408
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2024
408 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19080 readers
3078 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Here is why you should never vote third party in a FPTP voting system. If you are not happy with your candidate choices, then we need to increase voter turnout in local elections, mid terms, and most importantly, primary elections. Primary elections are where you actually can change the spirit of the political parties, but hardly anyone votes in primaries despite them being arguably the most important.
This only holds when the respective parties are roughly evenly tied with one another and the two major parties have the marginally more-popular candidates.
In a state where one party or the other is an overwhelming favorite to win, this math doesn't matter. In a state where both parties have put up a shit candidate (say, you're in Arizona or West Virginia and being asked to support Kristen Sinema or Joe Manchin yet again), a third party vote is the only way to clear the deck of deplorable alternatives. If you're in Nebraska and the popular frontrunner is the indie union activist Dan Osbourn you would be foolish to vote party line as that's effectively a vote for Deb Fischer.
No, it holds regardless. Your argument is the same as saying there's no point in voting if you don't win.
Your real problem is as I said, Primary Elections, where we have EXCEPTIONALLY terrible voter turnout. The primaries are where you choose your party representatives. If you are complaining about the General election, the fight was already lost.
This is demonstrably true, though. Hell, there's no point to voting if you do win, when the election is sufficiently lopsided. The general election process is the tail end of a far larger and more financially involved whittling of the candidate pool.
Even then, the focus is on building a movement rather than a single candidate's campaign. Elections are not one-and-done. Candidates can rise and fall in iterative races based on the coalitions they built (or squandered) in prior campaigns.
Turnout hardly matters when only a few candidates have the resources to compete. This Presidential primary is case-in-point. When Trump is favored to win 60% of the primary vote and Biden is virtually uncontested, volume of participation is irrelevant. Whether turnout is 10% or 100%, the same two guys are going to move on to the general.
I'll spot you that primaries have an outsized influence and that entryists in the democratic process are savvy to focus their attentions on these races. But Beto O'Rourke winning the primary for Texas Senate and then Texas Governor did nothing to overcome the enormous support-deficit he suffered in the general.
So what do you propose? Do what instead of voting? Seems like the lowest hanging fruit to me. The left tends to win with turnout. The left tends to be more progressive and more conducive to evidence based problem solving. Fixing the parties at the primary level seems like the lowest effort solution for the largest pay off.
Encouraging voter apathy is counterproductive, unless you are going to propose we do something else that's more effective for the same energy expenditure.
I truly believe that if every person who complained about politics spent as much time voting as they did complaining, we'd have a more representative government.
We complain about a government that is corrupt, run by the wealthy as if we're not the ones who put them there. Inaction is an action. Why should they represent our interests if we don't even vote? All not voting tells a politician is that you aren't their constituent.
Depends heavily on what kind of problems you're facing at home. In my home town of Houston, the state government has hijacked the school board of HISD and imposed a bunch of shitty rules and regs, designed to waste money and torture kids. So I joined my local PTA. We go to meetings and harass/shame the bureaucrats involved. We reach out to the teachers and administrators who are under the gun to enforce these policies and offer them our support. There was a picket of the school district's office in October for instance.
Direct action - refusing to comply with harmful public policy, harassing public officials who are advocating and endorsing this policy, and getting other parents and teachers on board with alternative policy that you can implement outside the scope of the administration - is an effective means of undermining an unelected bureaucracy appointed by a corrupt state government.
There's more to politics than complaining. You need workable alternative and you need a popular consensus. Ten different people all pulling in ten different directions won't affect any kind of change. But ten activists with a shared understanding and vision, pulling in the same direction can.
We're not. Far more often, it is the wealthy and well-organized interest and advocacy groups that put these people in power.
Greg Abbott and Ken Paxton aren't rogue agents who just kinda bubbled up from a political morass. They are the direct beneficiaries of large social mobilizations - O&G lobbying groups paid for with overpriced fossil fuels, large religious organizations like Houston's Second Baptist Church and Lakewood Church which galvenize masses of people along socially conservative political issues, doctors and lawyers and real estate associations and car dealership clubs who have formed cartels designed to guarantee higher salaries. One of the most politically active people in my community is Jim "Mattress Mack" McIngvale, a local celebrity businessman with a penchant for hookers and blow and QAnon conspiracy bullshit. This guy single-handedly bankrolls half a dozen talk-radio shock jocks with his advertising money and influences hundreds of thousands of my neighbors. Another is Dr. Peter Hoetz, a close personal friend of Dinesh D'Souza, who helped produce "2000 Mules" a documentary about how Joe Biden stole the 2020 election from Donald Trump.
Knowing who these people are and how they influence the body politick is instrumental in understanding where and how public opinion is crafted and distributed. If you're just showing up to the polls every two years and praying that Truth Will Prevail, you're walking to the slaughter. Only by recognizing who these assholes are, how they're seeding conspiracy theory and bigotry into the public domain, and where they fucking live so you can put a few rocks through their windows, can you discourage them from continuing.
I think the problem is that third parties are thinking too big. You can't just rival the Democrats or Republicans on a national level overnight.
Let's say hypothetically, one state becomes disillusioned with the mainstream parties and a third secessionist party starts making headway in mayoral and state elections, soon winning over the people.
If it's a big state like Texas, that's well over a hundred electoral college votes lost for the Republicans.
The problem is the spoiler effect. It's a well documented shortcoming of FPTP.
We need to all ask ourselves what is the biggest impact I can make politically with the energy I am willing to spend. For me, energy spent voting should never be LESS than energy spent complaining about politics.