ABCnews

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
171 points

The 2 party system is horseshit, but this is your recurring reminder that the greens are not worth your vote.

Any party serious about affecting change does so at the local level first. The fact that the greens consistently try to get attention with symbolic candidacies at the national level while being fuck all out of touch with school boards and local politics paints them as diva opportunists at best and bad faith progressive spoilers at worst.

This is coming from someone who agrees with most of West’s platform at face value

permalink
report
reply
-4 points

Eh, the reform party nearly got it. It can be easier to get local elections after achieving national legitimacy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

They made no inroads after Hilary vs Trump. They aren’t going to see any better opportunity for national legitimacy, and it wasn’t enough to make a significant difference. If they want to succeed, they have to start local.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

The Reform party had national legitimacy in the 90s, but not much because they didn’t win the presidential elections. Then they dissolved.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*

Tell that to the Tea Party, the last significant change in voting dynamics we’ve had as a nation, that won almost entirely at the local level and got fucking destroyed on the national stage.

The Tea Party is what eventually led to the populist surge that backed Trump.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

The Tea party movement (which was within the Republican party) was born out of the Reform party and their national fame.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

Peace & Freedom party all the way. If you’re going to throw your vote away on a 3rd party, make it one that actually has principles. The Greens are just full of weirdos these days.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

Running for president as a 3rd party is like proposing marriage to random strangers instead of, y’know, dating people. We all know you’re doing it for attention because it’s not going to work.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-28 points

except when it has worked…

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points
*

Which is… never. At least for presidential elections. I can’t speak for the marriage proposals.

The Republican party didn’t appear out of nowhere in 1860 to win a presidential race. They were formed in 1854 and supplanted the Whig party entirely before the 1860 election. It was a majority party throughout the north before it won a presidential race — it wasn’t a “third party.”

Likewise, Democrats replaced the Democratic-Republican party in much the same way that republicans replaced the Whig party, and had been a major party from its very beginnings. Literally in their first election there were only two parties running!

There are only three other parties that have won the presidency: Federalists (there from the inception of the party system), Democratic-Republicans (ditto), and Whigs (major party years before first electoral win). There’s been no “third party” that has ever won the US presidency. All three have the same story as democrats as starting off in an election with just two parties.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

Even Teddy Roosevelt didn’t get it to work.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

I’m a green party supporter (not in the US) and couldn’t agree more. I support the greens as much as I can to help spread environmental awareness, but if the election looks like it will be close, I vote for the party most likely to defeat the conservatives.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-30 points

what if all the parties except greens are conservative?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Then you’ve gone too far to the left and lost perspective on the center.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Thankfully I don’t live in that horrible world.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

They aren’t. And it’s disingenuous to assert otherwise.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-27 points

IMO still better to vote 3rd party than to waste your vote with the blues and reds.

We need to start showing them that we are not shee, just keep voting for them with no changes; Reagan/BushSr/Clinton/BushJr/Obama/Trump/Biden all they did was for the wealthy class not for the working class, do not get me wrong they do throw in crumbs here and there…

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points
*

Trump admin: passes $1.5 trillion tax cut where 60% of savings go to the top 20% and slashes the corporate tax rate by 40%

Biden admin: passes $1 trillion infrastructure bill, $400 billion in climate funding, $1.9 trillion in COVID aid that temporarily boosted unemployment aid and child tax credit, and first major gun safety legislation in decades, seen here

Demand change. Demand more from the politicians that work for you. Take Biden and all elected officials to account for expiring temporary relief for the lower class. But on many important issues for the lower class there are big differences between red and blue.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Demand change

That’s cute, the working class has zero impact on policy

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Thank you. I get so frustrated with people who say the two parties are the same. They are not, and all you have to do is compare the policy achievements of the Trump and Biden administrations. There are real consequences to choosing Dem over GOP.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-24 points

You don’t get it, we don’t care for the crumbs.

They don’t matter to us, only to you who still vote team blue no matter what.

The real problems will only be addressed when we all band together against the wealthy class, so we need to stop playing their games.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

We need ranked choice voting first. Funny how it’s something both Democrats and Republicans can unite over why it’s bad, confusing, whatever…

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Eh I think it’s more complicated than that. Neither national party is calling for it definitely. And DC Dems are suing to block it in the city. But if you look at where RCV is implemented it’s basically very Democratic cities and independent-streak states like Maine and Alaska. Both of which do have a lot of pressure from viable independent/dem-soc alternatives. It’s also completely banned in Florida, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, and Tennessee. So I would tip the scales slightly towards Democrats here, but I agree it primarily challenges those in power so if you’ve been elected under the current system you’re usually not crazy about it regardless of party. (To be clear I totally support RCV or really anything other that FPtP voting)

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Some democrats don’t like RCV (see the DC thread from the other day), but many do. NYC has RCV, and I assure you it didn’t get there without democrats supporting it. So does Maine.

RCV wouldn’t work well for presidential elections as they are anyway, because it’s a two-stage election. What would RCV mean in an individual state? Pretend a 3rd party is in contention in that state but has no chance nationally. Candidates A and B are the major parties, and C is our third party. If the results are C=40, A=35, B=25, and B’s support transfers to C, and C’s support would transfer to C, does that mean B should be eliminated so C can win the state, or should C be eliminated (because they won’t win any other states) and B should win the state? There’s no obvious answer and it just invites more of a clusterfuck.

RCV is great for popular vote elections, which is what everything else is (mostly… there’s… I think it’s Mississippi governor?) and what the presidential election should be.

Popular vote first, RCV second.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

You do not understand what I am saying.

This is not a first we need to do this… first we need to do that…

We need to stop voting for the bloods and crips.

Looking at the long term, this will help us win the war on the wealthy class.

permalink
report
parent
reply
50 points

You know who was involved with the Green Party back in the early 2000s? Kyrsten Sinema.

permalink
report
parent
reply
66 points

I mean, you don’t even need to go that far back. 2016 green presidential candidate Jill Stein literally rubbed elbows with Putin and Mike Flynn in 2015

permalink
report
parent
reply
-27 points

she went there to confront Putin.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 14K

    Posts

  • 414K

    Comments