The fight for ranked choice voting is crucial, but it shouldn’t be an excuse to dismiss third parties. Supporting third parties now is how we build the momentum for change, including reforms like ranked choice voting.
The more we challenge the status quo, the more pressure we put on the system to evolve.
What have third parties done, other than fail at every goal?
The Populist Party in the late 19th century pushed for direct election of senators, which later became the 17th Amendment.
The Socialist Party of America, under leaders like Eugene V. Debs, advocated for policies like the eight-hour workday, child labor laws, and social security—many of which were eventually implemented by the major parties.
More recently, the Green Party has kept issues like climate change, electoral reform, and corporate influence in politics at the forefront of national discourse.
Third parties may not always win elections, but they succeed in driving important issues into the national conversation and pushing the political landscape toward real change.
And hey, if third parties don’t accomplish anything, then why is the Duopoly always trying to get them removed from the ballots?! I mean, if they don’t do anything, then you guys have no reason to fear them or be angry with them. Right?
The idea that third-party candidates are responsible for the failures of the duopoly is a desperate lie spun by those who refuse to hold their own parties accountable.
Blaming Nader for Bush’s rise is a convenient way to avoid facing the deeper rot within a system that constantly fails the people, choosing corporate interests over the lives and safety of everyday citizens.
Well, at least you’re not calling me—or anyone else—a Russian asset today. So, brother, I’ll take your “naive” comment in stride. I genuinely respect and support your right to your opinion, even if we see things differently.
It would have never happened if you hadn’t been so eager to constantly try to push that Stein had no contact with Russia when she very provably did.
It’d be fine to acknowledge that Stein did have contact with Russia and benefited from their support, but you support her anyway. That is a legitimate opinion based in factuality. But by consistently attempting to spin away from those two basic facts, your goals became pretty clear.
This new “all opinions are equally valid” strategy isn’t really that much better either, and is a classic conservative technique.
I don’t really see the Russian asset thing as being real. It seems like Stein made some dumb choices in terms of travel and meetings but I think we’d see it more in her policy if she were a Russian asset. I remain suspicious of Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump’s Russian ties.
Stein is clearly an asset to Russia. As is trump. You could be an asset to Russia as well. Being an asset doesn’t mean that you’re an agent of. Just that your actions are beneficial to them.
By that logic, anyone that is critical of Harris in any way is a Russian asset. I suppose I should just quit talking to anyone just in case it benefits them? (I will still vote for Harris regardless)
Anything you do could benefit someone. You can’t stop doing everything. So what you then have to take a look at. Is who is likely to benefit from your actions. And do you want them to.
So now standing up for working people, fighting for real democracy, and refusing to bow to the corrupt duopoly makes someone an “asset” to Russia?
What a convenient smear for those too terrified to confront the broken system that keeps the working class in chains.
Jill Stein, and every other brave soul who dares to step outside the corporate-controlled parties, is an asset not to some foreign power, but to the people of this country who are desperate for a real voice.
If the establishment shakes with fear when we talk about revolution, then maybe it’s time for them to realize that the true “asset” is the power of the people, rising against the tyranny of the few.
Is she standing up for anyone but herself. Let’s do a cost benefit analysis.
200+ years of American history have shown equivocally that 3rd parties can’t win a presidential election. Nor break double digit percentage of the popular vote nationally.
So best case scenario for Stein is that she loses the election and has no significant influence over it. Worst case she pulls enough votes from Democrats who she “agrees” with on many issues. To allow Republicans whom she “disagrees” with more to win.
Now, if your best case scenario is the same as not running. Why would you choose to run? Why waste time, money, and resources for nothing. When that time money and resources would be infinity more effective in a local or state election. Logically you wouldn’t. Logically if you were statistically more likely to help the worst candidate you would abstain from running. But she is running. She will lose, and she is pulling from the only group capable of defeating Republicans. So if she is as you claim. Fighting for working people. Then it is irrational and illogical for her to run.
Now let’s consider the opposite. When would it be logical or rational for her to run? Well since she cannot win. And since she will not influence the Democratic presidential candidates in any way. Therefore being unable to promise Working Families anything in any capacity. The most generous logical interpretation is that she’s in it for publicity for herself. To raise her National profile. And to enrich herself. Not caring about the actual Working Families that she will hurt. Because she herself is insulated. You know what the logical / rational less generous explanation is. Though you yourself would deny it. Being so self radicalized. Similar in so many ways to the magats. That you only care that people say the things you want to hear. But forget to check on how they do with relation to the things that you want to see them do. Leaving yourself looking foolish in the end.
You argue that third-party candidates like Jill Stein are ineffective and potentially harmful, but this overlooks a fundamental issue: the duopoly stifles genuine political discourse and limits choices for voters.
Sometimes running a third-party campaign isn’t only just about winning; it’s about challenging the status quo, pushing important issues into the national conversation, and holding the major parties accountable.
Stein’s candidacy isn’t about personal gain; it’s about giving a voice to those who feel unrepresented by the Democrats and Republicans. Rather than conceding to a flawed system, third-party candidates push for the change that millions of Americans desperately need.
Though you yourself would deny it. Being so self radicalized. Similar in so many ways to the magats.
Comparing someone who fights for workers’ rights and social justice to MAGA supporters is a lazy and flawed argument.
Standing up for third-party candidates and challenging the political status quo doesn’t make me “self-radicalized”; it shows a commitment to real change, not just settling for the lesser evil.
If you think that’s the same as blind allegiance to a demagogue, then you’ve missed the point entirely.
You argue that third-party candidates like Jill Stein are ineffective and potentially harmful
It was more a statement of fact that an argument.
but this overlooks a fundamental issue: the duopoly stifles genuine political discourse and limits choices for voters.
The system does it. Has done it for over 200 years. The parties themselves are interchangeable and a symptom, not the problem. Neither are the parties monolithic either. The Democratic party in fact gives voice successfully to many disparate groups. Not all of which I agree with, or think is adequate. But I can point to real accomplishments. But I’d like to see you argue otherwise. What have presidents from 3rd parties. Who don’t exist because they’ve never won. Given us policy wise.
Stein’s candidacy isn’t about personal gain; it’s about giving a voice to those who feel unrepresented by the Democrats and Republicans.
You are free to shout into the void. But what does shouting into the void accomplish. Trump gives voice to bigots and racists. And has accomplished mathematically infinitely more for them. Having a voice means nothing when it is ignored.
Comparing someone who fights for workers’ rights and social justice to MAGA supporters is a lazy and flawed argument.
How is it flawed. They say they’re doing the same thing. But have actually accomplished some of it. So you can say you are different at least in that metric. But is accomplishing nothing really that moral or virtuous?
Standing up for third-party candidates and challenging the political status quo doesn’t make me “self-radicalized”; it shows a commitment to real change, not just settling for the lesser evil.
Whether or not you settle for it you will get the worst or second worst when it comes to presidential elections. As an anarchist I don’t care if you vote, or who you vote for. it’s your vote. I’m just pointing out mathematical reality. And that people rightfully disliked false or undeserved self righteousness. Outside of the limited state and local offices groups like the green party hold. (Which I think are good) People like Stein if even inadvertently, stand to do more harm than good at a national presidential level. Again, mathematically and statistically provable. You’re still welcome to vote for them. But you’re not any more virtuous or riteous than the people or groups you’re criticizing. And realistically they aren’t giving anyone a meaningful voice. Judging based on actual accomplishments.
Serious question. Why did Sanders, an independent, run for the Democratic presidential nomination.
As are you. And I am just as free to disagree with you, as you are to disagree with me.
As an anarchist I don’t care if you vote, or who you vote for. it’s your vote.
Good. Because I am not voting for Harris. Or Trump. I’m proud to be voting third party.
But you’re not any more virtuous or riteous than the people or groups you’re criticizing.
Brother, I’ve never claimed to be more virtuous or righteous—only determined to fight for what’s right. My critique isn’t born out of self-righteousness, but out of a burning desire to see justice for the working class and an end to the chains of this corrupt system.
Serious question. Why did Sanders, an independent, run for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Sanders ran within the Democratic Party because he knew the harsh reality of our rigged electoral system, where third-party candidates are sidelined and silenced by the duopoly.
And what happened? His trust in the Democratic Party led to them betraying him and handing the nomination to Hillary Clinton, who then lost. Sanders made a mistake aligning with the Democrats instead of staying true to his independent roots.
Totally agree. And I think that calling her a Russian asset or a Trump plant, gives way too much credit to the conservative party. They are definitely not smart enough to do things like that without fucking it all up. lol
I’ll stick with calling them naive.
Are they building a coalition toward ranked choice?
They are naive at best… BUT malicious in appearance.
The fight for ranked choice voting is crucial, but it shouldn’t be an excuse to dismiss third parties. Supporting third parties now is how we build the momentum for change, including reforms like ranked choice voting.
The more we challenge the status quo, the more pressure we put on the system to evolve.
Sub out the term “affect”.
Sub out damn near anything… “Change” should matter more than your BS rhetoric. Where can you point to change?
What change have you affected? What’s your accomplishment?
What have third parties done, other than fail at every goal?
The Populist Party in the late 19th century pushed for direct election of senators, which later became the 17th Amendment.
The Socialist Party of America, under leaders like Eugene V. Debs, advocated for policies like the eight-hour workday, child labor laws, and social security—many of which were eventually implemented by the major parties.
More recently, the Green Party has kept issues like climate change, electoral reform, and corporate influence in politics at the forefront of national discourse.
Third parties may not always win elections, but they succeed in driving important issues into the national conversation and pushing the political landscape toward real change.
And hey, if third parties don’t accomplish anything, then why is the Duopoly always trying to get them removed from the ballots?! I mean, if they don’t do anything, then you guys have no reason to fear them or be angry with them. Right?
Yea and Nader brought in seat belts yet also specifically gave us GWB.
Can we please have the seatbelts without the conservative mass murderer or is it a package deal?
Is there no nuance or do you want to force GWB on the entire world just to feel your point?
The idea that third-party candidates are responsible for the failures of the duopoly is a desperate lie spun by those who refuse to hold their own parties accountable.
Blaming Nader for Bush’s rise is a convenient way to avoid facing the deeper rot within a system that constantly fails the people, choosing corporate interests over the lives and safety of everyday citizens.
Blaming Nader is a recognition that WITHIN this system you either work for change or admit defeat.
You get out of the hole before telling everyone how shitty they are for being in the hole.
Or you make enemies and tell everyone they are shitty cause the hole is full of shit. You’re doing a good job with the latter.
Blaming Nader is just a convenient excuse for not facing the real enemies—those who keep digging the hole deeper while pretending to lift us out.
We can’t stay silent about the rot at the top just to make people feel comfortable in the mess they’ve created.
If people are uncomfortable with what I have to say, we have a great blocking system here on Lemmy that they can use.
Well, at least you’re not calling me—or anyone else—a Russian asset today. So, brother, I’ll take your “naive” comment in stride. I genuinely respect and support your right to your opinion, even if we see things differently.
It would have never happened if you hadn’t been so eager to constantly try to push that Stein had no contact with Russia when she very provably did.
It’d be fine to acknowledge that Stein did have contact with Russia and benefited from their support, but you support her anyway. That is a legitimate opinion based in factuality. But by consistently attempting to spin away from those two basic facts, your goals became pretty clear.
This new “all opinions are equally valid” strategy isn’t really that much better either, and is a classic conservative technique.
The connection between Stein and Russia harms his cosplaying as a leftist act.
I don’t really see the Russian asset thing as being real. It seems like Stein made some dumb choices in terms of travel and meetings but I think we’d see it more in her policy if she were a Russian asset. I remain suspicious of Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump’s Russian ties.
Stein is clearly an asset to Russia. As is trump. You could be an asset to Russia as well. Being an asset doesn’t mean that you’re an agent of. Just that your actions are beneficial to them.
By that logic, anyone that is critical of Harris in any way is a Russian asset. I suppose I should just quit talking to anyone just in case it benefits them? (I will still vote for Harris regardless)
Anything you do could benefit someone. You can’t stop doing everything. So what you then have to take a look at. Is who is likely to benefit from your actions. And do you want them to.
That’s definitely the kind of logic most Lemmys use. I know because I’m on the receiving end of it every day on here. Lol
So now standing up for working people, fighting for real democracy, and refusing to bow to the corrupt duopoly makes someone an “asset” to Russia?
What a convenient smear for those too terrified to confront the broken system that keeps the working class in chains.
Jill Stein, and every other brave soul who dares to step outside the corporate-controlled parties, is an asset not to some foreign power, but to the people of this country who are desperate for a real voice.
If the establishment shakes with fear when we talk about revolution, then maybe it’s time for them to realize that the true “asset” is the power of the people, rising against the tyranny of the few.
Is she standing up for anyone but herself. Let’s do a cost benefit analysis.
200+ years of American history have shown equivocally that 3rd parties can’t win a presidential election. Nor break double digit percentage of the popular vote nationally.
So best case scenario for Stein is that she loses the election and has no significant influence over it. Worst case she pulls enough votes from Democrats who she “agrees” with on many issues. To allow Republicans whom she “disagrees” with more to win.
Now, if your best case scenario is the same as not running. Why would you choose to run? Why waste time, money, and resources for nothing. When that time money and resources would be infinity more effective in a local or state election. Logically you wouldn’t. Logically if you were statistically more likely to help the worst candidate you would abstain from running. But she is running. She will lose, and she is pulling from the only group capable of defeating Republicans. So if she is as you claim. Fighting for working people. Then it is irrational and illogical for her to run.
Now let’s consider the opposite. When would it be logical or rational for her to run? Well since she cannot win. And since she will not influence the Democratic presidential candidates in any way. Therefore being unable to promise Working Families anything in any capacity. The most generous logical interpretation is that she’s in it for publicity for herself. To raise her National profile. And to enrich herself. Not caring about the actual Working Families that she will hurt. Because she herself is insulated. You know what the logical / rational less generous explanation is. Though you yourself would deny it. Being so self radicalized. Similar in so many ways to the magats. That you only care that people say the things you want to hear. But forget to check on how they do with relation to the things that you want to see them do. Leaving yourself looking foolish in the end.
You argue that third-party candidates like Jill Stein are ineffective and potentially harmful, but this overlooks a fundamental issue: the duopoly stifles genuine political discourse and limits choices for voters.
Sometimes running a third-party campaign isn’t only just about winning; it’s about challenging the status quo, pushing important issues into the national conversation, and holding the major parties accountable.
Stein’s candidacy isn’t about personal gain; it’s about giving a voice to those who feel unrepresented by the Democrats and Republicans. Rather than conceding to a flawed system, third-party candidates push for the change that millions of Americans desperately need.
Comparing someone who fights for workers’ rights and social justice to MAGA supporters is a lazy and flawed argument.
Standing up for third-party candidates and challenging the political status quo doesn’t make me “self-radicalized”; it shows a commitment to real change, not just settling for the lesser evil.
If you think that’s the same as blind allegiance to a demagogue, then you’ve missed the point entirely.
It was more a statement of fact that an argument.
The system does it. Has done it for over 200 years. The parties themselves are interchangeable and a symptom, not the problem. Neither are the parties monolithic either. The Democratic party in fact gives voice successfully to many disparate groups. Not all of which I agree with, or think is adequate. But I can point to real accomplishments. But I’d like to see you argue otherwise. What have presidents from 3rd parties. Who don’t exist because they’ve never won. Given us policy wise.
You are free to shout into the void. But what does shouting into the void accomplish. Trump gives voice to bigots and racists. And has accomplished mathematically infinitely more for them. Having a voice means nothing when it is ignored.
How is it flawed. They say they’re doing the same thing. But have actually accomplished some of it. So you can say you are different at least in that metric. But is accomplishing nothing really that moral or virtuous?
Whether or not you settle for it you will get the worst or second worst when it comes to presidential elections. As an anarchist I don’t care if you vote, or who you vote for. it’s your vote. I’m just pointing out mathematical reality. And that people rightfully disliked false or undeserved self righteousness. Outside of the limited state and local offices groups like the green party hold. (Which I think are good) People like Stein if even inadvertently, stand to do more harm than good at a national presidential level. Again, mathematically and statistically provable. You’re still welcome to vote for them. But you’re not any more virtuous or riteous than the people or groups you’re criticizing. And realistically they aren’t giving anyone a meaningful voice. Judging based on actual accomplishments.
Serious question. Why did Sanders, an independent, run for the Democratic presidential nomination.
No, it was a statement of opinion.
As are you. And I am just as free to disagree with you, as you are to disagree with me.
Good. Because I am not voting for Harris. Or Trump. I’m proud to be voting third party.
Brother, I’ve never claimed to be more virtuous or righteous—only determined to fight for what’s right. My critique isn’t born out of self-righteousness, but out of a burning desire to see justice for the working class and an end to the chains of this corrupt system.
Sanders ran within the Democratic Party because he knew the harsh reality of our rigged electoral system, where third-party candidates are sidelined and silenced by the duopoly.
And what happened? His trust in the Democratic Party led to them betraying him and handing the nomination to Hillary Clinton, who then lost. Sanders made a mistake aligning with the Democrats instead of staying true to his independent roots.
Totally agree. And I think that calling her a Russian asset or a Trump plant, gives way too much credit to the conservative party. They are definitely not smart enough to do things like that without fucking it all up. lol