California’s governor is being touted as a successor to the Biden throne. Though he’s often imagined as a beacon of progress, his feckless record shows otherwise.
You mean the people from the DNC who pretty openly refuse to have fair elections? The same party that has shit on civil rights for decades? How is that not destroying our Democracy?
You’re right. Better to just actively or indirectly (through inaction) support the party that is currently actively revoking civil rights on a national scale, and planning to rig/end elections to stay in power indefinitely. That will fix the broken system.
That’s what gets me about this whole thing. There’s plenty of core of truth to the idea that the Democrats are very bad, although yes the alternative currently is infinitely worse. There are thousands of things that any given person could do to try to fix that or work for better things in American politics. Refusing to elect Democrats anymore, no matter what, is 0 of them, and will make things quite a lot worse.
It’s like punishing your child for bad grades by refusing to feed them anymore. One, it doesn’t address the problem, two, it will make even the thing you say you are upset about and trying to fix, infinitely worse.
Functionally, things are the way they are because the people that want to change things for the better do not make up the majority of people yet. Plenty of the boomers are still happy with the status quo since most of it doesn’t directly impact them. Gen X even was more right leaning than the boomers in 2024.
Just looking at the number of people that actually vote, neo-liberal boomers and Gen Xers will still be dictating policy for another decade at the least. If they aren’t progressive, most of the policy getting passed will not be either.
This isn’t even taking into account the way that land has more power than people in the US either. Sparsely populated red states hold just as much power in the Senate as New York or California. The House is currently capped on the number of Representatives as well, meaning that those small red states are over represented and larger blue and purple states are underrepresented.
The best shot at changing anything before another decade passes is by starting locally to each of us. We can try to do what New York City did and implement an alternative voting system in our own cities, that will help immensely to get more people like Mamdani in office. If we garner enough support at the city and local levels, we might even be able to be like Maine or Alaska and get an alternative voting system in place at the state level.
Alternative voting systems are pretty much the only real way third parties will have a chance to get off the ground and have a seat at the table on a national level. The main reason for that is because it helps mitigate the spoiler effect; where your preferred candidate and the safe candidate knock each other out allowing your least preferred candidate to win elections.
Want to help? Get the word out about alternative voting systems and organizations that promote them. Get involved locally.
Who said to do that? I certainly didn’t. I push for parties that and actions that are actually trying to do something against the current party. The Democrats are the ones that have spent their time propping up and actively supporting the current party.
You started this conversation by advocating for not voting for Newsom if he is the only candidate with a chance against the GOP. If your “other parties” have fractional support of the democrats come general election day, they’re not viable alternatives and your vote for them is functionally identical to not voting at all.
By all means, I 100% support advocacy for change, for reform, for new people and ideas in power. But we also have a shitty voting system that means you usually need to pick the least of two evils come election day. And you need to be practical and make peace with that. I wish we had something like Approval voting where there was no push to a two party split and everyone could vote for every candidate or party they like, and I would support voting reform in that direction all day every day, but that is not what we have now.
If your “other parties” have fractional support of the democrats come general election day, they’re not viable alternatives…
And I’ve seen what happens when Democrats have power. They support the Republicans, build out the systems that the Republicans want, fight against meaningful change for the working-class, and screw over their voters. Functionally, they are worse than doing nothing at all. Why should I support them when they fight against the things that I want?
3rd parties have been fairly innefective at a national level, yes, but so have the Democrats.
Functionally, they are worse than doing nothing at all.
That’s simply not true. Neither about how they are universally supporting Republicans and fucking people over as a whole, nor that doing nothing is better. They are individuals, not a monolith, and the party is built from those individuals, not a static set of policies, principles and practices. It can be changed if you do something about it. And doing nothing does not acheive that. Best case scenario, doing nothing results in the same outcome, worst case it causes the worst outcome. Doing nothing is a cop out that makes you feel like you took some moral high ground while ultimately either not mattering at all or playing into the hands of the people who would do everything they can against your ideals. If you want to effect change, particularly for the democratic party, support and advocate for a new candidate with better ideals and resolve (or even run yourself), then primary out the useless incumbents. Far easier to do that then to suddenly see mass third party support giving them power to make change.
They are a party of sociopathic individuals who spend more time fighting against their voters than they do fighting for them.
Yes, they can change, and the fastest way to get them to change, is to make them realize that they don’t have my support until they start fighting for what I want. But they keep fighting against what I want, and are pretty open that they don’t really care.
If you want to try to reform them, go ahead. I have no problems with that, but I also have no faith that you will succeed. I think you’ll have just as much luck getting the Republicans to change as you will the Democrats.
In the meantime, I’ve long abandoned them, in favor of parties that are actually doing something for their voters.
Yes, they can change, and the fastest way to get them to change, is to make them realize that they don’t have my support until they start fighting for what I want.
The message they are getting is that the majority of active voters are voting for the GOP. They are not competing for non-voters or people that uselessly vote for third parties without a chance, they are competing for voters. If you are incentivizing them to change in any way, you are incentivizing them to move right and court more moderate republican voters. Your strategy is inherently self-defeating.
Yes, they are competing for GOP voters, rather than trying to pull in leftists. When leftists are on the ballot, they get a ton of votes, but the Democrats spend their time shooting down leftist candidates, because they don’t want to actually change. They have a choice: Pick up the voters that aren’t voting for one of the big-two parties, or pull in the right-wing voters. Which has been more productive in the past few elections?
You mean the people from the DNC who pretty openly refuse to have fair elections? The same party that has shit on civil rights for decades? How is that not destroying our Democracy?
You’re right. Better to just actively or indirectly (through inaction) support the party that is currently actively revoking civil rights on a national scale, and planning to rig/end elections to stay in power indefinitely. That will fix the broken system.
That’s what gets me about this whole thing. There’s plenty of core of truth to the idea that the Democrats are very bad, although yes the alternative currently is infinitely worse. There are thousands of things that any given person could do to try to fix that or work for better things in American politics. Refusing to elect Democrats anymore, no matter what, is 0 of them, and will make things quite a lot worse.
It’s like punishing your child for bad grades by refusing to feed them anymore. One, it doesn’t address the problem, two, it will make even the thing you say you are upset about and trying to fix, infinitely worse.
Functionally, things are the way they are because the people that want to change things for the better do not make up the majority of people yet. Plenty of the boomers are still happy with the status quo since most of it doesn’t directly impact them. Gen X even was more right leaning than the boomers in 2024.
Just looking at the number of people that actually vote, neo-liberal boomers and Gen Xers will still be dictating policy for another decade at the least. If they aren’t progressive, most of the policy getting passed will not be either.
This isn’t even taking into account the way that land has more power than people in the US either. Sparsely populated red states hold just as much power in the Senate as New York or California. The House is currently capped on the number of Representatives as well, meaning that those small red states are over represented and larger blue and purple states are underrepresented.
The best shot at changing anything before another decade passes is by starting locally to each of us. We can try to do what New York City did and implement an alternative voting system in our own cities, that will help immensely to get more people like Mamdani in office. If we garner enough support at the city and local levels, we might even be able to be like Maine or Alaska and get an alternative voting system in place at the state level.
Alternative voting systems are pretty much the only real way third parties will have a chance to get off the ground and have a seat at the table on a national level. The main reason for that is because it helps mitigate the spoiler effect; where your preferred candidate and the safe candidate knock each other out allowing your least preferred candidate to win elections.
Want to help? Get the word out about alternative voting systems and organizations that promote them. Get involved locally.
Underrepresented Fediverse Social Media Accounts:
Involvement Links:
Who said to do that? I certainly didn’t. I push for parties that and actions that are actually trying to do something against the current party. The Democrats are the ones that have spent their time propping up and actively supporting the current party.
You started this conversation by advocating for not voting for Newsom if he is the only candidate with a chance against the GOP. If your “other parties” have fractional support of the democrats come general election day, they’re not viable alternatives and your vote for them is functionally identical to not voting at all.
By all means, I 100% support advocacy for change, for reform, for new people and ideas in power. But we also have a shitty voting system that means you usually need to pick the least of two evils come election day. And you need to be practical and make peace with that. I wish we had something like Approval voting where there was no push to a two party split and everyone could vote for every candidate or party they like, and I would support voting reform in that direction all day every day, but that is not what we have now.
And I’ve seen what happens when Democrats have power. They support the Republicans, build out the systems that the Republicans want, fight against meaningful change for the working-class, and screw over their voters. Functionally, they are worse than doing nothing at all. Why should I support them when they fight against the things that I want?
3rd parties have been fairly innefective at a national level, yes, but so have the Democrats.
That’s simply not true. Neither about how they are universally supporting Republicans and fucking people over as a whole, nor that doing nothing is better. They are individuals, not a monolith, and the party is built from those individuals, not a static set of policies, principles and practices. It can be changed if you do something about it. And doing nothing does not acheive that. Best case scenario, doing nothing results in the same outcome, worst case it causes the worst outcome. Doing nothing is a cop out that makes you feel like you took some moral high ground while ultimately either not mattering at all or playing into the hands of the people who would do everything they can against your ideals. If you want to effect change, particularly for the democratic party, support and advocate for a new candidate with better ideals and resolve (or even run yourself), then primary out the useless incumbents. Far easier to do that then to suddenly see mass third party support giving them power to make change.
They are a party of sociopathic individuals who spend more time fighting against their voters than they do fighting for them.
Yes, they can change, and the fastest way to get them to change, is to make them realize that they don’t have my support until they start fighting for what I want. But they keep fighting against what I want, and are pretty open that they don’t really care.
If you want to try to reform them, go ahead. I have no problems with that, but I also have no faith that you will succeed. I think you’ll have just as much luck getting the Republicans to change as you will the Democrats.
In the meantime, I’ve long abandoned them, in favor of parties that are actually doing something for their voters.
The message they are getting is that the majority of active voters are voting for the GOP. They are not competing for non-voters or people that uselessly vote for third parties without a chance, they are competing for voters. If you are incentivizing them to change in any way, you are incentivizing them to move right and court more moderate republican voters. Your strategy is inherently self-defeating.
Yes, they are competing for GOP voters, rather than trying to pull in leftists. When leftists are on the ballot, they get a ton of votes, but the Democrats spend their time shooting down leftist candidates, because they don’t want to actually change. They have a choice: Pick up the voters that aren’t voting for one of the big-two parties, or pull in the right-wing voters. Which has been more productive in the past few elections?
Hint: It’s been the former.