You are only browsing one thread in the discussion! All comments are available on the post page.

Return

Col3814444 ,

Republicans are hungry to water down the Democrat vote.

TokenBoomer ,

Do you have a source that this is funded by Republican donors?

Drusas ,

I didn't see them say that. It's a pretty factual statement that fracturing the Democratic vote is excellent for the Republican Party.

TokenBoomer ,

Some of us aren’t Democrats. We’ve just never had another choice. I welcome anyone that pushes the conversation more left. If he does get on the ballot as a spoiler, I won’t vote for him. But I can’t fault those who do.

Drusas ,

I have never in my life been registered as either Democrat or a Republican, so you're preaching to the choir there. It's still the case that a left-leaning third party historically benefits the Republican Party by diluting the left-leaning voter pool.

TokenBoomer ,

So left-leaning voters can’t ask for more? It’s by design. At some point the table must be overturned. Why not now?

Drusas ,

Of course they can and they should. I personally happen to believe that the only way that can happen is to move the Democratic Party further left, until we can get rid of first past the post. Once first past the post is gone, parties will have more equal footing.

TokenBoomer ,

I’ve watched this play out my entire life. The Democrats are moving to the right, not the left. They won’t allow reform. Bernie proved that. Voting harder isn’t gonna do it.

Drusas ,

I don't necessarily disagree. The Democratic Party has moved left in some areas, but it's pretty far right when it comes to economic ones. We need more options, but we don't have them. I suppose fracturing the vote is better than busting out the guillotines.

TokenBoomer ,

Americans are innovators, we can do both. A great American poet once said, “Fortune favors the bold!”

Drusas ,

I appreciate your optimism.

Edit: Kbin bug won't let me nest this where it belongs, but I'm leaving it.

be_excellent_to_each_other ,
@be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social avatar

So left-leaning voters can’t ask for more? It’s by design. At some point the table must be overturned.

The thing to ask for is ranked choice voting.

Why not now?

You answered your own question already:

If he does get on the ballot as a spoiler, I won’t vote for him.

You said it yourself. In the current scenario this version of asking for more only makes the road easier for R.

Look what happened to Bernie.

I registered Democrat after decades of being registered Independent specifically to vote for Bernie in the primaries. I feel he was shafted by the DNC both times, just ever so slightly more subtly the second time.

But I can’t fault those who do.

Nor will I, but if your left leaning values cause you to cast a vote that's only handing power to folks far, far to the right of Biden/Harris based on Biden/Harris not being left enough for you, don't ask me to pretend that's not exceptionally self defeating.

TokenBoomer ,

I don’t think it’s self-defeating. By maintaining the status quo and never giving the left what it actually wants, the Dems doom themselves to this scenario. At some point in the future, voter disillusionment WILL result in a Republican president. Then Fascism will rule. It may happen anyway due to Republican state legislatures and the Supreme Court. All because establishment Democrats won’t give up power. Martin Luther King said it best, “Justice too long delayed, is justice denied.” They want you to wait for change so they can keep bilking corporate coffers. I’m too old to wait any longer. I’m tired of waiting!

be_excellent_to_each_other , (edited )
@be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social avatar

I didn't say maintain the status quo. You have much more chance of changing it by making ranked choice voting your rallying point than you do by voting for a candidate you consider to be left enough for you vs Democrats.

I voted Nader in 2000 because I believed as you do. The result was no different than what voting for this candidate will bring. (And I still get to listen to people blame me for Bush.)

You do you, all I'm saying is don't pretend you are moving the needle. You aren't, or you are moving it in the opposite direction you intend.

Edited to add a d.

TokenBoomer ,

Your vote maintains the Status Quo. Why would Democrats offer ranked choice voting, it is against their interests? I’m not saying vote for Cornel West over Joe Biden in the general election. I’m advocating supporting a third party candidate to force the Democrats to answer to the left.

be_excellent_to_each_other ,
@be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social avatar

I’m advocating supporting a third party candidate to force the Democrats to answer to the left.

I don't really get the mechanism by which you are suggesting this would happen.

All the support for Bernie put no visible pressure on Dems, all the support for Nader didn't either. Jill Stein did nothing but help Republicans when she ran, and now she's helping Cornell West do the same.

Your vote maintains the Status Quo.

Only in that it doesn't push things to the right, which a vote for any third party effectively does in today's environment.

Why would Democrats offer ranked choice voting

I don't claim to have a roadmap to ranked choice voting, but whatever slim chance we have of getting that done at some point is still far more realistic than the idea that voting green is going to have any impact other than putting an R in the whitehouse again.

However much improvement the Dems may need, they aren't actively rolling us backwards. I can't fathom how anyone does that calculus and comes to a different conclusion in 2023, after witnessing 2016 and 2020.

TokenBoomer ,

The Democrats “aren’t actively rolling us backwards.” This is where we disagree. It’s theratchet effect. The reason the Democrats seem like Republicans from the 70’s and 80’d is because they’re the same. They’re NEVER going left! And voting for them isn’t going to change that. Again, I’m not ceding to fascism. Vote for Joe Biden. But try to understand why someone might be disaffected.

be_excellent_to_each_other , (edited )
@be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social avatar

But try to understand why someone might be disaffected.

In rethinking much of this discussion while preparing dinner, I realized I maybe came in a little aggressive on the topic, my apologies. I do understand this. Our primary difference is that I don't think we can do better than "lesser of two evils" until structural change occurs.

While I agree with you that structural change is not an easy path either, to me it seems an undeniable prerequisite before any flavor of voting for or supporting a third party is going to do anything other than benefit Republicans.

The reason the Democrats seem like Republicans from the 70’s and 80’d is because they’re the same.

I don't agree with this choice of words, but I do think I agree with the spirit of what you are saying in this regard. I think the issue is that there's not a good path out of this. I think your suggested path is an impossibility, and you think mine is.

Edited to add a d and fix punctuation and this:

I think supporting the most progressive local candidate you possibly can seems likely to have the best effect. In my case, the local democrat is very progressive, wins handily, and is truly a good choice. So I admit I've got easy mode for this locally. But I feel like these are the folks who can provide change you might actually feel, and who can potentially manage upwards through their party.

admiralteal ,

If you're deciding between not voting or voting for a third party that has no chance of changing any major platform or winning an election, absolutely vote for a third party.

Either way you are consenting to the outcome.

Whether you vote protest to an unelectable third party or vitre strategically, what you do beyond the ballot box matters far more.

But the idea that a vote for the lesser of two evils isn't a vote for less evil? I don't buy that. Especially when the progressive needle was moved significantly under Biden, especially for climate.

TokenBoomer ,

Have you ever seen the 80’s movie Wargames. When presented with two undesirable outcomes, the best choice is not to play.

admiralteal ,

Only if both outcomes are equally undesirable.

If they aren't and you don't participate, you are consenting to the outcome. Even if that is the outcome that was less desirable.

Everything you write here is the exact kind of cynical, pessimistic motivation many need to hear... in order to convince them to not participate. To not vote. And the kinds of people you're going to drive away are the ones you need active and participating to further your agenda.

These people who tell you that the Democrats are perfect and great and have no issues that are being invoked don't exist. Pretty much no one thinks that. And I'm sure, push come to shove, you probably do vote strategically because only a true moron wouldn't.

But this position you're out here arguing for isn't one that is going to let politics get pushed left. It's going to push it right. You're achieving the opposite agenda by telling people not to vote strategically.

TokenBoomer ,

Some may disagree. If I don’t like either candidate and choose not to vote. I am NOT consenting to either outcome. That’s a false dichotomy. Not voting can be a protest vote. If I give you a choice between dying by gas chamber, or by firing squad. And you choose neither. You’re not consenting to death by firing squad.

admiralteal ,

But the choice you're actually getting is gas chamber vs having to buy your own lunch.

Both outcomes undesirable. One of them tolerable. And you're recommending against doing either. And so when the gas chambers people win the election because you refused to vote for anyone who didn't promise you free lunch, yeah, you're complicit. And so much more so because you are advocating for people that want free lunch to stand by and let gas chambers win.

Fundamentally, the insanity you're espousing is the idea that ONLY elections matter. They're the smallest effort you can put towards shaping the world. A tiny piece of being an advocate for change. Use that vote strategically and put the rest of your efforts towards advocacy. Instead of advocating for people to not use their votes. It's genuinely heartbreaking to see someone so obsessed with moral absolutes that they're actually shaming people for trying to make things even a little better.

TokenBoomer ,

It is not my intent to shame anyone for doing what they think is right. If you think voting for Biden is the right thing. Do it. Don’t let some guy on the internet tell you otherwise. But if someone chooses not to vote or vote third party, we should try to understand and respect their choice. This electoral system creates a false dichotomy that you don’t have a choice. There’s always another choice. By not participating or voting third party you’re making that choice. A lot of the left is tired of this game. Advocating for a third party is working outside the system. I’m not a moral absolutist, I’m a realist. Voting for Biden won’t change the system. Insanity is voting for Democrats election after election and expecting substantial change. Raise the minimum wage with executive order. Stop drilling for oil. Our planet is dying. Again, I’m voting for Biden to fight fascism, knowing full well that Democrats aren’t the answer. But I don’t begrudge those that want more and vote third party.

admiralteal ,

You can also vote for Biden because the IRA was a $1.3+ trillion climate package that is already dramatically improved all models for climate change using a carrot approach that is actually working. Permitting reform is a complex issue, but the best policy experts do think it's necessary because the same policies that make oil drilling easier ALSO make things like solar, offshore wind, and even things like geothermal or green hydrogen easier to get approved. The US energy permitting process was and still is holding us back. The free market is going to crush fossil fuels pretty fast under the current trends. Not nearly fast enough, but faster under IRA than anything so far. And even that chunk of permitting reform was a concession (to the coal-hearted monster Joe Manchin) because the counterfactual outcome was nothing.

Minimum wage cannot be raised by executive order. That's just not a thing. It wouldn't even make it past lower courts, much less the SCOTUS. The only place that can be done is for federal workers... which it was.

BBB contained tons of social welfare reforms before it got torpedoed. By Joe Manchin. It would've meant a lot to working class people.

A recurring theme. The fact is, the last time Democrats were able to get real power over all three chambers and free of conservative lunatics, the ACA got passed. Even then, they had to make big compromises to get the GOP to help sign on to do it, seriously watering it down and making it fail to be much better than a bandaid on the problem.

I can't reply to the inevitable conspiracy theory of "well they wouldn't have put more forward if they knew it could pass!!!~", but the fact is this stuff WAS put forward. And couldn't pass. So negotiation and compromise happened to get something passed because that's better than nothing.

You say the "Democrats aren't the answer", but you don't even know the question. You're an idealist, not a realist. A realist votes strategically and encourages others to do the things that will actually work. You have prejudged these politicians and are literally saying it is insane to vote for them in spite of the progress that demonstrably has been made, just because it didn't live up to your total moral standards. You're encouraging people to walk away from a winnable fight.

Arguing with bothsiders drives me fucking up the wall.

TokenBoomer ,

Read this article:

theguardian.com/…/food-systems-collapse-plutocrat…

Just keeping it real. We don’t have time for “slight improvements” and compromises. We need action now.

HarkMahlberg ,
@HarkMahlberg@kbin.social avatar

You got the point of that movie all wrong. Mutually assured destruction is a game where the only winning moving is not to play, because it is mutual, meaning either choice is equally doomed to the same outcome. "Two undesirable outcomes" is not a good enough excuse to simply not participate. By definition, one of those outcomes must be preferable to the other, and that's what you should vote for, while you continue to work outside the ballot box to push better candidates and better policies.

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

TokenBoomer ,

See, the thing is; you think you can stop fascism by voting for Democrats. I think a vote for Dems only delays the inevitable. Real, structural change is needed to stop the fascism. The Democrats aren’t going to stop it because they’re owned by corporations. They won’t allow themselves to be reformed because the current system works for them. “If you don’t vote for us you get fascism.” I’m not advocating for not voting. I’m proposing an understanding of why people choose not to vote or vote third party. Regarding mutually assured destruction, both parties aren’t doing enough about climate change. We’re still subsidizing fossil fuels. Biden just opened up more land for drilling. As for the quote, I don’t think it’s analogous. Not voting or voting third party can be a protest vote. So a good man is doing something. He’s protesting.

HarkMahlberg ,
@HarkMahlberg@kbin.social avatar

Real, structural change is needed to stop the fascism.

On that we agree.

IronCorgi ,

The issue is that in wargames not playing causes the event not to happen, while in electoral politics not playing just means ceding the decision to everyone else

ripcord ,
@ripcord@kbin.social avatar

See the comment about first past the post elections. Until that is resolved, the rest of this is essentially moot.

zerkrazus ,

Democrats and liberals aren't left though. They're right wing, as are Republicans and conservatives. The actual left are Greens, Socialists, Communists, etc. None of which are represented by Democrats or Republicans. If Democrats want the actual left to support them, they need to start actually passing actual left policies, not ratcheting to the right every chance they get.

Drusas ,

This is why I specifically say "left-leaning".

zerkrazus ,

Any self respecting actual left person wouldn't vote for a Democrat or a Republican. And voting won't fix anything anyways. It hasn't for 50+ years. Why would it now? You can't vote out fascists and oligarchs. The rich keep getting richer and everyone else keeps getting poorer no matter who is in power/control.

Drusas ,

So what are you doing and recommending? Voting and campaigning are currently the only ways available to keep fascists out, unless you are suggesting violent revolution.

zerkrazus ,

I'm pretty sure what I would suggest would violate TOS. Nazis were not voted out. A literal war was fought to get rid of them. You can't vote them out. Democrats are fascists. Republicans are fascists. Just because one says nicer things and promises to do things (that they never do), doesn't make them not fascist.

TokenBoomer ,

You get it.

mrnotoriousman ,

I can fault them. As someone on the left, I dislike not having another choice besides Dems but for real there are far better ways to get the conversation more left than playing spoiler.

The thing about our shit system is you need to have heavy majorities in Congress on top of winning the electoral college if you want to be able to enact any change besides tearing things down. Spoiler candidates handicap that possibility.

There's way too many people who think that simple majorities mean it's enough to get stuff done but they at best (and as evidenced by the last 15 years) barely keep the status quo afloat.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines
    •