One pollster sees “flashing red” signs on youth turnout as Gen Z and millennial voters, who are not satisfied with either party, could again play a decisive role in the next election.
ITT bunch of bots and dishonest kids trying to convince you to vote independent and third party if you don’t vote rep which means throwing away votes in american voting system
Yep. I get the desire to want something different, I do. But it’s essentially impossible until the system changes. And the only way the system changes is through the Democratic party while Republicans are voted out.
Anyone pushing to not vote or vote third party is either politically ignorant or intentionally trying to do this to give Rs an edge.
Heh, how naive. Why would “democrats” do it? They’re quite happy with how it works, especially now that republicans’ voters are dying of old age. Everyone should vote a 3rd party, until then you guys are fucked. You basically have two right-wing parties.
This has been proven wrong in the past. The Dems don’t have any intention to have anything else than a 2 party system, and they wouldn’t touch legislation that would enable it.
Dems aren’t going to fix it and reps want to destroy it and aren’t going to vote for someone who isn’t a rep so let’s just kill the democratic party in the name of “something new” - oh look we’re a full on fascist nation now because dipshits like you convinced stupid people that going full fasc is better than small incremental progress.
Like I get it, Dems suck they really do. But if you think destroying that party before republicans is going to result in improvment? Well let me make sure I stay far away from whatever you’re smoking cause it’s got you fucked up. Now go on, call me a centrist for being practical and not wanting to throw the country away, I you know you want to.
I agree with you, and can’t understand how it is so hard for people to grasp. It is a popularity contest, a numbers game. If you give votes to a candidate who has less than 1% chance of winning the election, you’re basically not voting at all. Our election system does not allow for third parties to ever realistically win.
If you don’t show them you’re capable of not voting for them they don’t have to listen to you. I promise you that. I worked within the Democratic Party. I didn’t listen or have to listen to anything on the left while I was working in the Democratic Party - because the left had nowhere to go.
What is the flaw in that reasoning? If I want Medicare for All and a neolib like Mayo Pete or Joe Brandon is the candidate and they don’t want Medicare for All, how does guaranteeing them my vote anyway get me Medicare for All? How do I punish them or otherwise push them my way other than refusing to vote for them?
Maybe the “moderate” Democrats that are indifferent or opposed to Medicare for All (I’m just using it as an example issue) should keep in mind that if they don’t support a progressive candidate progressives aren’t going to show up to vote and they’ll lose?
Unfortunately I feel like we’re reduced to harm-reduction for many votes. Liberal voters may take your hypothetical approach of “if the Democratic presidential candidate doesn’t support Medicare for All then I won’t vote for them”, but that just helps a Republican candidate that will push for much worse policies ON TOP OF not supporting Medicare for All.
Republican voters (seem to) vote on single issues: guns, God, and/or abortion. Liberal voters seem to expect a much wider array of policy positions from their candidate and such candidates rarely exist.
2016 - “eh, Hillary doesn’t support Medicare for All so I won’t vote”. So we instead got the shit show we have today.
Well, I think O Donnell is an idiot. How much longer does he plan on not voting for them to get them to listen to him?
Which of these sounds more threatening to you – a consistent voter threatening to withhold their vote from a candidate in a primary, or a never voter threatening to withhold their vote in the general election?
It’s not the second person. I mean, I’d love their vote, but I’ve never gotten their vote before, and they’re threatening that I won’t get their vote again. There’s no change. If the first person changes though, I’m down a vote. In the primary especially, I want dedicated voters to support me. You have no leverage if you’ve never bothered getting leverage.
If voting was done once and never again, you would be correct. However, there is voting every two years, if people voted in a blocked and the Dems lost, they would be forced to change their policy to attract back lost voters. They have no incentive to change if you openly admit you will always vote blue.
Of course, this also requires that the messaging is clear, last time the Dems lost they blamed it on Russians and deplorables rather than the fact that they have totally sold out the working class.
It’s difficult to pull off no doubt, but it would actually work at reforming the system.
This doesn’t work when the party you allow to win will take away your vote and weaponize the justice department to a never before seen level. Just like how respect and norms don’t work at restraining fascists, neither does withholding your vote when fascists are so popular. If history has shown us anything, the dems are more likely to slide further right if better policies don’t win them more votes. Rich educated neolibs who want poor people to die, but not the gays, are a more consistent voting base then young people. If dems think they can steal more of those assholes from Republicans than bring out left wing dems, they’ll slide to the right.
Voting blocks are very successful at getting what they want, but they can only do that if their threat to not vote for the party in question is taken seriously. The NRA doesn’t get what it wants because it commits to always vote Republican no matter what.
I get your point of view, and my argument is overly idealized and difficult to implement, but I genuinely don’t see it working without the ability to use your vote to negotiate. Besides money, it is the only thing they care about. I’m not American, but from Canada, and I can tell you from an outsider’s perspective your two-party system looks completely dysfunctional. We basically have a three/four-party system for our federal gov and I’d take that any day over a two-party system. Granted America controls the reserve currency and the world army, so it was bound to consume itself at some point, maybe it doesn’t matter how it is set up.
I agree. Our system is terrible. We can form internal coalitions and vote for slightly better options in primaries, but because the enemy will actually kill us, we have to go with the shitty option in the end. The bigger issue is still the culture and propaganda, but the two party system kind of needs to exist because of the winner take all presidency.
ITT bunch of bots and dishonest kids trying to convince you to vote independent and third party if you don’t vote rep which means throwing away votes in american voting system
Yep. I get the desire to want something different, I do. But it’s essentially impossible until the system changes. And the only way the system changes is through the Democratic party while Republicans are voted out.
Anyone pushing to not vote or vote third party is either politically ignorant or intentionally trying to do this to give Rs an edge.
That’s why even Bernie ran only as a Democrat for president.
The longest serving third party senator in history refusing to run third party for presidency says a lot about third-party politics.
Heh, how naive. Why would “democrats” do it? They’re quite happy with how it works, especially now that republicans’ voters are dying of old age. Everyone should vote a 3rd party, until then you guys are fucked. You basically have two right-wing parties.
That’s not completely true…
True, but realistically they have no chance even with those, once their old voters die.
This has been proven wrong in the past. The Dems don’t have any intention to have anything else than a 2 party system, and they wouldn’t touch legislation that would enable it.
Dems aren’t going to fix it and reps want to destroy it and aren’t going to vote for someone who isn’t a rep so let’s just kill the democratic party in the name of “something new” - oh look we’re a full on fascist nation now because dipshits like you convinced stupid people that going full fasc is better than small incremental progress.
Like I get it, Dems suck they really do. But if you think destroying that party before republicans is going to result in improvment? Well let me make sure I stay far away from whatever you’re smoking cause it’s got you fucked up. Now go on, call me a centrist for being practical and not wanting to throw the country away, I you know you want to.
I agree with you, and can’t understand how it is so hard for people to grasp. It is a popularity contest, a numbers game. If you give votes to a candidate who has less than 1% chance of winning the election, you’re basically not voting at all. Our election system does not allow for third parties to ever realistically win.
It does, once all of you “would love to, but…” people actually do vote.
Did the person you’re replying to at any point suggest voting for Republicans or for a third party?
https://youtu.be/FqRNnIMDkUY
Lawrence O’Donnell:
What is the flaw in that reasoning? If I want Medicare for All and a neolib like Mayo Pete or Joe Brandon is the candidate and they don’t want Medicare for All, how does guaranteeing them my vote anyway get me Medicare for All? How do I punish them or otherwise push them my way other than refusing to vote for them?
Maybe the “moderate” Democrats that are indifferent or opposed to Medicare for All (I’m just using it as an example issue) should keep in mind that if they don’t support a progressive candidate progressives aren’t going to show up to vote and they’ll lose?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/FqRNnIMDkUY
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Unfortunately I feel like we’re reduced to harm-reduction for many votes. Liberal voters may take your hypothetical approach of “if the Democratic presidential candidate doesn’t support Medicare for All then I won’t vote for them”, but that just helps a Republican candidate that will push for much worse policies ON TOP OF not supporting Medicare for All.
Republican voters (seem to) vote on single issues: guns, God, and/or abortion. Liberal voters seem to expect a much wider array of policy positions from their candidate and such candidates rarely exist.
2016 - “eh, Hillary doesn’t support Medicare for All so I won’t vote”. So we instead got the shit show we have today.
Well, I think O Donnell is an idiot. How much longer does he plan on not voting for them to get them to listen to him?
Which of these sounds more threatening to you – a consistent voter threatening to withhold their vote from a candidate in a primary, or a never voter threatening to withhold their vote in the general election?
It’s not the second person. I mean, I’d love their vote, but I’ve never gotten their vote before, and they’re threatening that I won’t get their vote again. There’s no change. If the first person changes though, I’m down a vote. In the primary especially, I want dedicated voters to support me. You have no leverage if you’ve never bothered getting leverage.
deleted by creator
If voting was done once and never again, you would be correct. However, there is voting every two years, if people voted in a blocked and the Dems lost, they would be forced to change their policy to attract back lost voters. They have no incentive to change if you openly admit you will always vote blue.
Of course, this also requires that the messaging is clear, last time the Dems lost they blamed it on Russians and deplorables rather than the fact that they have totally sold out the working class.
It’s difficult to pull off no doubt, but it would actually work at reforming the system.
Worked out so well in getting us a conservative dominated SC and has had consequences that will last a generation but sure, why not do it again
This doesn’t work when the party you allow to win will take away your vote and weaponize the justice department to a never before seen level. Just like how respect and norms don’t work at restraining fascists, neither does withholding your vote when fascists are so popular. If history has shown us anything, the dems are more likely to slide further right if better policies don’t win them more votes. Rich educated neolibs who want poor people to die, but not the gays, are a more consistent voting base then young people. If dems think they can steal more of those assholes from Republicans than bring out left wing dems, they’ll slide to the right.
Voting blocks are very successful at getting what they want, but they can only do that if their threat to not vote for the party in question is taken seriously. The NRA doesn’t get what it wants because it commits to always vote Republican no matter what.
I get your point of view, and my argument is overly idealized and difficult to implement, but I genuinely don’t see it working without the ability to use your vote to negotiate. Besides money, it is the only thing they care about. I’m not American, but from Canada, and I can tell you from an outsider’s perspective your two-party system looks completely dysfunctional. We basically have a three/four-party system for our federal gov and I’d take that any day over a two-party system. Granted America controls the reserve currency and the world army, so it was bound to consume itself at some point, maybe it doesn’t matter how it is set up.
I agree. Our system is terrible. We can form internal coalitions and vote for slightly better options in primaries, but because the enemy will actually kill us, we have to go with the shitty option in the end. The bigger issue is still the culture and propaganda, but the two party system kind of needs to exist because of the winner take all presidency.