General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm gonna say something unpopular now
And get thoroughly bashed for it, but I strongly believe it to be true and I never back down in that situation. (That doesn't mean I'll stick around to battle all comers, as I also believe it's pointless to argue with people who have already made up their minds.)
What I'm going to say is due to having just seen the following meme posted on Facebook - I've seen memes like it here and on fb before ad nauseum. Here it is:
My response is as follows:
Every four years the same thing happens: People get all authoritarian and condescending, and try to blame, shame or otherwise coerce people who might consider voting for Democrats into voting for Democrats. It never works, and instead alienates people and makes it even more likely that they'll vote third party. Like it or not, voting is an emotional action and not a logical one. Logically, people who are hoping to stop third party voting would stop posting memes like this. They would instead ignore the phenomenon, which might discourage it due to the lack of attention paid to it. Rather than wasting energy on something so counterproductive, they could instead positively engage possible third-party voters and woo their votes instead of demanding or pleading for their allegiance based solely on having a common dislike for the other main political party.
(I'm not even gonna bother refuting the false -- or at least impossible to prove true -- statements that third party candidates are what cost Gore and HRC their elections.)
Such blockheadedness does not befit Democrats, and certainly doesn't help our cause.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TwilightZone
(28,834 posts)If there are, they should probably learn to think for themselves.
I also don't believe that we should allow intentional ignorance to go unchallenged. Many Jill Stein and other third-party supporters, for example, insisted on DU and elsewhere (Salon was notorious for spreading this garbage) that there would be no difference ideologically between Trump and Clinton SCOTUS nominees.
Challenging that assertion wasn't indicative of condescension or authoritarianism. It was countering complete nonsense bordering on propaganda.
BWdem4life
(2,504 posts)Anyone who tried to say the SC nominees would be ideologically similar certainly should have been countered. And third party candidates obviously shouldn't be supported here on DU. That doesn't mean that we have to attack or otherwise alienate their supporters.
SocialDemocrat61
(3,176 posts)Like claiming that anyone supporting the candidate of a party is a monster who supports genocide? Because I have heard that attack by third party supporters against democrats, not the other way around.
MichMan
(13,806 posts)Plenty here donated money to Jill Stein in 2016 for her fake recount.
czarjak
(12,570 posts)Illegitimately, BTW. But What The Hey?
TwilightZone
(28,834 posts)We have to work with what we're given until a better alternative is adopted.
czarjak
(12,570 posts)Period. It's an arcane system meant to keep the wealthy in control. W-H-Y are we the only Democracy with an EC? I'm all ears. Popular Vote or die. AFAIC.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Most operate on a parliamentary system where people do not vote for the leader. They vote for their representative and then the leader of the party that has a majority (or majority coalition) becomes the national leader. At least in this country we vote for the actual leader.
czarjak
(12,570 posts)Ask Vlad, W, Bush's Brain. Any system that lets the elite "create our own reality" needs change. Just saying. So W & The Donald were legit just because they were beneficiaries of a rigged system?
rampartc
(5,835 posts)hope i get a chance to "borrow" it.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)If you vote for a party, you are voting for its chief to become leader, as he or she will if your party secures an outright majority, or is the party tasked with forming a government by the head of state.
Parliamentary systems are just a prone to go wrong as ours. Failure to assemble, or inability to maintain, a working majority coalition can paralyze governance for long periods. In a closely divided parliament, splinter parties can dictate outlandish terms for their allegiance to a majority coalition. The first is analogous to the much lamented 'gridlock' commonly afflicting our legislatures, the second is identical to the effect of things like the 'Freedom Caucus' in our legislatures.
I could recommend this a million times.
FBaggins
(27,884 posts)And, as has been pointed out already, we’re the only democracy with the EC - but few democracies elect their executive by popular vote.
JustAnotherGen
(34,008 posts)3/5 Compromise. The slavers were worried that they would never have a majority. It was all about coddling the slave states.
We don't have slavery anymore - there's no need for it.
czarjak
(12,570 posts)It's rigged for the rich, folks.
jaxexpat
(7,794 posts)Just one comment, however, regarding the 2000 election. Florida's electoral votes were mis-allocated due to Florida's governor and Secretary of State colluding with the USSC to adopt an incomplete recount of the popular vote. I do despise the anti democratic Electoral College, but it was not responsible for installation of the wrong candidate in 2001. That was done by the hyper partisanship, nee criminality, of the Republican party.
Walleye
(36,906 posts)In the 21st-century we have twice that the popular vote was different from the electoral college vote. Elections are to determine the will of the people I don’t care what arcane rules are used, Trump never had a majority of the people behind him.That’s when things go wrong in a democracy
emulatorloo
(45,676 posts)Not seen any “blockheaded” “authoritarian” “condescending” DU’ers posting anything remotely like this during the 2024 election season.
SocialDemocrat61
(3,176 posts)3rd party supporters saying that anyone who votes for a democrat supports genocide. These people have even turned on Bernie Sanders, AOC and the Squad.
yardwork
(65,001 posts)In fact, the "authoritarian" behavior I witness here every four years is this kind of "don't tell me what to do!!!" OP, which comes across as kind of silly in an election year.
RFK, Jr. and Cornel West are running against my candidate. Hell yes, I'm going to talk about why voting for them is a bad idea.
SocialDemocrat61
(3,176 posts)
Think. Again.
(19,986 posts)For a while I have been trying to suggest that we, as Democratic party folks here on DU, could be a little more welcoming and much less abusive to the youth vote and groups we see as fencesitters, or worse "Far-Lefties".
I truly appreciate your words...
Thank you for posting this.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)
John1956PA
(3,501 posts)As an aside, I have to menion that a convincing argument can be made that Gore actually won, FL, but that is not my point here
My point here was that Nadar was on the ballot, and it seems likely to me that he siphoned off FL votes which would of have otherwise gone to Gore. President Bill Clinton was of the same opinion. Also, I have to mention that a prominent late night television personality endorsed Nadar. I was tuned in to the show when the endorsement was made, and I detested it then, as I have since that time down to today.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)If anywhere. And Pat Buchanan took votes from Bush with his third party. It goes both ways.
John1956PA
(3,501 posts)I hate it when there is a liberal/progressive third party candidate on the ballot.
rubbersole
(8,839 posts)SocialDemocrat61
(3,176 posts)I hope you’re not parroting the RW talking point that Bush would have won if not for Perot that every study has shown is complete BS.
tritsofme
(18,772 posts)SocialDemocrat61
(3,176 posts)I'm so tired of hearing the discredited GOP talking point that Bush lost because of Perot. Unbelievable that people in this forum will repeat that rubbish.
SocialDemocrat61
(3,176 posts)in Palm Beach county thanks to their confusing ballot.
Demsrule86
(71,036 posts)I would argue that they beat up Kerry in the primary which helped defeat him in the General. Green means...get Republicans elected every November. Fuck them and all third parties. If you want to see the effect of third parties, consider the UK, Italy, and Israel among others...all right-wing hellholes. It looks like the UK will finally get out of third-party-created right-wing hell this year. It only took 20+ years. I will never forgive the third parties that helped elect Bush II twice IMHO and Trump... which led to a huge loss for women and those who care about them with the demise of Roe.
jaxexpat
(7,794 posts)voting district in S Florida. There was voter fraud there. It was a Republican construct. It was never investigated. The count in question provided the perception that the election was too close to be accepted without recount. A recount fiasco ensued which, despite lack of totals derived from reliable and uniform methods of accounting, was destined to give the election to Republicans. Surprise! And welcome to the 21st century.
Dr. Strange
(26,007 posts)What was a Republican construct?
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)The 'butterfly' ballot:
It was, as you can see, quite easy to have punched the wrong hole, and register in particular a Buchanan when a Gore was the intent.
Dr. Strange
(26,007 posts)It was designed by Democrat Theresa LePore.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)The ballot might as well have been designed to foster the confusion, which certainly did occur.
What the relevant official was thinking doesn't interest me, unless there is somewhere a credible account of how the layout came to be. I'm quite content with stupidity as an explanation, malice is generally unnecessary.
The point remains: the margin in Florida was close enough that Nader voters, and their heirs and assigns, haven't a leg to stand on when berated for Nader's voters in Florida having put Bush in office.
The sort of chicanery conducted by Florida officials answering to one candidate's brother, purging voter rolls, manipulating polling places and equipment, that sort of thing: these are built in to the system, they always occur to some degree. That even when these were exercised to their fullest capacity they did not suffice calls attention to the sport in the circumstance, the unusual thing: a celebrity 3rd party candidate engaged in broadcast attacks from the left against the Democratic candidate.
When normal processes don't have normal results, it's the abnormal catches the blame....
Polybius
(18,763 posts)
jaxexpat
(7,794 posts)Any fool could tell, but it was skillfully drowned out by media and Republican partisan obfuscation, whataboutism, strawmen and a complicit Florida Secretary of State's distraction for hire. Did I mention it was a defcon strike by the neocons to make a surprise lemonade from an election lemon. Oh, and Pat Buchanan retracted his original comment about the tally in question in an odd change from his normal "I'm never wrong" self. In any case, no one ever came up with a salable reason why a heavily Jewish precinct overwhelmingly went for a guy characterised as a modern American Nazi. He got more votes there than in the rest of the county. Why? Nobody knew then and only suppositions have inherited the conversation.
Thunderbeast
(3,570 posts)Very few Nader voters were likely to vote for Bush.
Third party voters DID result in two wars that killed hundreds of thousands. It resulted in gutting of the Voting Rights Act. It resulted in Corporate Personhood. It resulted in the end of abortion rights. It may have resulted in the election of a criminal mob boss.
Don't sugar coat it. Be serious with your vote by recognizing the real consequences of your choice and not your starry eyed protest that your perfect candidate is not going to win.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)No one knows that. People were voting for Nader because they did not want to vote for Gore for whatever reason.
SocialDemocrat61
(3,176 posts)former9thward
(33,424 posts)But cited when someone likes the result. That aside, would Nader voters have gone to the voting booth if Nader was not on the ballot? That is where the "second choice" fails. I think most of them would have stayed home.
SocialDemocrat61
(3,176 posts)Do you have any evidence to discredit that poll or the study?
Or any evidence that Nader voters would have stayed home?
John1956PA
(3,501 posts)On voting day, 2000, the presidential race was too close to call. A given Florida voter who possessed heartfelt progressive leanings and who, for whatever reason, did not like Al Gore saw the temptation on the ballot to vote for Ralph Nadar. Yes, I know, if Nadar was not on the ballot, maybe many of the Florida Nadar voters would not have made a selection in the presidential contest. It is just that, with the race being decided by less than a thousand votes, the appearance of Nadar on the ballot and his endorsement by a late-night television personality still grind at me.
SocialDemocrat61
(3,176 posts)But my take is simply the facts based on the available polls and studies.
Demsrule86
(71,036 posts)wing often. Try reading the internals and how they arrive at their conclusions. Ask yourself why they use registered voters instead of likely voters, and why they don't have questions about Roe in these polls mostly. And don't get me started on how they 'massage the data' to make up for their shitty samples.
'
Demsrule86
(71,036 posts)home or voted for Gore...either thing would have helped us to save the country from Bush II and don't get me started on 16. When I think of the harm done to our Republic thanks to the Greens and other parties, I want to throw up...I will never forgive them for what they did. And just so you know Cornell West who has praised Trump and says he is not a Democrat (I take him at his word) can fuck off as far as I am concerned...the same goes for Stein and Kennedy AND any of their misguided, can we say stupid, voters or would foolish be better? Einstein said insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result. There is no proof he said that of course, but it is still true.
mcar
(43,692 posts)There is also the fact that Nadir pledged to campaign only in safe states so as not to throw the election to Bush. He broke that pledge. Fck him.
Mad_Machine76
(24,798 posts)it's entirely possible too that some of his ballots were meant to go to Gore as well, but due to the bad design of those ballots (chads), some of them ended up wrongly going to Buchanan, who even admitted that he probably didn't get some of those (Jewish) votes.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)In every election, all over the place. It is never perfect because elections are run by people. The ballot design was approved by both the FL Democratic and Republican parties before the election.
Grasswire2
(13,744 posts)What happened was an OP.
W's first cousin was manning FOX Decision Desk on election night. He prematurely called AZ for Bush.
At that moment, a pre-arranged PR blitz was set in motion to force Gore to defend his actual win.
A huge P.R. blitz. Trying to force Gore to concede, using Gore's gentlemanly nature against himself.
People beating on pots outside the VP mansion.
Hollering "Don't be a Sore Loserman!"
And "Get out of Cheney's house!"
It was all an OP, planned and directed by Karl Rove.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)In the first full study of Florida’s ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled “undervotes” — ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through — to be counted.
The study, conducted by the accounting firm of BDO Seidman, counted over 60,000 votes in Florida’s 67 counties, tabulating separate vote totals in several standards categories.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/media-jan-june01-recount_04-03
questionseverything
(10,324 posts)Votes where gore’s name was selected and written in (so obviously gore was the voters choice)
When all ballots were counted, gore won easily as the over votes were mostly for gore, from black neighborhoods
former9thward
(33,424 posts)The post I was replying to said the media group said Gore won. That is false. They said Bush won. As I linked. I notice no one is providing a link showing they said Gore won.
questionseverything
(10,324 posts)I remember the front page of my home town newspaper at the time, top article about gore conceding and a smaller, below the fold article about lance de haven smith saying gore’s path was the overvotes
Polybius
(18,763 posts)It was an extremely important election. They should have paid closer attention.
Polybius
(18,763 posts)Who? 
betsuni
(27,361 posts)BWdem4life
(2,504 posts)
Cha
(306,224 posts)And he's Correct.
Cha
(306,224 posts)BWdem4life
(2,504 posts)Nobody knows what the Nader/Stein voters would have done had they not been on the ballot.
Furthermore, in 2000 Nader voters were sufficiently self-aware that they traded votes with Gore voters - they were called "Nader traders.". If they lived in a battleground state, they would vote for Gore in exchange for a Gore voter in a non-battleground state voting for Nader. It was a thing, look it up. So, again, rather than blaming, shaming, belittling and browbeating people who are Independents and not Democrats, perhaps on this forum we could stop the unproductive unprovable rhetoric and instead treat these people with a tidbit of respect - as the old saying goes, you can catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar.
Cha
(306,224 posts)"Both Parties are the Same" SHIT. LIES. GD them to Hell. 
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)Because it makes clear your view on the matter is foolish, if not malicious.
People are responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions.
When some one repeats an action, its predictable consequences are what they intend, whatever they may say their intention is.
In a first past the post system, no one actually votes for a third party candidate. No one voting for Nader or Stein did so with any expectation either would assume the Presidency as a result. Their vote is cast with the intent of harming, punishing, 'teaching a lesson', etc, to one of the leading parties. The means by which this is to be achieved is victory for the other party.
Our system requires assembling a coalition prior to the election, rather than afterwards as in multi-party parliamentary systems. Pretending the usages of the latter are appropriate to the former is equivalent to asking how many touchdowns were scored in a baseball game.
"This pretense of not knowing what any idiot knows has come to dominate our political discourse."
BWdem4life
(2,504 posts)There are many reasons people vote third party. Since I don't, I won't presume to question the motives of an entire bloc of people or broad brush them as you apparently like to do. Hey, if you don't like the premise of the OP and want to continue to alienate more independent-minded voters than yourself, that's your business. But you're coming pretty close to the line with your attacks on me personally. I guess maybe you think you have that right for some reason.
JohnSJ
(96,978 posts)usonian
(15,226 posts)And third party candidates would be a non-issue.
The size of your shovel matters not when the dam is broken.
sop
(11,972 posts)an act of political sabotage to make things worse.
Cha
(306,224 posts)
hunter
(39,139 posts)
It may be a better strategy to convince Republicans and Third Party supporters to sit out this vote.
I do not keep my enthusiasm for the Biden/Harris Democratic Party ticket to myself, but I'm not going to pander to the misguided. "Misguided" being a euphemism for something less polite.
ismnotwasm
(42,490 posts)The “two party” system has been in place since the beginning and is codified in any number of areas.
I honestly believe most people. do not understand politics on a mechanical level at all. Emotional voting? For sure.
(What I tell people personally is nothing says which two parties, I don’t care if you vote third party. I just want you to vote, I want you to give a shit.)
There are many parties, the legal labor to change how it works to what, exactly? Many parties with equal weight? Is another thing I want to ask third party proponents.
I have been in a political rage since Hillary lost. While I understand your point here, I personally am too angry at the loss of reproductive rights to play nice with anybody.
surfered
(4,190 posts)
TexasBushwhacker
(20,788 posts)mean that the "winner" gets less than 50% if the popular vote; a lot less. Why does that matter? Let's say the popular vote is 40%, 35%, 25%. The 40% candidate will be POTUS, even though 60% of the voters don't support them. Is this REALLY what we want?
Ace Rothstein
(3,303 posts)
aeromanKC
(3,517 posts)SocialDemocrat61
(3,176 posts)then blame everyone else for the consequences of their actions. And I have never seen these people bullied, they just like playing the victim. Nor do they really care about the causes they claim. Many just want to feel superior and sit in judgment of others to feed their egos.
marble falls
(62,737 posts)H2O Man
(75,978 posts)and a good friend who were members of the green party. I can say my friend now attends Democratic Party meetings, and is working for the re-election of President Biden.
MichMan
(13,806 posts)mcar
(43,692 posts)Whining that the loss of Roe is Biden's fault because he didn't wave his magic wand and codify it. 
GPV
(73,102 posts)was Bernie Sanders and people who wanted my lefty ideas and me, not just my vote, that talked me around to becoming a Dem.
marble falls
(62,737 posts)BWdem4life
(2,504 posts)And why the question? My OP is about Democrats winning independent votes. Not about independent candidates winning Democratic votes.
pwb
(12,210 posts)This is not popular with me. You were right about that.
H2O Man
(75,978 posts)Arguing -- something I delighted in as a teen -- seems a waste of time & energy now that I am old and rapidly approaching the ancient ancestor branch of the human family tree. I will always remember Rubin Carter asking me what we had when a wise person argued with a fool? Two fools.
Debate can be fun, especially in front of a public audience. As a middle aged man, I loved every opportunity to do so. My favorite times include being with Onondaga Chief Waterman, debating the "experts" opposed to grave protection and repatriation. My favorite debater was Malcolm X, and I read everything possible and listened to my collection of Malcolm's speeches on records released on a small lable out of Detroit in the mid-1960s.
One thing I respect about Al Gore is that he never made excuses or pointed the finger of blame at others. And I am fully convinced he won the 2000 election. Vince Bugliosi's book on this is outstanding. The theft of the presidency that year was unique, so if any candidate had the right to complain, Gore did.
I note that even the evil criminal we remember as Richard Nixon did not protest the 1960 election. As bitter of a brat that poor Richard was, he didn't make excuses. Indeed, he held the bitterness and rage in until he lost his next election, and the press couldn't use him for a soccer ball for a few more years.
If a candidate wins, he/ she and the campaign take credit. Only the losing candidate & campaign make excuses. Lord knows we are still dealing with the felon and his cult blaming the FBI, the "deep state," and immigrants for the pounding he took in 2020. Sore losers are so unattractive.
Prairie Gates
(3,718 posts)Get out more.
Skittles
(160,873 posts)thank you
Cha
(306,224 posts)Response to BWdem4life (Original post)
Skittles This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cha
(306,224 posts)I'm Grateful that there are Many who Know it's True.
Jill Steins LIES were a GD Spoiler in 20Fucking16
Link to tweet
no_hypocrisy
(49,551 posts)He was a "liberal Republican". I thought he had a real shot against Reagan.
And I didn't know that Roger Stone got Anderson to run as a third party to get Reagan elected.
Martin Eden
(13,681 posts)In Illinois you can vote in either primary.
I couldn't stand Reagan as a candidate or president.
brush
(58,362 posts)
boston bean
(36,546 posts)likely to win that meets most of their expectations.
Grow up. No one gets everything they want. It is a truth in how our democracy operates. If one doesn’t get this ir understand it refuses to accept this reality, they are just as responsible for our slip into fascism.
Now these idiots deserve to be called out on their stupidity.
betsuni
(27,361 posts)mcar
(43,692 posts)BWdem4life
(2,504 posts)Telling people to "grow up" is authoritarian and condescending, and will push them away. I, myself, vote a straight Dem ticket every time so your advice is wasted on me - but it's counterproductive when used on a potential third party voter.
boston bean
(36,546 posts)like they are adults with a mind for critical thinking is useless. All they do is take offense to being schooled of their own ignorance. They deserve to be told to grow up.
For chrissakes the babies aren’t happy and are gonna rebel. Boo hoo.
They gonna do that anyhow cause thats just how they and their shit rolls.
We all suffer from these fools.
I am not going to coddle them.
BWdem4life
(2,504 posts)Besides doubling down on the condescension by using the term “coddling”, you refuse to listen to reason as well and insist on painting all independent voters with the same brush. The fact that you would apparently rather die than modify your rhetoric in an attempt to, if not attract to us, at least avoid alienating people who might consider voting Democratic this year, shows that you don’t really care if we can attract those you insist should just vote for us “because we say so”. Your personal feelings about them are much more important. Therefore, you are in fact an active agent for Republicans - the very thing you accuse those independents of being.
boston bean
(36,546 posts)Screw them.
Thems the rules around here.
BWdem4life
(2,504 posts)boston bean
(36,546 posts)Lancero
(3,110 posts)The authoritarian and condescending nature of that statement isn't accidental.
betsuni
(27,361 posts)Martin Eden
(13,681 posts)While it is arguable that Nader and Stein votes brought us GW Bush and Trump, that meme is more logical than condescending.
The plain fact of the matter is the choice before us is binary. Either the Democratic or Republican nominee will be the next president.
I sincerely wish we had ranked choice instant runoff voting, but unfortunately we don't.
Of course, the OP is correct in that millions vote on emotion rather than logic. Also, it is indeed counterproductive to browbeat potential third party voters. Nobody responds well to being called stupid.
It's better to build a logical case and say "Please."
JT45242
(3,033 posts)The last two truly important third parties were the Dixiecrats and the Progressive party.
The Dixiecrats were basically a response of white supremacists to the civil rights movement and the laws associated with it (civil rights act, voting rights act,etc) and helped to elect Nixon. Then, the republican party adopted a lot of their policies and rhetoric to pull those voters in.
The progressive party had a strong infrastructure getting people elected at state and federal level in legislatures. The response -- the Democratic party assumed many of the progressive policies and rhetoric to attract the people of the progressive party.
Yes three or more parties work when you have coalition governments and prime minister or indirect mayor elections in city elections (look at Cincinnati which had Democrats, Republicans, and Charterites on city council for decades with an indirectly elected mayor). But we have a winner take all presidency. there are no coalition governments, except for ratfuckery like the Hayes-Tilden brokered election that killed the reconstruction and brought on Jim Crow laws.
Until the Green party or libertarian party get serous about and successful at electing people to state house seats and Congress, these parties only serve to split the less unified party, the big tent party, as republican voters show great orthodoxy, they will vote for anything with an R next to the name. As Democrats, we are less likely to do that. Plus, the independent voters who vote for third party candidates pull would be votes from Democrats far more than Republicans. Sure libertarians are really economic Republicans who want to legalize weed, but in the end Republicans wont shift their vote away from the party just to get that one issue.
kcr
(15,522 posts)I'm gonna drop this steaming turd into General Discussion and beat this dead horse because I'm bored and have nothing else to do.
BWdem4life
(2,504 posts)Yours, of course, is not one of them.
Cosmocat
(15,074 posts)You don't see right wingers do this, they rationalize getting behind their candidates regardless of horrid they are.
We don't have to be like that, and we don't normalize and support lunatics like they do.
But, this is one of the many factors that makes nearly every election a coin toss, which gives Rs the ability to win enough elections to have power and control of most states, control of congress more often than not and the ability to fill our federal courts with full on right wing activist judges.
That said ... while it is a significant factor, it is not the primary factor.
The primary factor is that nearly half the country chooses to succumb to hateful right wing propoganda that poisons their minds and leads them to create this alternative world view where they are victims to and in some kind of life or death battle against the evil liberal boogyman and allow themselves to be herded around like zombies.
GreenWave
(9,705 posts)THAT decided the election, perhaps in Georgia too.
Now how many of those Nader people would have even voted had he not been on the ballot?
Republican Comey's huge announcement and Russian propaganda did much more damage.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)The things you cite are mostly beyond the power of left activists to affect.
What left activists can affect is the total votes garnered by the Democratic Party, whose platform and action will always be closer to those left activists claim to desire than will be those of the Republican party.
The lesson which ought to be learned, but isn't, is that not voting for the Democratic candidate increases the chance a Republican will carry the election. Since this is obvious, and a predictable consequence of not voting for the Democratic candidate, it is a reasonable conclusion that persons who do this intend to strengthen Republican chances of victory.
"Can't nobody here play this game?"
GreenWave
(9,705 posts)In Florida, the piddly trickle of votes Nadar got, pales by comparison to the more than 100,000 voters TEXAS removed from the rosters in Florida. So the loss is on GOP cheating through purging and must be addressed, not totally ignored.
Russian bots helped Trumpty Dumpty and Comey's late inaccurate claim brought defeat. How many affected? Millions?
To expect the minimal amount of leftists to vote for the Democrats is naive.
What I see is this: Democrats must be perfect to be accepted to large amounts of voters while GOPeers can be shit stained and that's ok with way too many voters.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)And, why, if they're not perfect, perfect in every way, why, a real leftist pouts and stamps its foot and cries You'll be sorry! rather than accepting contingent restraints on political action, and working to good effect within them.
VMA131Marine
(4,693 posts)Then you can always pick your first choice candidate and know that you won’t be helping your least favourite candidate win.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)Is the sort of 'party line' system they have in New York.
A candidate may be on the ballot line of several parties, with all votes for the candidate totaled irrespective of on what party line of the ballot they were cast. But which line they were cast on can serve as an indication of relative strengths of tendencies within the overarching coalition. Which can serve as corrective both to a candidate's ideas of who actually supports them, and to factions with an outsized view of their own strength.
I am solidly in favor of ranked choice. It would, among other things, reduce the incentive for vitriol in campaigning. One fellow in Alaska, arguing against ranked choice, gave the game away. He said he couldn't attack an opponent so virulently with ranked choice in play, because he might need to be somebody's second choice if not their first, and that's not going to happen if he slings the sort of shit he's used to hurling in a campaign.
OAITW r.2.0
(29,032 posts)61% of the voters split their vote between the Democrat and the Independent, allowing LePage to sneak in. He was awful. RCV does exactly what you say. Should be nationalized for Presidential elections....that would end this debate once and for all.
GoneOffShore
(17,662 posts)The US political system is not a light switch nor is it a fast car - It can be likened more to a very large ship. In order to change direction, it takes time. In the US system, which isn't going to change any time soon, there are two parties, whether you like it or not.
Third parties, until they prove themselves viable, and no, the Greens, financed by Moscow last time out of the gate, nor the Liebertarians (sic), financed by people who don't want government to work, will likely never make it in the US system. Third parties are the four-year locusts of US politics. They show up, make a lot of noise, leave a mess, and disappear.
You want change? Run for block captain in your local party, run for ward leader, run for city council, run for state senator - in that order. And then you might get a chance at running and winning a Congressional seat. It takes a lot of work. It takes a lot of time. It takes your entire fecking life. And you can make change from within.
Some things to keep in mind -
1 - The perfect is the enemy of the good. - "Opposing progress in favour of perfection is not progressive."
2 - All politics is local.
3 - 90% of success is showing up.
4 - 'Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best' Otto von Bismarck —
5 - You're not going to get a unicorn who shits rainbows.
6 - See number one.
There are never going to be unicorns who shit rainbows.
“Le parfait est l'ennemi du bien. Il n’y aura jamais de licornes qui chieront des arcs-en- ciel
SocialDemocrat61
(3,176 posts)Democracy requires compromise. Many don't seem to understand that.
GoneOffShore
(17,662 posts)The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."
wryter2000
(47,642 posts)People insist on calling perfectly wonderful candidates “the lesser of two evils.”
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)Nor is it going to be.
Ever.
"This is the best world possible: everything in it is a necessary evil."
SocialDemocrat61
(3,176 posts)The problem is they really don't care about good and evil. They care about what is best for the country or their fellow people. The whole point is to self-righteously sit on their high horse to sanctimoniously act like they are morally superior to everyone else to feed their egos.
wryter2000
(47,642 posts)It’s an exercise in self righteousness
mcar
(43,692 posts)The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)mcar
(43,692 posts)delisen
(6,672 posts)I have learned to not waste my time engaging with many of the third party voters. I have found so many of them to be authoritarian and male-power centered.
It is more productive to engage with people who are democratically-minded., even if they have not voted in the past or have voted Republican.
Both emotion and reason are involved in individual political decisions. Democracy requires that voters be willing to examine their own beliefs, and biases, and engage in learning.
Time is limited for all of us. I spend my political discussion time with those persons who share certain basic values about democracy and equality.
SocialDemocrat61
(3,176 posts)I will also point out that while more are men, most are also white. And as white men, they have little to worry about if someone like Trump gets power.
Stuart G
(38,726 posts)Paladin
(29,112 posts)
walkingman
(8,692 posts)They like to talk about both parties being too old, how they would never vote for Trump, believing that their local community and local actions will cause a revolution, etc.
I saw a similar situation in 2016 from many of the same people over Bernie's loss to Hillary.
I understand their youthful idealism, feeling like they as a youth voting block it has meaning, and even agree with some of their arguments. But similar to the banner in the OP it is not a valid way to chose who we elect, especially at the National level.
A local protest, local activism, disagreement on social media, hanging with like-minded people - none of that will change our government leaders.
In a two-party system, voting for a 3rd party will never solve any of your grievances.
jalan48
(14,584 posts)It's up to us to get some those 90+ million non voters to get out and vote for us in November. Shaming them is a fool's errand.
allegorical oracle
(3,660 posts)According to Factcheck.org, "A full, official recount of all (Florida) votes was never conducted."
Gore WON the FL general election by 514,683 votes, but the Supremes awarded all 25 of Florida's Electoral College votes to Bush.
walkingman
(8,692 posts)changed out history. Since then, it has gotten worse and worse. With the second Bush appointing Alito as companion to first Bush appointee Thomas (Bushes are a pox on our nation), then Turtle refusing to allow Obama his appointee, and then Orange Jesus making his appointees (who all lied during confirmation hearings).
Now we are faced with a SCOTUS that is totally out of step with the American people and makes no excuses for their behavior, other than maybe blaming their wife in Alito's case.
American Democracy is being challenged once again - I hope the voters come through as they have done in the past.
Oneironaut
(5,831 posts)That graphic is spot on. Those who do so may not be voting for Trump directly, but, they might as well be.
Shermann
(8,767 posts)I am hearing some R's talk about it though. Anecdotal to be sure, but I wonder.
Tree Lady
(12,205 posts)no one I know personally just some people in my senior classes. They are the type of people who normally vote third party so we aren't missing any votes.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)There are only two outcomes coming down the line.
One is either riding with Biden or taking a dump on everyone with Chump.
That's it and no amount of crying, finger pointing, foot stomping tantrums, or everyone else playing ostrich about it will change that a single bit.
Polybius
(18,763 posts)The streak would have ended eventually, maybe 2004 or 2008. Maybe things really wouldn't have ended up all that differently.
LudwigPastorius
(11,289 posts)You, yourself, said that these voters are basing their decisions on emotion, and presumably personality, over policy.
To me, that sounds like no amount of adjusting the party plank will attract these mushy-thinking spoilers to Biden.
So, what's left...altering our candidate's personality and campaign style? Have Joe carry a skateboard, wear a backwards hat, and say, "How do you do, fellow kids!"?
muriel_volestrangler
(102,777 posts)I don't have emotions about pressing buttons or drawing crosses. I am not swiping left or right to decide who to have a date with. I am trying to decide who is the best candidate to vote for - not just for me, but for my area or my country. It's not about making me feel good.
I note that the person you quoted said "please", while you call that "authoritarian", and call them a blockhead. I think you personally need to take some of the emotion out of your position.
FactuallySpeaking
(15 posts)Only an emotional person wouldn't understand this concept.