Labour have been trying this in the UK. Now green support is increasing significantly.
Americans don’t have a Greens party, they have the Fascists or the Status Quo party. Personally I just wouldn’t vote if I lived in that shithole, but I guess that’s what people think and look at where they are now.
Well, Republicans can vote, well, Republican, while leftist don’t have a viable alternative to voting Democrat. This has turned the Democrats into Repulican light. And nobody wants that.
Republicans at the voting booth: I would like to vote for the candidate that assured my biases the most, now who was that one guy that Fox News showed me yesterday…
Meanwhile the left on social media: Your strategy of voting pales in comparison with my strategy of ranting on social media, you imbecile, you rube. Now, why don’t Democrats don’t listen to me!I should register as a Republican so the Democrats start to care what I think
How does that work though? At least voting in the Democrat primaries, candidates with sane policies and values can potentially end up the ones on the general ballot. I don’t see that happening in the Republican primaries. And regardless of your registration status regressive Democrat politicians aren’t going to be trying to appeal to you if you have sane political values. Maybe my bad for taking a joke too seriously but doesn’t seem like a rational approach.
How does that work though?
It’s a joke about how Democrats campaign to try and change Republican voters toward their side while ignoring people who already vote Democrat.
They do be doing that a lot.
It doesnt work and that user doesn’t want it to work.
No you (and everyone else) should be voting in primaries more. Everyone ignores voting except for once every four years. Then we have the problem that no one wants to run or can run. I have been asked repeatedly but dont have the resources to walk away from employment into public service. How many others are like this. This is a problem of our own making.
A solution? FUCK THAT I WANNA BE MAD!
Like I haven’t been voting in primaries and every local election since the year 2000…
Maybe I’m sick of waiting for everyone else to do their goddamn part.
They are doing their part. Just voting for the other option. Every primary is won by the centrists, you might think it’s because of a conspiracy but it might be just the option that most people prefer. Trump even won the popular vote the second time around, the American public just doesn’t agree with you. I wish they did, but they don’t.
Warm regards from a European socialist.
They vote for centrists because they believe policy that helps them and the people they know is actually less electable than typical centrist, means-tested bullshit that helps nobody. Every election the talking heads on CNN tell them “Don’t vote for the candidate with the best policy, vote for the candidate an imaginary conservative suburbanite would vote for.”
The median voter who is 50% democrat, 50% republican, who will vote for a 98% republican against a 100% republican isn’t a real thing, but the dems pretend it is because it allows them to justify wildly unpopular policy to their own base.
Yet somehow they get elected…
Because the DNC and state parties ratfuck and progressive in the primaries.
That, or because primary voters (outside of new York and la) prefer the centrists.
Yes I’m aware that humans are terrible
You said the problem yourself: Only the rich can run for office. The problem isn’t “our own making”. The problem is the system.
This was the first year I haven’t been a Democrat.
I just don’t care about voting in their primaries anymore, and that’s the only reason I was in there to begin with.
The rules of the Republican Party make it easier for fringe groups to take over, which is why it’s a Trump cult now.
Maybe progressives and leftists should try and swamp that party first. At a minimum we won’t have the problem of people automatically dismissing candidates because of the D next to the name.
And centrists won’t be able to yell at us about being stupid and voting for a third party.
Because thr DNC is designed to eliminate any leftist/progressive momentum before it can amount to actual change. The whole point of the party for the past 50 years has been to make empty promises to people while shoveling money to corporations amd the wealthy.
I’ve long said that you can splinter the GOP with a faction that’s obviously socialist to anyone who’s read theory, but drapes itself in patriotic jargon and leans into anti-establishment pro-worker sentiment. Country music used to be very leftist if you pay attention, lean into that.
I’m literally the opposite, I’m registered as a Democrat and vote for progressives every primary.
Don’t come at me with the spoiler effect. I know, you know, and most importantly the candidates know. They know. So if a candidate doesn’t oppose FPTP, what do you think that tells you? They don’t get to fall silent on this issue while holding us hostage with it.
Democratic primaries gave us Mamdani. The problem isn’t Democratic primaries, it’s not having the right candidates on yours. We’re not getting out of the duopoly anytime soon. Either run in the primary yourself, or campaign for someone who will.
Same here. I registered independent last month.
Followup with republicans: Oh… ok so the only compromise you are offering is we eat shit, we give you everything you asked for? OK pass me the spoon. Oh… right sorry sir you didn’t offer a spoon, we’ll just use our hands, sorry to inconvenience you.
That’s why a two party system is stupid. Democrats are not trying to be “good”, just the lesser evil.
There is no government that is not the “lesser evil”. That is why it exists in the first place.
Multi-party systems have their own issues. For example, whatever a party says they will do if you vote for them is worth nothing after the election. They have to find coalition partners and everything is up for negotiation.
It’s not worth nothing, they will implement parts of their agenda proportional to the number of MPs they bring. Usually by order of importance for them. They more people vote for them, the bigger percentage of the agenda will get implemented, up to a 100% if they win an outright majority.
Lol no that’s not what happens :D I don’t know on which planet you follow politics
Earth
Which party in the government is forcing Labour to do zionism and transphobia?
Labour, I guess? They are not in a coalition afaik, but I’m not that interested in UK politics. Unless you mean Australia, then even less.
Two-party systems have their own issues. For example, whatever a party says they will do if you vote for them is worth nothing after the election. They have no reason to negotiate and do whatever the hell they feel like, regardless of what they said they will do.
I think this is the better source and has a more thorough argumentations for and against both two- and multi-party systems (I think around lecture 8-10). But I can’t expect a common lemmy troll to watch something like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDqvzFY72mg&list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyViG2ar68jkgEi4y6doNZy&index=1
Here we go, I knew I had posted it already here on lemmy a while ago because this crap comes up again and again:
I’m not watching an 1h 10m lecture which may or may not have relevant content. Now who’s the common Lemmy troll?
Can you narrow this down to a time signature please?
I would like to state however, I live in a country within a country. I live within both a (basically) two-party system (Westminster, UK) and a multi-party system (Holyrood, Scotland). I can see first hand which of these systems a) runs most competently b) runs most democratically. In both scenarios it’s the multi-party proportionally representative Scottish Holyrood system.
In a rare moment of defying electoral maths we even had a majority government in 2011 in Holyrood, which meant they no longer had to worry about negotiating with smaller parties. Guess what happened? They got bumped down to a minority government the next election because of dissatisfaction with their governance. When one party has ultimate control they are beholden to nobody, the power goes to their heads, and it’s difficult to say with a straight face that they’re therefore even democratic.
Multi-party systems create cooperation rather than the division that two-party systems thrive on. The point, after all, of all of this politicking, is to agree how to run a shared country. Cooperation therefore is a far better way of living than constant division and attack.
Two party division and attack has led to the chaos in America we’re witnessing right now. Two party division and attack has led to the chaos in Britain where both major parties are collapsing in on themselves (one already has). It’s a shite way to run a country, never ending attack, attack, attack of those who have a slightly different opinion on how things should be run.
Switching from two-party systems to multi-party systems is not going to solve your problems. Likewise, switching from multi-party to two-party won’t either. If you took the time to watch the lecture you would understand that.
There seems to be this naive believe here on lemmy that the two-party system in places like the UK or US is what causes all the trouble and lack of representation. Having lived in multi-party and basically one-party systems I can tell you that this does not make politics more representative.
As long as the general public ™ has no believable leverage that politicians need to take into account while billionaires buy all the media, give politicians exit options and do all sorts of other things, there will never be money for schools or hospitals and always an urgent need to reduce regulations/taxes for companies. No matter if you have 1, 2, or 5 parties.
That’s true, but at least some of them are less likely to be beholden to the wealthy, which actually gives the public a chance at choosing better. With the US two-party system, there’s little such opportunity.
Eh, better to exploit the existing system than wish it was different. Wish in one hand, etc. The system is what it is. Electorally speaking, we have no choice but to operate within it until we can actually change it.
Our agency as a collective relies on voting. Nullifying or invalidating the worth of the democratic party is antithetical to the means of the many. It’s obvious which party wants for collectivism.
I know it’s disheartening to believe in Democrats because they’re also harvesting money from private interests (or making big money in the stock exchange with prior knowledge of events to unfold), but Republican sentiment is now, “burn everything to the ground”, which doesn’t sound bad until you realize that the new government will be the same old white guys that abused us before, but WAY more powerful.
real answer is to support/organize with your local DSA, they’re the only actual progressives in the room who know what they’re doing. silently take over local/state-level democratic seats until you have a majority necessary to vote out all of the corrupt establishment democrats, yoinking the party’s coin-purse in the process.
the system is designed so 3rd partys cant win any relevant amount of power, you have to take over dem’s from the inside…that’s what MAGA did with the GOP
Now we’re talking. I don’t want to be an apologist for anyone involved in corruption, but I don’t want to people to fall into inaction by believing that both parties are the same. We’ve got to be active.
Not if we kill all those old white guys when the government isn’t around.
These people CANNOT be allowed to get near to power again. The best way to ensure that is if they are fucking dead.
These ghouls are raping and devouring all of our futures. The futures of your children. There is no compromise with such people.
It’s obvious which party wants for collectivism.
No it is not. It appears that the Democrats are failing at this on purpose, as controlled opposition. Their leader in the senate is Chuck Schumer.
I would really, really hope that the message people take from this is not “burn everything to the ground” of the republicans, but ‘burn everything to the ground that involves the current democratic leadership and replace it with people not beholden to the corporations.’
A much more difficult task, but a worthy one.
Guy in California in a bright blue district with a landslide turnout: “Well, I’m feeling disappointed with the party. I’m going to vote Green instead.”
Guy’s Grandmother in a Purple State swing district who voted for Trump in 2016 because she didn’t like Hillary: “You fucking idiot! You’ve fallen for Putin’s propaganda! You’re going to cost us the election!”
Mamdani, you have such potential. Please don’t fuck it up.
He literally can’t do anything. He talks a big game but the system was long rigged to prevent progress decades before he got into power.
There are some circumstances that are in his favor, specifically in New York. There are enough people in NYC who are willing to give progressives a try that it may actually put pressure on the Governor, who is up for reelection next year. There is a progressive candidate running against the current Governor so there is a significant incentive to shore up her support on the left and for her to play ball with Mamdani.
We’ll have to see. There are a lot of powers looking to stop him and demonstrate the futility of trying to accomplish anything progressive. If he fails I fear it will utterly demoralize progressives, but in a rare moment at least the electoral system is in his favor for the next 12 months.
They see politics as being a scale from left to right, 1 to 100. Individuals may have any value in that scale and they’ll vote for whoever has a closer value. So if Republicans are 80, Dems move up to 79 so that they’ll be the closest to anything left of 80. If Republicans go up to 100, Dems go up to 99 and then 99% of people will vote Dem as even someone with a value of 1 will see them as the closest party. It’s an incredible and flawless plan. Who cares about the actual politics so long as you win, right?
Now if there were a third party, then suddenly going as close to Republicans as possible is no longer a good strategy because the third party can just do the same with them - so they have to find a new balance in that scale. Add even more parties and then each one would have to find its own thing to fight for or they would get absolutely no votes.
It is important to note that that model does not match reality. If it was true, we would see centrists winning every election. Instead when the dems run a republican-lite, the moderate republicans vote for the real thing, the dem base vote in lower numbers because they don’t like republican policy and feel betrayed, and the politically confused people in the middle vote republican because the dems are basically admitting they agree with the core ideas of republican policy.
We have third and fourth and more parties. Its not the number of parties that matter. Its the system by which they are given power.
If Democrats were a majority party, none of this would be happening, so definitely not bOtH SIdEs on this one.
