Alaska, a red state, is reportedly trying to remove their rank choice voting. This isn’t a “Dems” problem, it’s a two party problem.
This is a counter to the Democratic party supporters you see everywhere who always get irrationally upset at third party voters, not about Republicans.
The point is, if the Democratic party never plan to address it, then how will it ever get done through voting Dem? The same goes for all the other issues people claim we should ignore in the name of “vote blue no matter who”, including their genocide.
Somewhat. Voting makes very little difference at the federal level in the first place, and the huge importance placed on it does placate liberals somewhat.
So just accept your place in a broken system, got it. Just go support more increasingly right wing fascist policies and give up on any hope for Democracy.*
Pure strawman.
Pretty sure voting for a write in candidate/third party is, by definition, participating in the system.
You just accept the system is broken and undemocratic and believe others should accept this as well and give up.
You are more devoted to “order” than to justice; you prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; you constantly say “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; you paternalistically believe you can set the timetable on progress and constantly advise the progressive to to wait for a “more convenient season”.
You are the “white moderate” MLK warned of, as is the vast majority of the party, though not for long, as the party increasingly seeks the support of the right to avoid allowing any policy victory for the left.
You are increasingly the Republican party of Cheney, as demonstrated by, not only his support for the party, but by the party and Kamala herself touting the endorsement, rather than ignoring it/distancing themselves.
This is a counter to the Democratic party supporters you see everywhere who always get irrationally upset at third party voters, not about Republicans.
Plenty of us Democrats are very much in support of a ranked choice voting schemes, or similar structural rules like non-partisan blanket primaries (aka jungle primaries). The most solidly Democratic state, California, has implemented top-2 primaries that give independents and third parties a solid shot for anyone who can get close to a plurality of votes as the top choice.
Alaska’s top four primary, with RCV deciding between those four on election day, is probably the best system we can realistically achieve in a relatively short amount of time.
Plenty of states have ballot initiatives that bypass elected officials, so people should be putting energy into those campaigns.
But by the time it comes down to a plurality-take-all election between a Republican who won the primary, a Democrat who won the primary, and various third party or independents who have no chance of winning, the responsible thing to make your views represented is to vote for the person who represents the best option among people who can win.
Partisan affiliation is open. If a person really wants to run on their own platform, they can go and try to win a primary for a major party, and change it from within.
TL;DR: I’ll fight for structural changes to make it easier for third parties and independents to win. But under the current rules, voting for a spoiler is throwing the election and owning the results.
Doing something that demonstrably doesn’t work isn’t how you get what you want. If you want an option besides Democrats and Republicans, voting for someone else where those two options have a lock on winning does nothing besides vent some spleen.
I’m not saying doing nothing is the solution, or even voting for the two main parties is the solution, but doing something that has been shown to be completely ineffective is not the solution.
This is a counter to the Democratic party supporters you see everywhere who always get irrationally upset at third party voters, not about Republicans.
The point is, if the Democratic party never plan to address it, then how will it ever get done through voting Dem? The same goes for all the other issues people claim we should ignore in the name of “vote blue no matter who”, including their genocide.
So don’t participate in the system, got it. Just stay home and give up on Democracy.
Do you think voting is the entirety of political expression for the working class?
Do you think it’s a zero sum game where voting somehow disables your ability to do other activism and organizing?
Somewhat. Voting makes very little difference at the federal level in the first place, and the huge importance placed on it does placate liberals somewhat.
It also takes very little effort.
Yep, and that’s why it’s the extent 99.9% of libs are willing to go, and no further.
Right… But unless you’re suggesting abolishing voting entirely, none of this suggests that withholding your vote in protest is useful.
I’m suggesting that voting will never be enough.
So just accept your place in a broken system, got it. Just go support more increasingly right wing fascist policies and give up on any hope for Democracy.*
Pure strawman.
Pretty sure voting for a write in candidate/third party is, by definition, participating in the system.
You just accept the system is broken and undemocratic and believe others should accept this as well and give up.
You are more devoted to “order” than to justice; you prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; you constantly say “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; you paternalistically believe you can set the timetable on progress and constantly advise the progressive to to wait for a “more convenient season”.
You are the “white moderate” MLK warned of, as is the vast majority of the party, though not for long, as the party increasingly seeks the support of the right to avoid allowing any policy victory for the left.
You are increasingly the Republican party of Cheney, as demonstrated by, not only his support for the party, but by the party and Kamala herself touting the endorsement, rather than ignoring it/distancing themselves.
Plenty of us Democrats are very much in support of a ranked choice voting schemes, or similar structural rules like non-partisan blanket primaries (aka jungle primaries). The most solidly Democratic state, California, has implemented top-2 primaries that give independents and third parties a solid shot for anyone who can get close to a plurality of votes as the top choice.
Alaska’s top four primary, with RCV deciding between those four on election day, is probably the best system we can realistically achieve in a relatively short amount of time.
Plenty of states have ballot initiatives that bypass elected officials, so people should be putting energy into those campaigns.
But by the time it comes down to a plurality-take-all election between a Republican who won the primary, a Democrat who won the primary, and various third party or independents who have no chance of winning, the responsible thing to make your views represented is to vote for the person who represents the best option among people who can win.
Partisan affiliation is open. If a person really wants to run on their own platform, they can go and try to win a primary for a major party, and change it from within.
TL;DR: I’ll fight for structural changes to make it easier for third parties and independents to win. But under the current rules, voting for a spoiler is throwing the election and owning the results.
Doing something that demonstrably doesn’t work isn’t how you get what you want. If you want an option besides Democrats and Republicans, voting for someone else where those two options have a lock on winning does nothing besides vent some spleen.
I’m not saying doing nothing is the solution, or even voting for the two main parties is the solution, but doing something that has been shown to be completely ineffective is not the solution.