WYSK: There funded by dark money PACS, but some good reporting has brought out these names: David Koch, Peter Thiel, Reid Hoffman, Mark Cuban, Harlan Crow, and Michael Bloomberg. Some of there members are most famous for stopping big bills. Joe Leiberman, for example, single handedly stopped the single payer portion of the ACA. Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsen Simena kept the John Lewis voting rights act from passing, and famously kept the senate from repealing the filibuster.
Edit: please note that I made at least one mistake here (as well as some kind of boneheaded comments later). FPTP, even in the US, does not require a 50% majority, just more votes than anyone else (a “plurality”). It can still benefit parties to get to 50%, since it makes their winning more likely, and so in the absence of any drawbacks, most successful parties will still aim for it, but it isn’t strictly necessary, as has been sometimes demonstrated in the UK. Thanks to squaresinger for linking a YouTube video that mentions this below. /Edit
I just want to share my thoughts on this. It started as a response to one comment, but I realized that there’s a lot more that can (and I think should) be said, so here goes.
First, for those who don’t know, FPTP stands for First Past The Post, meaning a system where everyone votes for a single candidate and whoever gets more than 50% (i.e. “past the post”) wins the entire election (the losers get nothing). For many Americans, this might be so familiar that one would wonder how it could be any different (in a small-d democratic system), but there are in fact many alternatives: ranked voting, proportional representation, Condorcet method, etc.
They all have strengths and weaknesses, but for FPTP, and other similar systems, there’s a result in political science called Duverger’s law that says FPTP-like rules tend to cause a two-party system, essentially because because even if you don’t team up with a larger party you may disagree with on many issues, to get a majority, others will, and then they’ll win and you’ll get nothing. And since getting significantly more than 50% consumes party resources that might better be used elsewhere, but gives no reward, 50% (plus a small “safety margin”) is what all the successful parties will eventually aim for, and thus you get two roughly equally-successful parties. Tiny swings in voting then lead to massive differences in outcomes, which threatens the stability and security of everyone (even America’s “enemies”).
So saying “just vote for third parties” (like I see some calling for here) is tone-deaf at best, or part of a cynical ploy to fracture the opponent’s party at worst. Even if a “third party” does win, the best that can be hoped for under FPTP is they just end up replacing one of the two parties, becoming one of the two parties in the “new” two-party system. And the two existing parties have likely spent far more time and effort researching ways to stop even that from happening than any of us ever will.
If we, as Americans, or others with a stake in what America decides to do, want to change this (and I personally do), then we need far more fundamental changes to how the system works. Just choosing a candidate we like (whether they have any chance of winning or not) won’t cut it. I don’t know what’s the best voting system to use, but I know I’d like to scrap the Electoral College, for a couple reasons:
-
Even though one might argue that Congress and the Supreme Court are more essential to reform, it’s hard to deny that the President has a very large leadership role today.
-
One might argue that relying on a convoluted/Byzantine method for choosing the President makes it harder to manipulate, and that’s probably true, but the two parties have shown that it being difficult is not a deterrent to them doing so: in fact, they likely both benefit from it by keeping smaller parties that can’t afford to do it out.
It reminds me of the fallacy in computer security of “security through obscurity”: if it’s possible to break into the system, and large numbers of people can benefit substantially from it, then someone eventually will, no matter how hard we make it to exploit. We need to change the system, not only so that it is prohibitively difficult for anyone to exploit the system, but also to get rid of a lot of the corruption that makes most people want to exploit it in the first place.
All of this is much easier said than done, I know, but we need to explain clearly to the public why “quick fixes” won’t work, before we can convince them of the need for more fundamental changes. We still need to work on figuring out the details of the best changes, but unless we can show people the reality of the deep structural problems that acually exist, why they exist, and how we know we’re right about what we’re saying, we’ll never convince most people to change anything.
You are totally right. The problem isn’t zqthat such a change from within the system can only happen from a position of immense power. So to actually fix these bugs you need to
- Have enough power to change the constitution
- Have gotten that power through the current system
- Be so dedicated to change the system that you are willing to risk all that power for the change, because any meaningful change means that the systems that brought you to power won’t work in that way anymore.
Now, to make matters more difficult, representative democraties usually spread that power over hundreds or thousands of people. So not only you need to fit the bill above, but also the top few hundred politicians in your country need to agree to potentially losing their power.
So what tends to happen is the opposite: Politicians amass power and make it harder and harder to replace them, until a war/civil war/revolution happens and the next crowd tries to make it better.
The US has had centuries to concentrate power, contrary to many European nations that were re-founded after wars in the last century.
So unless the US as we know it collapses, there won’t be significant change to the better for the political system.
No Labels as a name isn’t even going to appeal to left-leaning folks, it sounds nonsensical and oversimplified. Things need labels, a Nazi is a Nazi. Useful label, even if the Jewish-hating, strong ethno-state sorts don’t like it.
It’ll appeal to moderates, but that’ll pull from both sides.
Unless they run an environmentalist or something? Like a Green Party type spoiler? Would have to be an idiot not to run under their own banner though, raising awareness is their whole thing.
Yeah, I gives me similar vibes as “I don’t see color.”
But even if we remove bigotry and politics and all of that… labels aren’t necesarily bad. Like I am a creature who identifies as one of two main types of sexes that is sexually and emotionally attracted to creatures who identify as the same.
Which is a weird way of saying I’m a man who is sexually and romantically attracted to men, but those are labels, so I couldn’t say man, human, etc.
Of course I could also just say I’m gay. While yes, everyone is a little different, it has worked so far for me. People tend to get it.
Labels are not bad. It’s an idea only used by edgy teenagers and liberals who want to be good for the praise more so than for simply being good.
Yeah, I certainly didn’t think “progressive” when I read the name. It sounds like they’re afraid to say what they are, which is a common far-right strategy.
I’ve been saying it since 2000 and I’ll keep on saying it: the time to push for third parties is every year except election year. We need election reform first. The current system simply does not allow for a meaningful election between more than two parties. It cannot represent the will of the people. It needs to change.
It’s very both-sidesy. I think we’re all smart enough at this point to be able to see through that equivocating bullshit.
If someone refuses to admit their political affiliation in the US you can basically guarantee they’re right wing.
Ya know, it’s not always democrats versus republicans…
Until everyone stops voting for this bullshit two-party system, it’s just going to keep being dems and repubs pointing fingers at each other.
(This- is in no way me providing any endorsement, or affection for whatever candidate is in question. I know nothing about the person).
They didn’t say Republicans, they said right wing. The Democrats are also a right wing party, just center-right.
Here in the US(topic of this post), democratic party is considered left, republican is considered right.
This isn’t going to happen until the majority of the country implements ranked choice voting, so that third party voting isn’t just throwing your vote away. As long as we are in the current system, third party voting is pointless.
Focus your efforts on getting ranked choice adopted. It is the key that will actually unlock the ability to vote for third parties.
Ranked Choice Voting doesn’t make third parties viable, either. It uses the same counting method as our current system (tally up people’s first-choice preferences) and therefore suffers from all the same problems, like vote-splitting, spoiler effect, and center-squeeze effect. You can’t fix the problems of FPTP by adding more rounds of FPTP. You need to allow voters to express opinions about all of the candidates and then actually count all of those opinions.
If you want third parties to be viable, you want real reforms like STAR Voting, Condorcet RCV, or Approval Voting.
throwing your vote away
Until everyone stops thinking that way- the same cycle will repeat every 4 years.
Democrats and republicans blaming the person who came into office before them, for all of the countries problems, followed by a lot of election promises they will never keep.
In the current fptp system it has to be. Until ranked choice for president and proportional representation for the house then usually the left will shatter. The republic strongest point is they all vote under one big group even if they disagree internally. All splitting the vote will do is empower that “team”
Stop trying to play the victim. I didn’t say a single thing about you, nor your political affiliation.
Good luck electing anyone not in the two party system. I think there’s 1 or 2 independent senators and no independent representatives. You need to change the rules of the game, cause like it or not were all playing the game. And not voting or voting 3rd party when they’re polling at 1% is just giving an extra vote to someone who disagrees with you.
Good luck electing anyone not in the two party system.
There isn’t that much luck needed. Just people to realize they don’t have to vote between a douche or the turd (south park reference). And, when people do so- turns out, it is possible to elect something other than a douche or a turd.
It’s not actually two parties though. Both of them have multiple factions vying for power inside their party. Progressives versus Third Way. MAGA versus Finance.
The entire idea of two parties is an info op.
Elected officials from both parties almost always seem to all vote for the same as the rest of their party and even at times vote against the opposing party only because the opposing party is voting for it.
Also their candidate RFK, is a lying moron who’s been called out many times over the years by his supposed “sources”.
Biden is doing a good job given the circumstances. If you don’t want the total destruction of the United States, there is really only one choice for president… Joe Biden. All other roads lead to the Dark Lord Trumples, the Silly Piggy.
The dems are never going to pass voting reform for the same reason the UK labour party (a considerably further left party than the dems) has never passed it despite pretending they would consider it for multiple decades now. They benefit from FPTP. All they would be doing is diluting their power and handing over a huge portion of the political landscape to socialists who would immediately become relevant, they would then be forced to actually come to agreements with those socialists as opposed to just completely and totally ignoring them as they do currently.
Is labour still even left of Democrats? Their anti trans courting and behavior speaks volumes.
Oh looky here,
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/19/politics/senate-voting-legislation-filibuster/index.html
Manchin and Sinema blocking exactly what your talking about
Lots of people say and think that Biden is too old and demented but his has been the best Democratic presidency in 50 years.
Joe Biden should be in an old folks home. He can barely stand up let alone lead a nation. No fan of the other guy either, but let’s face it. Both of them are only puppets on a string.
“a historic bipartisan infrastructure bill, generational investments in clean energy and semiconductor manufacturing, the first gun safety law in almost 30 years, a bill codifying same-sex marriage, a bill aiding veterans who suffered health effects from burn pits and an electoral reform to prevent a repeat of Trump’s attempt to use Congress to undermine the election.”
I think he’s doing a fine job.
How many kids are still imprisoned in the concentration camps on the border?
They’re both far from the best the USA has to offer, but it’s better to understand and attack the structural barriers to viable 3rd parties here than to get pissed off at the state of disenfranchisement of the average voter and elect a ’ wild card’ out of spite
undefined> attack the structural barriers to viable 3rd parties
Which starts by voting third party and ignoring people who parrot nonsense like “a vote for X is a vote for Y”.
tbh I think if Biden gets reelected, america will inevitably collapse as a nation. we’re already close to the tipping point and biden has done nothing but accelerate that collapse.
Biden has been as milquetoast as possible. The fact that the right is becoming more and more unhinged only shows how off the rails they are.
I think biden is actually an extremist in social policy, and an emboldend corporate shill in economic policy. So while he might be “milquetoast” in terms of democrat vs republican, he’s far from what regular people want/need.
Ironically, most establishment republicans are also this way. They’re happy to push insane social policy stuff, while bootlicking the corporations.
I honestly think that the GOP will probably split or collapse due to the establishment GOP’s resistance to their populist voterbase. Democrats call it ‘unhinged’ but when informal polls show literally hitler as preferable by both left and right to biden/trump, I would say that both dnc/gop are the unhinged ones, not the people sick of the two parties.
“milquetoast” is the literal polar opposite of what we need right now.
And Donald trump will be better? He did more harm in his 4years than biden has in his
