Really you don’t need to read more than one chart:

If you vote for anyone other than Harris, you’re voting for Trump:

58 points

If Americans want a third choice support ranked choice voting

permalink
report
reply
20 points

^ THIS ^ - As I said elsewhere… Jesus, if ALASKA can do it…

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

There are two states where ranked choice exists apparently. Are these the states that the third parties are spending money in? They’d be the most likely places for them to win and show they are viable in any way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I don’t know the second state, Portland has it for the first time at the local level and that’s turning into a clown car, I cannot WAIT to see how it works out in practice!

So far:

118 candidates running for 14 offices:

https://www.opb.org/article/2024/09/06/118-candidates-portland-election/?outputType=amp

One losing union support over mass traffic violations:

https://www.wweek.com/news/2024/09/10/liuna-local-737-pulls-endorsement-of-carmen-rubio-following-story-about-poor-driving-record/

Multiple being investigated by the Secretary of State for trading donations to meet matching funds thresholds:

https://www.wweek.com/news/2024/09/05/council-candidates-discussed-trading-donations-to-leverage-public-matching-funds/

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

This is the way. It’s perfectly okay to want to support a third party, but it isn’t done by wasting your FPTP vote.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

yeah we need to make it less dangerous.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Or STAR voting. Or anything but FPTP.

https://youtu.be/Nu4eTUafuSc

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Funny how third parties always rear their heads at election time but remain almost entirely quiet the rest of the term. Where does the money come from?

permalink
report
reply
33 points
*

I know of a couple of Lemmy users who frequently hype third party candidates, and who will not like this analysis at all, lol.

permalink
report
reply
10 points

As do I, I see the reports all the time. :)

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points

We discount this analysis because it’s self serving. Third Way as other orgs that diminish 3rd party candidates do so in an attempt to protect their own positions of power. Voters continuing to elect neo fascists from the duopoly vote against their own interests to do the bidding of the neo fascists

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

And your hopeless manifestation approach to breaking the two-party duopoly isn’t entirely self-serving?

It won’t accomplish anything. You will never win any election against the two-party behemoths without Democratic reform.

But you folks don’t ever advocate for that, just unqualified spoiler candidates, and never in local elections where independents have more of a chance.

Even if your heart is in the right place, you’re a liability to progress because you care more about Democrats being imperfect than you do about Republicans being fascist.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points
*

You say spoiler as if we would ever vote for your candidates. Anyway. There could be no third party candidates on the ballot and we would not vote for your appointed candidates

I see both of them as being fascist, the Democrat ratchet effect enables right-wing fascism to take hold.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

I feel like the most viable path to a third party at this point:

  1. Ranked choice somehow becomes national law (and while we’re at it, other election reform) — yes, already very unlikely here, although it’d help Dems with reelection so under them it’s possible if they get rid of the filibuster. Gop would never.
  2. Splinters make a better third party, I’m thinking the "RINO"s or MAGA folk. Maybe the progressive wing of Democrars. The current third parties are pretty bad as they are given they don’t seem to target places they could actually win.
  3. Said faction gets more traction and the model gets tested for a few elections until it’s more normal. New paries emerge, etc.

It ain’t happening mostly cause of 1, either because the political capital would be too expensive or because it’s not ultimately in their interest. The only way 1 can happen is if it becomes a major issue and they’ve got much more lower hanging fruit, even in election rules (I’d be happy just having electrical college changed to popular vote).

permalink
report
reply
10 points
*

National Election Reform would be great, but that would require we actually have national elections, which we don’t. :)

It’s not even a matter of 50 state elections… each election precinct is essentially it’s own little fiefdom at this point, with officials who BELIEVE they’re free to say “I aint gonna certify!” even if the State Secretary of State will put the screws to them if they do.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Holy shit you’re so right on all the districts being treated like a fiefdom. I like to think i keep up with politics but this idea has never crossed my mind. Im going to be looking at my local elections closer now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Quick some body run as a super conservative as a third party and take away some GOP votes please.

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 385K

    Comments