hmmmm. This is a tough one. How could that possibly happen?
I’m going to spitball here. Maybe a 3rd party would have to start by supporting city/county/state 3rd party candidates across the country so that over time that 3rd party eventually has an actual presence, let’s say, in the House of Representatives, which boosts name recognition even more, so that one day maybe there’s even some in the Senate and then, holy shit, all of a sudden there’s an actual chance at winning a presidential election.
It’s comical to state that all the population has to do is vote for them, without grasping that all these other steps don’t need to happen first. I’m going to run the Barbie Party candidate in 2028 and when they don’t win, I’m going to blame the populace for not voting for them.
Uh-huh, and yet some of the population ARE aware of these candidates without being spoon-fed their “name recognition”. So if social and conventional news media filter out all candidates but those of a preferred uniparty, those should be ignored? Bullshit, wrong.
Absolutely right on point A.
Point B: This is wrong and you’ve obscured the idea. " we ( potential third party voters ) must vote for them because we ( left voters as a whole ) are voting for them " It’s not circular logic, they are two different groups.
So as someone who wants the DNC ( and the GOP ) to disappear, here’s what I think are the important questions:
IMO a good idea would be a threshold system. So anyone can join the party and say, " I will vote if there are X commited voters ". If not, the party stands down. They get to build support without spoiling the vote.
This is all theoretical of course since the US may have just had it’s last election.
I have an answer for 1. and that answer is “Never”. a third party is never viable as long as we have First Past the Post voting.
As for 2, you don’t put any effort into third parties until after we fix the voting system. You work within the system and push for voting reform, or else it will never happen, and we’ll be stuck with First Past the Post forever.
The game plan is to push for one of two options, either Approval or STAR. Those two voting systems are the only Condorcet compliant systems that can fix our mess of an election system. There are some other fixes that come afterward, like ditching Primary elections (they’re not needed under Approval or STAR) and ditching the electoral college, but those can come after we fix the core problem.
To reiterate, you cannot solve anything of the problems of our system from outside it. You must hijack one of the two parties and use that to fix things. The same way the Evangelical racists hijacked the Republican Party in the 70s and 80s.
So, so many people simply can’t grasp this. They want to use some imaginary cheat code to get what they want, immediately. That’s not how this, or a lot of things in life, work. Change in politics comes from lots and lots of effort from within the system to change the system. That or violent revolution. But the catch with violent revolution is that in the chaos that ensues, worse forces can fill the vacuum. Not to mention all the dead people.
I’d argue that violent revolution never results in something better. Those worse forces will Always move to seize power.
Violent protest is good, that coupled with people talking shit out like reasonable adults can result in something good, but there’s always that point where some unelected jackass comes in to murder the old guard, and then slaughter anyone who was working within the system to make things better.
Point B is not “wrong”, and you have not showed it is. The population as a whole is responsible for selecting the best candidate. These subdivisions, “right”, “left” and “really left” or however you want to depict them, are just cultural constructs (yes, like the election system itself) that affect people’s decision making on how to vote. Like any other idea.
How does a third party “become viable”? Define “viability”. Any party is “viable” in this system with a few votes on ballot petitions, associated paperwork, and the population voting for them. Again, this points to circular logic. It creates an impossible, circular dilemma if a population is deciding not to vote for a party because they think the population is deciding not to vote for a party. As long as they have that literally insane mentality, the third party is impossibly out of reach, like any other religious or irrational mentality, or any mentality in general, that successfully govern’s people’s behavior. What else do you want to hear? A “third party” becomes viable when they realize the insanity of that thinking and reject it.
Hmmm. I wonder how a population comes to vote for a 3rd party in significant enough numbers to win a national election. Hmmmm. This is a tough one. How could that possibly happen?
I’m going to spitball here. Maybe a 3rd party would have to start by supporting city/county/state 3rd party candidates across the country so that over time that 3rd party eventually has an actual presence, let’s say, in the House of Representatives, which boosts name recognition even more, so that one day maybe there’s even some in the Senate and then, holy shit, all of a sudden there’s an actual chance at winning a presidential election.
It’s comical to state that all the population has to do is vote for them, without grasping that all these other steps don’t need to happen first. I’m going to run the Barbie Party candidate in 2028 and when they don’t win, I’m going to blame the populace for not voting for them.
Uh-huh, and yet some of the population ARE aware of these candidates without being spoon-fed their “name recognition”. So if social and conventional news media filter out all candidates but those of a preferred uniparty, those should be ignored? Bullshit, wrong.