"Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst Thälmann made in 1932. The leader of the German Communist Party, Thälmann saw mainstream liberals as his enemies, and so the center and left never joined forces against the Nazis. Thälmann famously said that ‘some Nazi trees must not be allowed to overshadow a forest’ of social democrats, whom he sneeringly called ‘social fascists.’

After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, Thälmann was arrested. He was shot on Hitler’s orders in Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944."

  • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Local elections is where most of the current people in power got started. Anyone voting for third party in the presidential race missed the boat.

    We desperately need more real third-party participation in politics, but voting for third parties in presidential elections doesn’t make that happen—the US voting system isn’t a business that adapts its products to meet consumer demand.

    PSL and De La Cruz are only on the ballot in 18 states for 220 Electoral College votes. They literally cannot win.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access_in_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election.

    Taking votes away from Harris only helps Trump.

    No third party has reached those thresholds in years.

    2020:

    Democratic - 51.31%.  
    Republican - 46.85%.   
    Libertarian - 1.18%.  
    

    2016:

    Republican - 46.09%.  
    Democratic - 48.18%.  
    Libertarian - 3.28%.  
    

    2012:

    Democratic - 51.06%.  
    Republican - 47.20%.  
    Libertarian - 0.99%.  
    

    2008:

    Democratic - 52.93%.  
    Republican - 45.65%.  
    Ralph Nader - 0.56%.  
    

    2004:

    Republican - 50.73%.  
    Democratic - 48.27%.   
    Ralph Nader - 0.38%   
    

    2000:

    Republican - 47.86%.  
    Democratic - 48.38%.  
    Ralph Nader - 2.74%.  
    

    The last time a 3rd party got any significant portion of the vote was Ross Perot in '92 and '96, it had 0 significance.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election

    18.91% in '92, 8.4% in '96.

    Before that, you have to go back to '68 where a racist 3rd party won 13.5% of the vote, and the South, also had no significance beyond that election.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_United_States_presidential_election.

    If enough people are voting third party that it’s a threat then maybe the other parties should take notice and change to support the popular policies and win back support.

    This does not work in a FPTP system. Every vote you peel off the Democrats just enables the Republicans and sets reform back even farther. The only way telling people to vote 3rd party is helpful is if they were going to vote for the GOP. Peeling votes away from Democrats HURTS the chances of other parties to be viable in the future.

    I mean unless you are intentionally being obtuse I feel like you know damn well what people mean when they say “A vote for X is a vote for Trump”. It’s not a coincidence that so many Republican allies and organizations are promoting and pumping up 3rd party candidates to run in various swing states and pull votes away from Harris, this isn’t a new tactic and historically has absolutely changed elections.

    A vote not for Harris is one less vote for her too. Not voting for anyone and then waking up getting the person you didn’t want winning should not get a Pikachu face. That single vote won’t matter statistically, but it’s the mindset that if lots of people think the same way, and they do, then it will matter.

    It’s okay to vote thinking, ugh, fine…I’ll vote Democrat even though I hate the choices. If everyone thinking that way votes, we’ll have a left wing sweep. That would be a refreshing change of pace…then we can put pressure on those reps who listen to people to make the hard changes that right now always get opposed because of party.

    I learned about spoiler candidates in 8th grade civics.

    Spoiler about spoilers: spoilers can spoil actively, or passively. It doesn’t really matter after the fact, the point is how their words and existence as a candidate influence the success chances for the 2 leading candidates.

    Let’s say Trump has 47% support… his theoretical maximum.

    That means “Not Trump” is at 53%.

    The problem is “Not Trump” is divided among Harris, Stein, and West. Stein and West draw from the Harris camp, not the Trump camp.

    So instead of 47% Trump, 53% Harris, you get 45% Harris, 5% Stein, 3% West, Trump wins.

    Do that in a few key states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Trump gets a 2nd term, actively making things worse for all those people who voted for Stein and West.

    But I know you’ll ignore all of the above again just like you did before.