The “election cycle”
The long election cycle exists to purposefully reinforce the bipartisan duopoly by forcing candidates to campaign for 6+ months which is way too expensive for anyone that isn’t funded by billionaires. “Campaigning” shouldn’t take multiple months we all have tv and phones it doesn’t take long to tell us what you stand for and for us to make up our minds about that. Other countries don’t have this ridiculously long election cycle
Nah buddy, we always have been and always will advocate for abolition of this idiotic bipartisanship.
You just happen to notice it only when you are begging us to vote for these genocidal neoliberal freaks.
Or, running down ballot candidates to actually affect genuine policy change. But no, just run for president to make a small amount of noise and rake in that moron money.
The far-left people actively saying “Don’t vote for Dem” making an easier win for Trump are probably the most stupid people of the bunch.
Revolution is not happening anytime soon, meanwhile let’s do something with what we have.
Arguably Revolution would be closer with Trump in office…
Not much of an argument to vote for trump but unfortunately probably true.
I like the sentiment and suggest taking it a step further.
If they aren’t starting at the local level then they aren’t serious about the national level regardless of when they start discussing the next election.
I’d have a lot more respect if there was a third party candidate running for my district’s house seat.
That would mean they’re actually trying to build election infrastructure.
You’d have a lot more respect for whom/what?
Running for office costs lots of money and time. There are seats that go entirely uncontested, because the incumbent is too popular to challenge. I would love to see a 50-state Green strategy, too. I just don’t know who the 500+ candidates are supposed to be.
That would mean they’re actually trying to build election infrastructure.
I’m not sure where this “Greens never try to build anything” theory of politics came from. But if you think partisanship is savage at the national level, wait till you try and run as a Green candidate for municipal office. Talking about bike lanes in the wrong kind of county gets a certain kind of person shooting mad.
City elections are a mess on a good day, and a lot of it really boils down to which person the Mega-Church, the Millionaires, and the Morning Zoo Crew decide to endorse.
Local government is fucking awful. Think of an HOA and then make them accountable to the whiniest assholes in town. Just watch any footage of local meetings on YouTube to see what I mean.
Oh I don’t mean they need to contest every seat that’s an unrealistic standard. But they certainly aren’t going to be a real choice until they have election infrastructure in every state. So we’re looking at about 100 elections of varying offices. And yeah, that takes time to build. Showing up in the last 6 months of the presidential campaign every 4 years is not how you get elected. AOC and others have shown that mainstream democrats are vulnerable in some of those seats that aren’t usually contested. And yeah you’re going to get gerrymandered out of seats a few times until you have a large enough group in the state legislature.
Saying it’s too much work to expect for a third party is just ridiculous. Nobody is going to just hand you a victory on the national stage.
But they certainly aren’t going to be a real choice until they have election infrastructure in every state.
Infrastructure costs money and manpower. Money tends to come from people looking to buy political favors. You can’t dole out political favors if you’re not in power. So power entrenches itself, with a single party dominating a particular seat by way of a patronage system.
And yeah, that takes time to build.
It has been built. Show me a state and I’ll show you a Green Party chapter. But it also decays without reinforcement. And it decays rapidly when the party becomes a scapegoat for deficiencies in one of the Big Two.
We see this with Libertarians as well. Every time the GOP loses, they take a big chunk of blame. People lose enthusiasm as they start getting yelled at by MAGA psychos accusing them of being Deep State agents of the Dem Party. Etc, etc. And eventually, they fold back into the GOP, rather than solidifying as their own party, when the GOP big dollar donors entice them into the tent again.
I suspect that’s what we’ll see with Greens. A mix of public shaming and private bribing will reincorporate them into the Dem Party where they can be more easily controlled.
To be fair the Greens have made a massive mistake with Jill Stein. They aren’t going to be the big third party that eventually breaks through unless they seriously reform. But no, a chapter in every state is not the infrastructure you need. Not beyond the most reductive meaning at any rate. You need to be a household name. You need to have been present in the state level political scene already. Election infrastructure is hundreds of people showing up every day to make millions of calls. Thousands of volunteers papering neighborhoods. Supporting PACs and local relationships to generate endorsements. A hundred members who meet once a month isn’t going to cut it.
To be fair the Greens have made a massive mistake with Jill Stein.
She’s been the sacrificial lamb election cycle after election cycle because she’s willing to do the job. If Cornel West hadn’t withdrawn, I could have seen him as a better choice. But given the smearing every Green candidate since Nader has endured, I don’t really blame him for wanting to stay out of the mud.
You need to be a household name. You need to have been present in the state level political scene already.
You need billions of dollars to operate at that level. Hell, even the party primaries are these enormous luxurious affairs. So much of this really does just boil down to money, which comes from people looking to buy access to the candidates.
Supporting PACs and local relationships to generate endorsements.
Who are the local Green candidates going to get to form PACs on their behalf? You either have a die-hard ideologue like Perot who bankrolls the entire party out of his tech industry fortune, or you have a scattered amalgamation of independent activists who congeal around a third party banner.
The Green party will never break through and be a viable 3rd option. Period. The Democrats and Republicans control and have ultimate influence over American politics.
What if I told you that ‘building a foundation for the party’ wasn’t the true intention, but actually to sow discord and chaos in a hope to weaken a perceived “enemy”?
Bet non of those people vote in local elections.
They’re all like, the same, man!
Both agree on the point and the proper meme format
Daily reminder:
Jill disappears on November 6th and reappears 3 years and 10 months later. Like clockwork.
Jill disappears on November 6th and reappears 3 years and 10 months later
Good money in it. Russian rubles too.
Do you think she started out earnest and got co-opted?
Has she been a willing accomplice since day one?To sit at a fancy gala dinner with the very definition of what the hard right salivates to be, then to declare that both parties are the same… that is something… that takes some fucking chutzpah.
The hard right doesn’t want to be like Russia, they don’t want America involved in any country really.
This picture is also near meaningless, but feel free to debate that.
I see you didn’t watch the Tucker Carlson in Russia videos.
The Green Party was never to be taken seriously by anyone that knows better. It’s always been a spoiler party. This is evident in the fact that seemingly none of the Green Party candidates do jack shit three years out of every four. And when the election cycle comes. They just projectile-shit left and right depending on who’s paying.
Not to mention the significant Russian ties for the Green Party and the clear spoiler effect.
Not to be taken seriously as having a chance to win is different than representing the views of a sub-group of Americans accurately.
We see plenty of sports teams lose year after year and don’t ask why people are still fans, do we? Their values haven’t changed just because their side loses, they still believe that’s the right team to back.
While third party votes wont make a third party candidate win the presidency, it absolutely has an effect on public opinion and discussion, evidenced by how many of these stories are coming out each day bashing third party voters.
It seems absurd to me that democrats think third party voters will respond to attacks on their character, when the reason they wont vote democrat is because of the character democrats display.
I don’t know how many sports teams that are taking Russian money and exist to essential fuck over the entire sport that would continue to have fans.
Oh… and politics isn’t a fucking sport.
Turns out its not hard to hide the source of money, and politicians need money to run campaigns. The democrats and republicans both have their fair share of illicit donations, that’s entirely legal in America. I don’t really see your point? They all shouldn’t do it.
Also, you seem to think the only third party is the green party, which is interesting.
Russia has made no secret of wanting to install Trump in the white hose. They’re paying Shill Stein to spoil the election for the democrats.
What more do you need? I’m specifically talking about The Green Party.
Russia spends money on more than just the presidential race. They and their oligarchs donate to both democrats and republicans from local to federal elections.
Israel does the same thing as well, they donate to whoever is pro-Israel, and campaign against anyone anti-Israel.
So again, why is that a problem for the Green party but not the democrats or republicans?
If Americans don’t want foreigners to affect their election, don’t make it legal to do so then.
I’ve yet to see any evidence to support the accusation that democrats are taking Russian money. Democrats also aren’t also using Trump’s lawyers in defense of accusatory cases against them.
This whatabotism of yours is disruptive to the topic. I’m staying within the wheelhouse of the discussion. You, are not.
If you want to discuss the corruption of ALL political parties, start a new post on it. But I’m not about entertaining people that wish to derail the conversation with bOtH siDeS rhetoric.
Okay well prove me wrong, wheres all the evidence that the green party is taking Russian money. All i’ve seen anyone post is a picture of the presidential nominee at a table with Putin. Is there anything else?
If
Americansthe global south don’t wantforeignersAmericans to affect their election, don’t make it legal to do so then.Does it help you see how idiotic and backwards you’re being if I switch out a few nouns in your statement?
Other countries have not made it legal for outside nations to lobby in their countries. That’s an American thing.
What is your point again? You can turn my statement into an ad lib and call me stupid?
Removed by mod
STAR vote to make parties irrelevant except at the coalition building level!
STAR is good for the existence of ideas but not for actually getting third party candidates elected. It stands for Score Then Automatic Run off. The top two candidates advance to the Automatic Run off. That’s just the FPTP with a dressing that makes third party voters feel better.
RCP actually empowers third party voters, is easy to understand, and is already being adopted.
Finally, yes! Anyone who wants to vote for a third party should instead spend their time and effort fighting for a different voting system (ranked choice, star, etc) that could mathematically allow a third party to actually succeed.
A group here in the Midwest tried. The duopoly collaborated to squash the effort. We need a third party to make it happen.
The problem is that there simply can’t be a third party. In our current system a third party is mathematically impossible. I would love for a majority of citizens to suddenly throw caution to the wind magically surge a third party into power. But it’s just not realistic. Again, the most a third party can do is cause a scare, but it’ll never come into power.
Also for what it’s worth there is an RCV bill for federal congressional elections in the House, which I think has a much better chance of passing than a similar bill in a deeply rural state like Missouri. Once established at a federal level I think it would simply be a matter of time until it made it’s way to even resistant states.
In some perspectives, fighting for third parties does fight for a different voting system.
It does, but it’s just a big gamble. You’re attempting to scare one of the establishment parties into changing by causing them to lose an election heavily. So, if it works, you’ve necessarily made a material sacrifice in giving control of an office to the opposing party, allowing them to cause whatever real world damage they are capable of causing in that position. Then you have to hope that the message is received and that the party you spoiled actually changes in the way you want, and doesn’t just ignore you. And you also have to hope that they recognize and change quickly or else the damage compounds as more elections pass.
On top of that, this only works “once”. If the party starts ignoring you again you have to make these real consequential sacrifices again.
In conclusion, with voting third party the sacrifice is guaranteed, the reward is not.
I will admit it’s possible that spoiling/scaring is the only way to get RCV (or better) in the first place since the only group it’s not good for is sitting politicians, but I’m not convinced yet.
But I’m entirely convinced that without an improved voting system we don’t actually have a democracy.
And for anyone who’s reading this, if you’re a Missourian vote NO on Amendment 7!
Well if the outcome is so undecided as to not be able to logical choose a side, then I will almost always choose the side that is reforming what we have or creating something new, rather than sticking with what we have and just trying to do it right each time.
We know 100% that waiting for politicians to give away their own power isn’t working, so even a minuscule chance of something better has to be given at least some consideration.
“Fighting for” is leaving a lot up for interpretation here.
You’re right. In another reply I said that voting third party might move the needle for RCV, but it’s iffy.
That sounds too much like work and not enough like bitching.
Makes me wish we had some serious third parties in this country, and not two grifting perennial presidential-election also-rans
The lack of viable ones is less a result of effort on their part or desire for them among the electorate, and more to do with the nature of our voting system. Its hard to develop a viable third party when the system one is operating in mathematically guarantees that only two parties can be seriously competitive with eachother in nationally significant elections, and those parties are already established. They can be competitive in local elections that the larger ones dont put as much effort into, but the only times theyve ever gotten to the presidency have been the couple times when one of the two major parties basically collapses and gets replaced with a different one.
They can be competitive in local elections that the larger ones dont put as much effort into,
That’s my point, though. The two biggest third parties in this country aren’t competitive in local elections, because they put even less effort in local elections as the two major parties do. They make a performative shot at the presidency every four years, and that’s about fucking it. The Libertarians are slightly better (god, what a sentence to gag on) on this than the Greens, but not by much.
There are more than just two third-parties if that’s how you want to refer to them. There were three others you didn’t mention in my state, all different on policy. Third-party doesn’t by default mean green or libertarian.
They said “biggest”, not “only”.
Which I will admit is only partially accurate, the AIP (a paleoconservative party, far right) is the largest after the Libertarian Party (which is not even remotely libertarian in policy). Then Green (which doesn’t actually do anything on any of the ideologies they claim to support), followed by another christian nationalist party, and then parties so small they are a margin of error on the national stage at best, combined.
Single-state parties have no relevance nationally.
Isn’t the AIP just part of the Constitution Party, which itself is, as a whole, smaller than the Greens?
Not really, there was a split in the AIP where some stayed with the Constitution Party (specifically in CA, not in UT), and others stayed purely AIP, then they went with a splinter name for those who didn’t stay with Constitution called America’s Party. Which is bonus funny, because a few decades before that there was another split with some becoming the American Party (northern conservatives).
In terms of membership though, the AIP still keeps all of them, making them the largest by membership IIRC. Its… weird. So AIP is technically larger, but its really split into a lot of factions. UT is still where the bulk of the membership is though I believe. Numbers wise though, if you shoved them all in one place, they still wouldn’t even make the top ten list of cities by population in the US. The Green Party membership numbers wouldn’t hit the top 100.
I’m going to double check though, its been a while since I looked in on those loonies…
EDIT:
Wikipedia numbers for quick checks, the LP actually has less members than I thought. As of 2022, 727k. Green has 211k, AIP has 919k members, and Constitution has 154k members.
In terms of votes in the 2020 presidential election, the LP got 1.8 million votes, green got 400k, an much to my surprise, the Working Families Party got 386k! Letitia James, btw, ran in the WFP ticket ~20 years ago or so. They still have some folks in office in Philly, and had previously won some state seats in CT. They make use of electoral fusion to support Democrats where they don’t have a chance to win or there is a risk from pulling from Democrats to a loss against republicans, and are, as far as I know, one of the better 3rd parties out there. Membership is still low though, looks like only 65k. I know they are in my state, though it looks like they don’t have ballot access yet. Hmm. Maybe worth seeing if they are trying for anything locally by me to see if I can support them.
EDIT 2: THEY DO! This is exciting, they have someone up for my district! I’m disappointed with myself for not seeing that, running under the Democrat ticket but a WFP party member - that is fantastic news.
Folks, this is the sort of third party you get behind. They work together against the far right, and have a defined focus on social democracy and progressive policy.
Still, a lot of people are seemingly treating all third parties the same as they do the Green party, which then affects all of them in public opinion.
At the national level, yes. The only thing they are is a spoiler party in federal elections. Hopefully that changes in the future, but to do that we need to get away from FPTP, and those 3rd parties need to go local first to get recognition.
Local level is an entirely different territory, and there are quite a few third parties in offices.
But in a federal election? Yeah, they are only a spoiler, nothing else.
But see you are doing exactly what I said, applying criticism of the Green party to all third parties. Its the green party that doesn’t participate in local elections. I don’t mind third parties trying different strategies. For better or for worse, whatever the green party is doing at least gets it talked about a ton, which has to be worth something.
As a firm believer in the need for a strong labor party to struggle for the rights of working people as an absolute bare minimum to advancing the struggle for human rights, individual freedom and working class power (while it isn’t by default a guarantee for any of those things as it would require the participation of growing masses to even begin to take these problems on,) this party doesn’t exist in this election. Principles don’t count for shit, only power matters. Before engaging in any safe state strategies, better make sure your math is impeccable since the Republicans can lose the popular vote and still win the election. We can build power for the future, but keep Trump out for now.
If the democrats lose because of people voting for the party that best represents them, then the democrats should maybe consider representing all groups of people in good faith.
Blaming the third party voters is a good way to shame them into agreeing with you in some cases, but in others it has the opposite effect.
I’m not trying to shame anyone for their vote and I cant blame anyone for not feeling represented by the Democrats. If the Greens are actually the party that represents you, go wild. But I doubt it. But voting for Democrats is unlikely to be voting for your interests either.
Everyone has different priorities, that’s the nature of political difference. But if we are going to be strictly rational, then its important not to vote against our interests either. This isn’t an appeal for lesser evilism, this is an appeal to do what we need to do in November to protect our communities and neighbors from becoming victims of even more state violence than they are under Democrats. But leading up to that day, and on every other day after we build for power. Democratic, organized, working class, educational party work that empowers instead of alienates. Some people have already begun this work but more people need to get involved, and not out of moral imperative, but out of hope and proof that a new way is possible and inevitable if we can actually create such a party.
But the fact is it hasn’t been built, we have become comfortable in our exploitation and alienation, and frankly political confusion. A Trump presidency is too dangerous, to deny that he and his creepy cadre fully intend to deliver mass suffering on millions is misguided; and to accept it but do nothing to prevent it is egotistical. If you want to live by your principles we have to create the orgs that will make it possible, we have to shake the system to its foundations, and not just when there is a genocide or a murder of an unarmed black man by cops; but every day. so that when it’s time to take to the streets we can show out in greater numbers and organization than ever before, and really scare the ruling class, not to gain concessions but to make it clear that their days are numbered as a class.
This can’t be achieved with voting by any possible measure. There is no way to vote that will begin to achieve this. All we can do is slow the bleeding a little longer to create the conditions where we can actually do this work together. So vote against the petty tyrant, vote for the party that we would prefer to resist; that still gives at least lip service to democracy rather than abolishing it in every way they can. And understand that the work hasn’t even begun to ensure our future.
What is wrong with campaigning or supporting the party that represents you best, and then voting differently when you are in the booth? The point is the pressure. To some, their third party vote only matters as a point of dissent, it won’t affect anything. In my state I don’t feel comfortable placing a protest vote for the presidential race, but also Democrats tend to represent me relatively well as I was born on the privileged side of things, most of the bad things that have happened to me were actually my fault. If any of that calculus changes though, who knows, I might not even be comfortable voting democrat knowing it could lose my state to republicans.
Their is logic behind a protest vote for president though, for some perspectives. To some, the winning party never adapts or changes, its the losing party. If you want democrats to reform, then for some the only way to do that is to take your vote from them. If the democrats really think the republicans are the end of democracy, then show us by committing to what the people want and need. In this perspective, the democrats villianize the republicans so that there is a bigger bad casting a shadow they can hide in. For a group of people that find it almost as hard to trust democrats as republicans, it can complicate things.
Its hard, like I said I come from privilege, and have no experience with the democrats personally screwing me over, but plenty of others do, and I can’t discount that perspective. I chose to vote democrat nationally, and third party locally, although I did not choose either the green or libertarian parties.
I appreciate the logic behind a protest vote, and I can sympathize with the circumstances that furnish such a vote. But I believe my logic is pretty sound, acknowledges the very real problems obvious to people who may be choosing to make such a vote, and hopefully makes an alternative case based on similar experiences and human needs to perhaps vote differently. I won’t make a moral judgement against people for this, I have a fairly complicated system of ethics. I know people with high levels of political education who I often agree with, but who are advocating for protest vote, safe state strategy, and the like. All I can do is make a case that maybe people haven’t heard before. The votes will be what they are, for a maintenance of a sad ineffectual status quo that doesn’t relate to people, or for much much worse. That’s how I see it, bit I don’t believe it is right to browbeat others into seeing my views, perpetuating a situation that only benefits the Democrats. But there is a real world with real people and real consequences. If people vote different than I’d like but doing so helps them to reckon with reality as it exists and not as it presents itself to us, then that is itself a bit of a victory as well.
I don’t understand why the logic doesn’t apply both ways though. If you shouldnt vote third party in contested states, then you should in ones that aren’t. I think that would say a lot if most democrats voted third party in those situations. I could get behind it if it were applied both ways, and it would be a great way to have a third party actually get enough popular vote to make a difference.
I’m very aware of the argument behind a safe state strategy, like I said I know a lot of people capable of sophisticated political analysis who are making that decision.
What I said was that if you are planning on making a “safe state” type calculation, and advocate for such a strategy then you had better know for sure your state is safe, and the states of the people where you might advocate for that strategy are also safe. I don’t think a protest vote is much of a protest, but I also know that the uncommitted movement which had made no small impact on the electorate in bringing awareness to this unconscionable genocide inflicted on innocent people, underwritten by both political parties, uncommitted has been advocating for voting third party. I think this is a miscalculation and false equivocation, but that movement has done good work and brought people into grassroots political engagement who were not engaged before. For them, voting is a tactic, but their strategy is to raise awareness of the Palestinian genocide, in which they have been successful. There are people who are very engaged with political action who weren’t before, and they are voting with their principles.
But uncommitted is not a political party that can defend those principles. I want a workers party. And I want Trump to lose. I also don’t think the Greens are a way to get that party, regardless of their electoral strategy. Those are my priorities. If they differ from others I can understand that. But I don’t have to agree with it and I certainly aren’t required to advocate for it. All I can do is present the situation as I see it and speak truth to uncertainty. I have a fair amount of certainty even with all of the hedging I’m doing for subjective opinion and difference of priorities. We won’t know until the votes are cast and counted, and apparently once the incoming presidency has successfully transferred power against the (likely more sophisticated than 2000) attempts to subvert the results of that election.
All I can do is speak to the different factors as I understand them and present a coherent argument for action based on coherent logic. I don’t think I contradicted myself, I think I addressed your concern in my very first post. Buy if I have contradicted myself then I’m willing to explore that, as contradiction is the beginning of dialectical inquiry.
You didn’t contradict yourself, I was asking for clarification because I didn’t understand you fully.
I don’t really think we are all that far about on the substance of this, and we could probably debate the nuance for ages for no gain, so I won’t.
The main thing I think is important is that people don’t fall into the trap of thinking there is only one broad perspective that should be valid for everyone, which I don’t think you are doing.
As an aside, do you have any sources I could read about the 2000 transfer of power? I was so young then, and growing up people never posited it as a coordinated attempt to subvert the election. I have heard a bit about it in the past years but had trouble finding information on what had happened.
The pro Russia party doesn’t represent any American.
And you are crazy if you think the democrats or republicans would allow the green party to exist any longer if there was proof they were actually a Russian party, right?
The US famously only ever made one political party illegal, and it’s not enforced now because it’s unconstitutional to do so. The best they can do is what they are doing. Highlighting the evidence.
Not trying to sound argumentative, but I have only seen anyone post the picture with Putin at the table with the Green party nominee. Would you be able to reply with any other evidence you have seen?
Repeating Russian propaganda on Ukraine, repeatedly, and again
The evidence is out there.
She’s always run on an anti-war platform. She’s saying both sides are wrong for it. Theres a pretty clear statement she put out calling Putin a war criminal. The point she’s trying to make is that America is hypocritical at best to even point the finger, which in a lot of cases is true.
Americans don’t want to talk about the bad things their country might do internationally though, so everyone calls her a Russian shill. Much more likely that, then there is any truth in what she is saying.
At least she wants to talk about our shortcomings honestly and try to solve them. The democrats won’t even be honest with the public to begin with in most cases.
People talk about it all the time. Ron Paul was a household name. People we’re talking about RFK JR a year ago. People were talking about 3rd parties due to Biden’s stance on Palestine. People were talking about it after that first debate. All that’s fine, but it only makes the two main parties sweat within 30 days of election. That’s when all the “throwing your vote away” rhetoric ramps up.
Rather than doing better, working harder, or standing on better policy to turn out the 35% of people who don’t vote, it’s easier to vilify 1% of the people who do. That’s a problem.
