The Harris and Trump promoters also suddenly went quiet the day after the election.
What did you expect? The election cycle do be like that.
Trump promoters also suddenly went quiet the day after the election.
I wish
I wish the Trump supporters would go silent.
If those “green voters” actually gave a shit about getting their candidate elected, you’d hear from them for more than 2 months every 4 years.
But no, that was never the goal. Their goal was for Trump to win
Green/PSL voters are literally posting in this thread. Maybe you have confirmation bias.
Yeah man, like 3 people on lemmy are the ones who TURN THE TIDES on elections
My god, the insanity is real.
How about Jill Stein herself who shows up on the same timeline?
Yeah her 30k voters turned the tides of the election lolz 😂
She got 782,528 votes or about 0.5% of the popular vote.
You’re misrepresenting her votes by about 26 times less.
Why is that?
Wow, it’s almost like the goal wasn’t to get her elected, it was to make sure Harris didn’t get elected.
Lolz!
Man I want to know what you are on, to be so deluded into thinking that 30k people can literally swing an election lmao 🤣
You realize elections have come down to a relatively small number of votes, correct? Especially if those votes are in the right locations.
https://www.britannica.com/list/5-remarkably-close-us-presidential-elections
Still on the 30k votes again huh? No mention of the low turnout for Democrat voters? Or the crowd pushing for people not to vote?
Oh, I thought that was because I blocked Trump and Musk in my keywords. It’s been a peaceful time and I expect I shan’t ever go back.
Nor I.
I don’t know about the Trump promoters, but a lot of the people vocally supporting Harris are very much still here, commenting about other topics. A few (but only a few) of the third-party supporters are still here too, for that matter (notable example: @givesomefucks).
That’s how you can tell they’re real users, rather than shills being paid to push an agenda: they didn’t go away when the job ended.
This thread is not about people’s appetite for political discussion, or whether they’re misguided enough to only pay attention to the Presidential election instead of building their party from local offices on up. It’s about whether they were ever legitimate at all to begin with.
Trump promoters also suddenly went quiet the day after the election.
Show me a conservative with their mouth closed and I’ll show you an America where everyone is treated equally.
The election is over, did you expect them to keep telling you to vote 3rd party when there is no election to vote for them in? Perhaps you noticed that all the “Vote Harris” commercials stopped too?
If they’re legitimate users, I expected them to continue to exist, occasionally commenting on memes and cat pictures and whatnot like the rest of us.
But they’re entirely gone instead, almost as if they stopped working once they stopped getting paid.
If they’re legitimate users, I expected them to continue to exist, occasionally commenting on memes and cat pictures and whatnot like the rest of us.
I assure you they do, they just aren’t saying “Fuck Harris vote for this cat instead” on cat pics, because that would be insane.
Edit: Upon reflection, the cat is likely the best candidate.
I’ve been around, commenting on stuff! Which specific users are you talking about disappearing? I’d love to see actual evidence for this conspiracy theory!
deleted by creator
“Hey, let’s vote for a candidate who literally cannot win from a party that hasn’t done the necessary work to become nationally viable because I don’t want to be part of the two party problem even though if we do so it will guarantee that a felon rapist who incited an insurrection, stripped women of a human right, and illegally attempted to overturn an election will win.” - Dipshit 3rd Party Voters
Just as stupid as Trump supporters, as far as I’m concerned.
Well, they got what we told them they’d be getting. Why aren’t they celebrating?
Removed by mod
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:
- 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.
All of that is fine and dandy except we live in reality.
Reality is a cold hearted bitch. The actual choices were between the status quo, with the occasional bone thrown out way, and billionaire backed fascism, where all of us will be actively fucked for at least the next four years, and likely longer because the fascists are unlikely to ever allow elections where they have a chance of losing.
Those were the only choices, not voting or voting third party was exactly the same as voting for the fascists. Congratulations, you did it, Trump won.
Removed by mod
Start from scratch on the logic. What is the ENTIRE framework we’re using to select candidates, as a population? When compared against other frameworks, how do we evaluate which framework is ideal, based on its long-term consequences for a society? If you have not already thoroughly answered this question for yourself, you are not qualified for this discussion in the first place.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
A) The third party voters convinced a lot of people not to vote.
B) You owe it to yourself to vote for the better option. All that over complication you’re doing is meaningless. Third parties can’t win. In reality the choice was Trump or not-Trump.
Third parties can’t win.
It’s like talking to flat earthers man. They honest to God believe a 3rd party candidate for president can win at this point in American history.
How do you introduce common sense to a brick wall?
Point A. Mathematically, the third party voters did not cost you the election.
But they could have in any given election. I wasn’t wearing a seat belt, but I didn’t crash, so it didn’t affect me…this time. Well guess what? This time we crashed. It just didn’t happen to be their fault…this time. This time the seat belt was voters who didn’t vote.
Point B. No candidate is owed your vote.
It isn’t about owing. It’s about acknowleding that only two parties have the possibility of winning and adulting up and voting for the one CLOSEST to your ideals. The one whose voting history makes the most sense for whatever social/economic class you fall under. Not holding out for an impossibility or going bust with the option FURTHEST from your ideals.
The only argument you can make for the preference of the first/second party candidates is not based on merit, but popularity alone.
I guess we’re living in a reality where voting history doesn’t matter.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Now’s the exact time to promote third parties.
If there actually were any. The only reason we hear about them ever is to promote spoiler candidates. Most are entirely funded by the GOP.
Yeah, like the brainworm anti-vax guy that’s now going to be in charge of our health as restitution for siphoning voters from Dems.
Yeah. On a local/state level. For a long, long time before one can even stand a snowball’s chance in hell of winning a presidential election.
“Yes, but as a strategic move, give up on controlling the most important single office in the country.”
Perot won 19% in 1992. Why has the trend inverted?
They still pop up now and again when they want to justify why Trump being elected was better than the filthy LIBERAL getting into office.
Which, itself, is a bit funny considering that third parties didn’t have much influence on that.
Don’t forget, liberals are Nazi’s and America is committing genocide.
Also “fall of the empire(america)” is a good thing even though that would most certainly result in war crimes and a probable american genocide.
America is committing genocide, but also, liberals are just fearmongering when they say a Trump regime will lead to genocide.
I hate this timeline.
They still pop up now and again when they want to justify why Trump being elected was better than the filthy LIBERAL getting into office.
I’ll take “shit nobody actually said” for 500 Alex
Still advocating for state level electoral reform so people can vote outside the two party system with no spoiler effect.
Why are you okay with people being unrepresented with their options in the voting booth? Don’t you support democracy?
In fact no. These are the very same people that prefer a dictator to take de facto power over the will of the people( see Venezuela) just because the will of the people doesn’t align with their ideology this time
So yeah
You just perfectly described the ‘leftists’ who sat home instead of voting for Harris.
You mean liberals, there’s no legitimate lefty there
No I mean leftists.
No you mean Liberals
Liberals liked Harris but the self-described leftists like Trump.
I assure you that I know what I mean.
I think the real problem was those that stayed home. Turnout wasn’t great.
The real problem is the Democratic party has stopped any good candidate from advancing. It’s a party problem, nothing else
The problem is the actual voting system. First Past the Post actively punishes Third Party voters. Which leaves us with a choice between the status quo and a party that wants to make shit worse.
Now, the status quo isn’t all that good, but is distinctly better than the alternative. But that’s it.
To get something actually better, we need to change the voting system itself. Ordinal voting systems always result in some form of two party dominance. So we need something different. A Cardinal voting system.
There are two main choices. Approval, which has been used off and on in real world elections for at least a thousand years. Most notably for the election of the Pope for several centuries before the process was corrupted by wealth and nepotism.
The other option is STAR, a voting system designed in 2014 meant to address the problems with other voting systems.
Ofc it was, but that having a foot in reality is not needed when hunting for scapegoats.
We don’t need a third party. We need ranked choice voting.
How can you have ranked choice voting with only two parties?
Ranked choice voting still works with two parties by letting voters rank multiple candidates within those parties or include third-party/independent options. It helps ensure the winner has broader support, reduces “lesser of two evils” voting, and encourages more positive campaigning, especially in primaries.
So, in the federal election without a third party under ranked choice; my options would be 1. Harris, 2. Trump.
Ranked choice voting is designed to reduce the spoiler effect and allow voters to support third-party and independent candidates without fear of “wasting” their vote. While it doesn’t automatically create new parties, it can encourage their growth by making the political system more accessible. By implementing RCV first, the political environment becomes more open to alternative parties gaining traction and competing more fairly over time.
I’m short, by it’s nature, RCV creates alternatives.
I.E., we need a third party.
My bad for not being more clear. I didn’t mean to imply that more parties are automatically a good thing. What I meant is that ranked choice voting actually incentivizes candidates to adopt broader, more inclusive positions that reflect the unique views of voters in their district or state. It encourages collaboration and reduces division because candidates need to appeal beyond their base to win second- and third-choice votes. Just adding a third party alone doesn’t fix anything, but RCV actively reshapes how campaigns are run and how candidates engage with voters. That’s something only RCV can accomplish.
Some more info on this.
Jill Stein received less than 1% of the vote. Scapegoat someone else.
Yea I did what Bernie did… vote for Democrats in the election because it was the opinion closer to my own beliefs. I’m a registered NPA at this point because I find the DNC embarrassing to be affiliated with.
For the most part I’m a democratic socialist. I’ll be supporting those types of candidates get elected as just regular Democrats, because (for the people in the back) THE USA CURRENTLY HAS A TWO PARTY SYSTEM!
I did what Bernie did… vote for Democrats in the election because it was the opinion closer to my own beliefs.
So you behaved like a responsible adult?
Thank you.
I still point out once a week. Republicans and Democrats are the problem. Entirely ditch both parties and grab a third party that’s actually terrified of happening to them, what just happened to the Republican’s and Democrats and taking our country back from the damn thieves.
But I guess with eye sight like that, you would have trouble seeing what’s right in front of you.
You know it’s funny, but I’ve NEVER seen a comment or a post from you guys saying “BOTH SIDES ARE THE SAME, HERE ARE 10 EXAMPLES THAT PROVE IT”
But I have seen plenty of comments and posts listing example after example of just how different the progressive party is from the conservatives.
All I ever see from Team BSS is the same generic “both sides same lol because thats how I FEEL” type of answer. Never any receipts to backup those feels, I wonder why?
It’s really not hard to see why bss. It’s plastered everywhere at this point. Both parties are corrupt and cater to corporate interests. They take legal bribes and hurt the working class as a result.
If you’re truly not a bot or paid state actor, you’ve gotta be real hardheaded to stick to this take.
Someone expresses disdain for the democratic party in community
Get comments removed/banned for this
Don’t interact with the community anymore
oMg WhErE dId ThEy gO???
Banned for not aligning with the Democratic party?? Not on my good lemmy.world!!
Removed by mod
Hi! I’m right here!
Liking your new president?
I haven’t liked any president in my life, no.
If stopping trump is so important, then why didn’t democrats replace First-past-the-post voting with a more representative electoral system? So people could be free to vote how they wish, safe in the knowledge their vote would still be counted against Republicans if their preference didn’t win.
More people voting statistically means more votes for democrats. Why are the democrats saying no to these easy votes? Where is the urgency?
What would you do for more then one chance to beat the Republicans? Would you campaign for electoral reform in your state like Alaskans did?
That’s right, a state has already done away with FPTP voting. It’s possible, as voting is controlled at the state level.
You have to admit that losing to Trump twice is fucking embarrassing, and it should destroy any notion that the democratic party should be the only poltical party to fight this fight. They have more then lost that privilege long ago.
The Democratic party is not more important then the United States of America. If only the DNC felt the same way…
The best solution to the two parties excluding the left isn’t a third party, it’s for the left to register as Republicans and conduct a hostile takeover of the GOP in the primaries.
This can easily succeed in blue states/cities to start out.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. The Democrats are very good at controlling the outcomes of their primaries, but the Republicans don’t seem as capable. They threw everything they had at stopping Trump in 2016, came up short, and then allowed him to completely restructure the party. I wonder if it might be easier for a progressive to run in an open Republican primary in a district the broader GOP isn’t trying to compete in, then try and take out the Democrat in the general. It might be more effective than primarying Democrats directly.
It’s weird that that doesn’t sound ludicrous
Linkerbaan?
