535
submitted 1 year ago by mwguy@infosec.pub to c/politics@lemmy.world

Story Highlights

  • Third time support has exceeded 60%, along with 2017 and 2021
  • Republicans primarily behind the increase, with 58% now in favor
  • Political independents remain group most likely to favor third party
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] kobra@lemm.ee 227 points 1 year ago

RANKED CHOICE VOTING

make parties irrelevant

[-] BluJay320 45 points 1 year ago

make parties irrelevant

Precisely why they will never let this happen

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Cappurnikus@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Pleasantly surprised to see this is the top comment.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 112 points 1 year ago

I want third parties, but before that happens we need Ranked Choice Voting or Approval Voting. Otherwise, voting third party is essentially just taking votes from the major party most closely aligned with that third party.

[-] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I know RCV is the zeitgeist, but I really think Approval Voting is better and easier for the public. I'm glad you mentioned it

[-] Rekhyt@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

And yet when I say this people look at me like I'm crazy and tell me "Sir this is a Wendy's"

Seriously, though, Approval Voting is literally the simplest voting method (vote yes or no on each candidate) and yet it has zero traction.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 80 points 1 year ago

Now ask those people what the third party's platform should be.

[-] utopianfiat@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

Not right, not left, but a secret third position

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 39 points 1 year ago

What if we just took all the leftist policies that Republican voters say they love in polls, but just replaced their names with new names that Fox News hasn't had a chance to program their viewers on? Instead of Universal Healthcare, we'll call it the American Bodily Integrity Defense Initiative or patriot care or some shit. No, no, it's not high speed rail, it's the Uncle Sam Express. No, no, it's not universal college, it's the "Beating China By Investing in Education Strategic Defense Initiative". Etc.

[-] utopianfiat@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

That might help black folks, so it won't work.

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Maybe name it something racist? The Jim Crow Comprehensive Medical Reform Package.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Realistically there are 3 major groupings already:

  • Progressives
  • Corporate centrists
  • Unrepentant Nazis
[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You said "Democrats" twice.

Edit: man, I can't figure out who this pissed off- people who don't know progressives and corporate centrists are in the Democratic party, or Republicans.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] player2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 44 points 1 year ago

If only the politicians in the dominant parties had any incentive to make elections fair for all parties. As it stands, the dominant parties have too many systems in place to give themselves advantages.

Rank choice voting seems like an obvious upgrade to our current voting system but is nowhere to be found other than a couple states.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Rank choice voting seems like an obvious upgrade to our current voting system but is nowhere to be found other than a couple states.

Because the two "private parties" have an insane amount of control over our political system.

And both of them count on getting a large amount of votes because people hate the other side.

If there's literally any viable third option it fucks their system up, which would take power away from the people leading those private organizations

For example, say a far right party shows up. That hurts republicans, but it means Dems would win in landslides. Once that happens, Dem voters are going to start demanding things get done. Which means we're suddenly going to have more Manchin's voting against the party. Leading to increased primary challenges and maybe even a viable progressive party.

Both parties have a bunch of reasons to keep the status quo

[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

There’s like 12 imperfect voting systems that are still light years better than our current system. I wish we would just pick one and roll with it already, even if it’s a temporary fix.

[-] fubo@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Approval voting is mathematically sane, rewards candidates that are broadly acceptable rather than extremists, and is easy to explain to voters: "Vote for every candidate whom you would be okay with."

Candidates get more votes by building big tents than fanatical bases; voters maximize their power by honestly representing their views, and (unlike IRV) there's no case where thinking better of a candidate will lead you to vote in a way that causes that candidate to lose.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Treczoks@kbin.social 33 points 1 year ago

As long as the US sticks to it's long outdated and undemocratic FPTP voting model, you won't see a relevant third party in congress.

[-] logicbomb@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

Does the GOP still count as a political party? What is their platform, anyways? I don't think "install a dictator and oppress minorities" counts as a platform. Point is, maybe we should look at getting a second political party first. One that can actually represent conservatives.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The Republican Party is representing conservatives better than it ever has. Installing a dictator and oppressing minorities is what conservatives genuinely want, and always have wanted.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Burninator05@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

Why stop at three parties. We need like seven.

[-] dirtbiker509@lemm.ee 29 points 1 year ago

We need Ranked Choice Voting at all levels including the presidency before we can have lots of different parties.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Syndic@feddit.de 23 points 1 year ago

You would need to get rid of the "first past the pole" system anyway to allow for other parties to have an actual chance. As soon as that's done, more parties can easily be done.

But well, the people who would need to make that happen are the same people who currently benefit from the system as it is.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] IverCoder@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago

I'm not from America so I have no idea how this party system works, but the point here is I love parties 🎊

[-] Sharpiemarker@feddit.de 22 points 1 year ago

Let me educate you:

It doesn't!

[-] Khotetsu@lib.lgbt 10 points 1 year ago

Basically, we're only allowed 2 parties per year, and if you want any more, you have to buy a subscription, or else the party police will take away your party privileges. We're hoping that with enough complaints, they'll allow us another party before having to pay.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Yet talk about voting 3rd party and get attacked by straight ticket absolutist

[-] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 35 points 1 year ago

Yep. Because US isn't multiparty system yet, and just voting 3rd party in president elections is not viable and not smart. It doesn't mean that people don't want US to be multiparty system

[-] Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Pasting my comment from further down the thread

False. It sends the message that if that major party wants those votes they need to align with the 3rd parties policies. You keep narrowly losing elections because voters don't support what you do, you'll change if you ever want to win again. People are more concerned about winning every election, voting for the lesser of two evils, then wonder why our candidates keep getting shittier and shittier.

[-] tacosplease@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Primaries are for sending your message. The actual election needs to be handled as harm reduction considering the options are mashed potatoes personified vs literal fascists. Neither is desirable but one is far more undesirable than the other.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago

Would love a third and a fourth and a fifth party. Unfortunately, that doesn't work in a winner-take-all system based on the Electoral College.

[-] Monkeyhog@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

A third party in the US would just replace one of the 2 existing parties so within one or two election cycles we'd be back to two anyway. And with the way the parties are acting currently it would probably be the Republican party to collapse and be replaced.

[-] GeekyNerdyNerd@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And with the direction the Republican base is going, whatever party replaces the GoP is probably gonna think Hitler's biggest problem was his accent.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 11 points 1 year ago

Yes, this 58% Republican support isn't "Libertarians" finally smartening up and realizing the neocons want a police state, it's Trumpers who want the Trump Dynasty.

[-] knobbysideup@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago

Because the tea party and libertarians are such awesome options. How about no parties and ranked choice voting.

[-] Ducktape@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

I went third party in 2016 because I was disgusted and at the time I didn't think my state would ever be anything but red. Since then I've learned that I am very much in a swing state and Republicans have made it very clear they are going full fascist. There is at least one conservative think tank spreading the idea that we need a "Red Caesar" which sounds a lot like Mussolini to me. I don't know if it's possible to shift the Democratic party further left or not at this point, but I won't be voting third party again unless there is some massive change in the way we handle elections.

[-] Seigest@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago

Regardless of what side your on as a Canadian I'd warn you that you need ranked voting for this kind of thing to work. We don't have that here.

We have one prominently right party and 2 left parties. This heavily skews the votes towards the right as left votes are being split between 2 parties. Often as a left voter you have to vote for the more popular party even if you don't like them in order to keep the right leaning party from winning.

Ranked voting would fix this issue but neither of the 2 popular parties on eatch side, who can fix this want to fix it. Both the popular left and right parties work to supress all other parties.

If your not getting ranked voting that 3rd party will only exist to split the vote for whatever side its on.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Veneroso@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

And what is 63% more of nothing? Almost nothing!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] cupcakezealot 12 points 1 year ago

Mostly due to embarrassed republicans who want a new republican party

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 11 points 1 year ago

A third party would be an improvement. But, really, parties are the problem.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] WheeGeetheCat@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

Just remember - with first past the post third party is structurally prevented from rising. Get busy with local election reform in your state: look for ranked choice or approval voting initiatives with some steam

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
535 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2005 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS