Not voting it's not a third option, it's a statement that you don't care about either of the two options. Voting a third candidate is instead simply useless and in practice amounts to the same thing as not voting or voting with a blank ballot.

Not quite accurate. Voting third party signals that third party platforms are more popular, and can shift the larger parties.

So in practice the options are: voting for the Democrats, voting for the Republicans, doing nothing and being ok with either one winning or leaving the fucking country.

Not entirely true, Electoralism is perhaps the least effective way to gain major change. Organizing and mass protesting can get meaningful change, same as striking. Forcing concessions is the way true change has occured historically, not simply at the ballot box.

[–] Rinox@feddit.it 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

my point is that disaffected leftists voting for third parties [...] does not mean support for Trump

With the current American Electoral law, it kind of does. Let's say that 5% of the votes instead of going to the Democrats go to some other third party. In an election this close, where both parties are likely to get between 48 and 52% of the votes, this would mean ensuring the victory of the Republicans.

This is a huge problem with the FPTP system, but that's the law for this election. It would be great to change it, but that's talk for the next one. Voting for a third party ensures that the party you like the least will win in a FPTP system. CGP explains it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Not quite accurate. Voting third party signals that third party platforms are more popular, and can shift the larger parties.

Maybe, but you are still conceding these elections.

Organizing and mass protesting can get meaningful change, same as striking. Forcing concessions is the way true change has occured historically, not simply at the ballot box.

You can definitely do this as well as voting for the party that best represents you. If you don't vote, it means you leave the choice of who will rule the country to the others. At least vote for the candidate that you think is more likely to listen to your protests, rather than forfeiting the elections in favor of the candidate that you know for sure will never listen to you.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

With the current American Electoral law, it kind of does. Let's say that 5% of the votes instead of going to the Democrats go to some other third party. In an election this close, where both parties are likely to get between 48 and 52% of the votes, this would mean ensuring the victory of the Republicans.

You're assuming the Right Wing DNC is entitled to Left Wing votes just because they are not as far right as the GOP. If the DNC wants Leftist votes, it should cater to Leftists. The fact that it hasn't done so means their electoral strategy does not depend on Leftist votes.

This is a huge problem with the FPTP system, but that's the law for this election. It would be great to change it, but that's talk for the next one. Voting for a third party ensures that the party you like the least will win in a FPTP system. CGP explains it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

How do you change it? You do realize people have been advocating against FPTP for centuries, right? FPTP serves both the DNC and GOP, so they won't change it. It's always "next election," and has been for a century.

Maybe, but you are conceding these elections.

Even if leftists voted for the DNC they are conceding the election, just to the Dems instead of Reps. A DNC victory is still a loss for Leftists. Leftists have lost every single election in US history, with the possible exception of Lincoln and FDR.

You can definitely do this as well as voting for the party that best represents you. If you don't vote, it means you leave the choice of who will rule the country to the others. At least vote for the candidate that you think is more likely to listen to your protests, rather than forfeiting the elections in favor of the candidate that you know for sure will never listen to you.

If you seriously mean this, then you're advocating for me to vote for PSL, not the Dems. Neither candidate represents me, neither has shown themselves willing to bend to protests, and I am sure neither will listen to me. That's why it's important to organize and force concessions, because neither will give them unless they have to.

[–] Rinox@feddit.it 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You don't understand the basics of a First Past The Post system.

Let's say, for example's sake, that 52% of the people voting tend left, while 48% tend right, and let's also remove all the state, gerrymandering and grand elector bullshit for a moment (I know, so much bullshit)

If everyone were to only vote for either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, come November, the Democratic Party would win with 52% of the votes and secure the presidency. Now let's assume that there's a third party, let's call it "The True Left Party" and let's say they can have a very successful campaign and secure 5% of the votes, which would come from the left leaning side of the voting pool, aka from those who would have otherwise voted for the Democratic Party. Now come November the results would look like this: Republicans still at 48%, Democrats now at 47% and True Left at 5%, so now the Republican Party wins and Trump becomes president.

This is how voting for a third party only helps your enemy. If I were the Republicans, I'd be turbo donating to any left party right now. Divide et Impera as the Romans said.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You don't understand the basics of a First Past The Post system.

I do, and asserting that I must not because I disagree with your analysis is juvenile and insulting.

Let's say, for example's sake, that 52% of the people voting tend left, while 48% tend right, and let's also remove all the state, gerrymandering and grand elector bullshit for a moment (I know, so much bullshit)

Tons of bs, sure, but let's go with that.

If everyone were to only vote for either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, come November, the Democratic Party would win with 52% of the votes and secure the presidency. Now let's assume that there's a third party, let's call it "The True Left Party" and let's say they can have a very successful campaign and secure 5% of the votes, which would come from the left leaning side of the voting pool, aka from those who would have otherwise voted for the Democratic Party. Now come November the results would look like this: Republicans still at 48%, Democrats now at 47% and True Left at 5%, so now the Republican Party wins and Trump becomes president.

No, if 52% voted for a Left party, PSL or the Greens would win. The 5% for the "true left party" isn't coming from the liberals that vote for and support the DNC. You're assuming leftists to automatically vote with the DNC, which is a false narrative. The DNC doesn't represent the Left in any capacity, nor do they pander to Leftist voters.

This is how voting for a third party only helps your enemy. If I were the Republicans, I'd be turbo donating to any left party right now. Divide et Impera as the Romans said.

The DNC are the enemy of Leftists as well, neither the GOP nor the DNC represent Leftists, which is why your previous paragraph doesn't add up.

[–] Rinox@feddit.it 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Ok, let's try again. Those who like the left usually don't vote for the GOP, agree?

Then, for them, the options are three, either vote Dems, vote third party or don't vote. Now, if, like in the example of before, these people are that 5%, do you agree that not voting or voting a third party will result in the GOP winning, while voting for the Dems will result in the Dems winning?

If you think that the Dems and the GOP are one and the same, then fine. If instead you'd rather the Dems win, then do you agree that these people should vote Dems rather than do nothing or vote for a third party, which would lead to a GOP win?

Btw, this is why there's no third party in a fptp system and there can never be one. Your votes are better spent on the candidate you dislike less rather than on the one you actually like, because voting for the one you like will inevitably result in the one you really dislike going to power.

Edit:btw watch that cgp grey video, it's really good. He's really good in general tbh, great guy, very good at explaining.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

Ok, let's try again. Those who like the left usually don't vote for the GOP, agree?

Yes.

Then, for them, the options are three, either vote Dems, vote third party or don't vote. Now, if, like in the example of before, these people are that 5%, do you agree that not voting or voting a third party will result in the GOP winning, while voting for the Dems will result in the Dems winning?

Sure.

If you think that the Dems and the GOP are one and the same, then fine. If instead you'd rather the Dems win, then do you agree that these people should vote Dems rather than do nothing or vote for a third party, which would lead to a GOP win?

Is there a material difference that results from what I personally feel? Shouldn't your question be "how can we get the 5% to vote for the DNC?" The Dems are right-wingers and enablers of fascism, if they took strong stances against it and pandering towards Leftists then they would see more Leftist support. The fault lies with the Dems for not analyzing their own positions properly, if they want Leftist support.

Btw, this is why there's no third party in a fptp system and there can never be one. Your votes are better spent on the candidate you dislike less rather than on the one you actually like, because voting for the one you like will inevitably result in the one you really dislike going to power.

I understand that the US is not a democracy, that's why more than voting, it's important to organize and build up dual power.

[–] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

This is a huge problem with the FPTP system, but that’s the law for this election. It would be great to change it, but that’s talk for the next one. Voting for a third party ensures that the party you like the least will win in a FPTP system. CGP explains it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

that is not the correct analysis. the correct analysis is that strategic voting leads to party consolidation, so the solution is values voting, even if you think another party that has somewhat close values has a better chance of winning.