554
submitted 10 months ago by geekwithsoul@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

“With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] uberdroog@lemmy.world 137 points 10 months ago

Green party has been dead since Nader.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 91 points 10 months ago

Pretending they had a chance in a voting system that can barely support two parties was kinda pitiable. Until we have RCV for federal elections at a minimum, they will never have a shot.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 50 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

A-fucking-men.

The Green Party should be the RCV party and that should be their main focus. After that then they and any other party would actually stand a chance. Republicans are actively banning RCV from being implemented and Democrats are slow walking it, but we need to keep pushing.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 19 points 10 months ago

TBH, I don't see it happening except organically from within the Democratic Party. If enough progressive Democrats get elected, I think it stands a chance to happen in our lifetimes.

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Any democrat has a vested interest in first past the post continuing.

[-] socsa@piefed.social 25 points 10 months ago

This is just not true. Places which are doing RCV are literally state at metro democratic strongholds. Democrats are literally the only ones pushing it.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 12 points 10 months ago

I disagree, which is why I specified the word "progressive."

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Vested interest meaning it benefits them, i doubt you disagree with the current system of only two parties being considered for elections improves the odds of those two parties winning elections

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 10 points 10 months ago

What I disagree with is your implication that they will only ever act in their own interests. I do not know that to be true in the future (and neither do you), as not everyone is motivated by money or power. Enough politicians who see it as vital to the health of US democracy, and change will happen.

I'm not proposing that it will, only that it is far from a precluded possibility. As Boomers die out and retire, I have hope for the Millennials and Gen Zers who replace them.

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I do not know that to be true in the future (and neither do you)

We can sure make some educated guesses based on a lengthy history of evidence.

I like progressive democrats, but they want to get elected at a minimum.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 6 points 10 months ago

But that's all they are: guesses. The fundamental flaw in looking to history for future behavior is the assumption that each person elected to office has the same motivations, ideals, and philosophies.

They want to get elected, sure, but wanting to get elected isn't the same as desiring to keep that office. If I had the skills to run for office, I would be willing to sacrifice reelection to ensure good legislation passed, for example.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Actually, an RCV system may help the democrats, at least in the short term.

For the last couple of decades, the "spoiler" candidates generally take from the democrats more than the republicans. Last big spoiler third party that screwed the right was Perot that I remember. With RCV, then the 'fringe' votes can still be cast and democrats can work toward being the second choice of those hardliners. At least in the short term, it alleviates the need to actually compete for votes with candidates that are going to lose anyway.

Longer term, it may cause a viable third party or more to get some steam (attracting practical candidates that no longer see the need to be a D or R to get votes, the parties generally getting left alone by outside forces that find them not worth weaponizing), but I don't think the politicians are too concerned on that long a time frame.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Unless they gain more support from endorsing RCV than they would lose to third parties. They're slowly bending to long term third party pressure.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

That would mean actually caring about running campaigns for state goverments. State governments are the ones that can (and in Alaska's case have) implement RCV.

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

The Green Party should be the RCV party

They are. Holy shit.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

That's all well and good, but useless in any federal race because the federal government does not dictate how the elections/voting are done.

Brings it back around to if you care so damn much, then focus your resources on state governments.

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

You should reread the elections clause. Congress has authority to regulate elections

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

It’s right there in the platform.

[-] glaber@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

Actually, score voting would be better. IRV (also known as RCV) has been proven to lead to the same 2-party domination and has many disadvantages.

[-] socsa@piefed.social 22 points 10 months ago

This is a little discussed problem with fptp (along with many others) it gives minor parties perverse incentive to play spoiler, which gives foreign actors an opportunity to find spoilers.

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Until we have RCV

Whens that?

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

Depends. How hard are you working on it?

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Im supporting the leading candidate that has ranked choice voting as part of their platform

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

And you’re completely aware that won’t work?

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Its the only thing that can. Its not happening until then

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

So it won’t work. Okay then, we’re on the same page there.

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Boy that sure is the opposite of what i said

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

If you are talking about federal candidates, it is not the only thing that can, and in fact it won't happen even then because a federal candidate gets zero say in how the elections are done.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

Maybe he just needs to work harder on it.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

No federal office is going to give you RCV.

The logistics of federal elections are the purview of the state governments.

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

They will if we elect them

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

That one's interest do not lie with understanding anything. They're either too naive to. Or paid to appear to naive to

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 7 points 10 months ago

When Congress votes it into law.

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

It's not up to Congress, states decide how to run their elections.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 8 points 10 months ago

Until they don't. That's not a guaranteed feature. As SCOTUS and Conservatives have taught me over the last several years, historical precedent doesn't mean shit.

[-] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 8 points 10 months ago

Not true when it comes to Congressional races. I did a post a couple days ago about a bill that three Dems just introduced https://lemmy.world/post/19772020

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago
[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 7 points 10 months ago

Yep. Glad you see the progression.

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Step 1:elect people that support ranked choice voting.

I.E. jill stein

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago
[-] blazera@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Votes. Same way as everyone else

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

jill stein is running for congress?

this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
554 points (100.0% liked)

politics

25161 readers
1791 users here now

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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS