“How’s the Democratic Party’s ground game in Pennsylvania?” I asked a friend several weeks before the 2024 presidential election. He replied optimistically that there were far more door knockers this year than in 2022.
It turned out these door knockers were just urging a vote for the Democrats without putting forth a compelling agenda attached to candidate commitments on issues that mean something to people where they live, work, and raise their families. There was no Democratic Party “Compact for the American People.” Then-President Joe Biden visited Pennsylvania, which went Republican, many times, with his most memorable message being that he grew up in Scranton.
…
Their aversion to building their own momentum to answer the basic questions “Whose side are you on?” and “What does the Democratic Party stand for?” remains as pathetic as it was in 2022 and 2024.
Then either the democrats change to appease the third party voters, or the third party keeps growing until it no longer matters what the democrats do.
If those scenarios seem unrealistic, they are much more realistic than democrats spontaneously deciding to do a 180 and actually fix things.
The democrats lost and haven’t changed a thing. The third parties also haven’t changed. They still don’t stand a chance.
And now we have blatant fascism and a mentally ill narcissistic pedophile with dementia hauling anyway anyone he dislikes in the back of a van while he builds concentration camps for anyone who angers him.
How exactly is this better than Kamala?
I don’t think Trump being president is better than Kamala, which is why I didn’t vote for him.
If Kamala had won, then she would still be black bagging people to concentration camps. ICE existed before and both Biden and Kamala explicitly support it. The silver lining is that, because Trump is doing it blatantly, as you say, at least more people are aware of it and upset about it. Doing fascism while following the rules and keeping everything out of sight and out of mind is arguably worse, but it’s kind of a toss up.
Of course, the strategies I mentioned were and are longshots, which may take a while to work if they will at all. But they have a nonzero chance of working, which is more than “vote blue no matter who” does. That is, if the goal is actually stopping fascism and not just easing into it more comfortably.
Third parties haven’t grown, though. Only 3 were on the ballot in more than 10 states in 2024, and none were all 51 states. Over 99% of state and federal legislative seats are held be either Democratic or Republican nominee. Zero current governors, with only 4 in total in the last 25 years. Not a single electoral college vote since 1968, and Perot received 18.9% of the national popular vote in 1992. Current third party candidates and voters should generally be trying to shift the Democratic party via the primaries instead, due to the stacked ballot access in most states.
Primaries aren’t even required to be fair elections. The party can pull whatever shenanigans it wants, and there’s nothing any of us can do about it so long as third parties are ruled out.
If the democrats decided to straight up go back to the days of deciding nominees in smoke-filled rooms with no primary process at all, then would you still say we need to vote for them unconditionally as the lesser evil? Is there any breaking point at all where you’ll reject that approach?
Because if so, then I am simply already past that point. And if not, then you seem utterly hopeless to me. They can keep moving further and further right, removing any possibility for you to do anything about it, and you’ll keep supporting them unconditionally. I consider that a ridiculous position and it’s even more ridiculous to think the general public would accept that.
If they do away with primaries we can discuss what to do at that time, but they haven’t at this time and they’ve actually reduced the power of super delegates since 2016 (before the 2018 primaries they made it so super delegates don’t even get a vote at the convention unless the pledged delegates can’t elect a nominee in the initial round).
I never said to unconditionally vote for the Democratic candidates to begin with so the rest of your response to this imagined position is moot.
I’m advocating for maximizing the power of your vote in the system we currently have. If you’re living in a district in a state with any kind of ranked choice voting, absolutely vote third party if that’s where your alignment falls. Otherwise you need to accept that the winner will be either the Democratic or Republican nominee so your chance to influence that is in either of those primaries and not voting for one of them in the general means the one with whom you least align has one fewer votes to overcome to win. For your one vote against them, they need two votes to get the lead.
Third parties just aren’t viable in districts without ranked choice, so to get ranked choice we the voters need to put candidates who support election reform in power thru the major party primaries. Which is exactly what I’m advocating for.
So your idea is that we will vote in Democrat politicians who will… Legislate themselves out of power by instituting ranked choice voting?
This part of your plan seems absurd on its face. I want ranked choice voting as much as you, but we need a realistic plan, and what you’re proposing is a pipe dream.
Voting third party is more realistic than expecting Dems to institute ranked choice.
Y’all always play this little game. “I didn’t say that, don’t put words in my mouth.” OK then, say unequivocally that that is not your position. Say that it’s valid to place conditions on voting democrat. Then explain what possible condition could be more valid than “no genocide.”
You just don’t like me rephrasing your position bluntly.
No, you have it completely backwards. I am going to vote according to my values and beliefs. If they give me ranked choice voting, then I will happily put them above the Republicans. Otherwise, they will acquiesce to my minimum demands or they will not get my vote.
Oh, you’re one of those. “My car broke down.” “Well then, just drive it to the mechanic!”
The problem that ranked choice is meant to address is that the current system does not provide a viable means for us to get policy enacted. Your “solution” is to keep using ineffective, broken means in the hopes that it will somehow be effective at fixing itself. If we could achieve RCV through the existing system, then we could just achieve whatever end policy we want through the existing system. The logic is incredibly backwards, putting the cart before the horse.
If you had an ounce of spine, then you would demand RCV, then you would say that you should only vote for those candidates who support it. And if enough people did that, perhaps it could be achievable. And I’d certainly have more respect for your position.
As it is, your position is simply complete, unconditional support for the democrats, and then you say some irrelevant shit about voting reform to distract from that fact. Like, “It would sure be nice if the king decided to institute democracy out of the kindness of his heart, I’ll keep supporting him either way though.” If that is false, then address my first paragraph.
I already stated that unconditional support for Democratic nominees is not my position. I also already stated the circumstances under which I believe your vote can be effective when cast for a third party. I also never said to not vote based on your values and beliefs. I said that if you choose to not vote against the person who is least aligned with your values and beliefs, you’re making it easier for them to win. The winner of the election will be one of the candidates on the ballot, whether they’ve earned your individual vote or not. And it’s your only opportunity to pick which one of them it will be. Neither will align perfectly with your values and beliefs unless you yourself are running. Even with ranked choice voting. So you may as well take that opportunity to get as close to your values and beliefs as is possible given the choices.
Since you brought this up specifically, did a “no genocide” candidate win? Was there a “no genocide” candidate for president on the ballot in enough states to even be mathematically capable of winning enough EC votes? Not even likely to win but just mathematically able to? Did you then believe that Trump, who Netanyahu supported, would be better than Kamala on that issue? If you thought that were indistinguishable, were there any other issues besides that which mattered to you, for which there was a measurable difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates.
I have the spine to use my voice to strive for better rather than to silence myself in wait for perfect, because if I’m not helping to make the choice of who is in power, someone else will make it for me.
Literally nothing else you can say matters at all. Because if you can’t answer this, then when you say your position is not unconditionally voting democrat, you are simply lying.
If you want to argue for unconditionally supporting them, and admit that that is your position, then it might be worth considering any of your other arguments, because then at least you’re being honest and consistent. But unless you can either do that or answer my challenge, you are obviously engaging in bad faith and dishonesty.
Either you’re ok with placing conditions on them or you support them unconditionally. That’s what “unconditionally” means. You don’t get to have it both ways.
And, if you can answer that challenge, then you’ll have already refuted all the arguments you just made for me.
Well, at least I know your favorite sports team!