The system is designed to have two parties. With fptp voting you encourage a system of two parties that agree on most things because you’re not allowed to have a party with nuance as that will be a wasted vote and simply allow your most disliked candidate to win by splitting the vote.
while this is true, most western nations have some level of FPP, and while they usually have two major parties, Like Conservative-Progressives and Labour in Canada, they still have more than two parties represented in the legislative body. I’m unaware of the last time someone was elected to congress who ran as a party other than R/D (no independents don’t count).
I think cause and effect are mixed here. Americans having to pick between two shitty right wing parties is the reason why one would feel like every election is the most important election. The fact that they’re so much alike is the biggest reason why they create as much dissent as possible.
Back in the 1970s, The Moral Majority took over the GOP by voting. They would show up at every local GOP club at every event. If 20 people had shown up the last time they picked the new dog catcher, the MMs would show up with fifty people. They didn’t have a lot of money or connections yet, but they had people showing up all the time. Need someone to pass out petitions? MMs were there. Drive folks to the polls? Meanwhile, the Dems had counted on the Unions to do those jobs. That’s why the GOP hated the Unions and did everything to dismantle them.
and yet nearly half of American union workers vote Republican. Usually because they are more concerned about “conservatives” two bread-butter issues, abortion or gun rights.
I agree with everything you just said but I don’t think either big US party can be reformed to serve people instead of capital. Whichever organizing done by people, through the the voting system or otherwise, will fall flat if allowed to be co-opted by them, the two party system ensures it.
Well, yes and no. The Democrat Party is structured to prevent takeovers like what happened to the GOP (e.g. super-delegates). I think it is moving to the left, but glacially slowly. 20 years ago, somebody like Bernie would have been a joke. Now, he’s a viable contender. Maybe in another 50 or 60 years, they’ll be where European leftist parties are now.
Or, and here’s a wild idea, you can vote in the coming election. The entire House and a third of the Senate changes hands every two years. The GOPs vote in every single election. That’s the absolute least we should be doing. Pushing for more Squad members starts in your town.
Super-delegates had the their role in the nomination massively reduced, with no role whatsoever in the first round of voting. Bernie is not a viable contender at the moment because he represents only the left flank of the party. He’s also toxic in the general election. Praising Castro and honeymooning in the USSR just aren’t great things to have on a president’s resume.
I sincerely doubt they’ll change past what their owners allow them to. Maybe that’s a step towards actual change but it’s certainly not enough by itself.
Politicians do what it takes to get elected. Period.
What part of that confuses you?
Nelson Rockefeller was one of the richest men in America. He thought he was a shoo-in to be the GOP candidate in 1968. Nixon had no big backers and was seen as a loser by the media.
Except Nixon had spent all his time after his California Sneate race loss working 24/7 for every GOP candidate he could find. He made speeches, raised money, helped organize, and when he went into the 1968 convention, he ran rings around what the establishment wanted.
Money is huge in politics, but organization can beat it.
That’s a defeatist additute. You can be a realist withotu being a defeatist. There’s always hope. I probably have as little faith in electoral politics as you do, but forming real relationships with real neighbors we can actually create the world our politicians would never support.
I don’t think so. In Michigan, for example, seven parties have auotmatic ballot access for the general election. Often people will say the would prefer one of the so-called third party candidates, but they just cant’ vote for them this year because the greater of two evils is so incredibly evil but next year will be different.
This attitude is why Americans have two shitty right-wing parties
No, it isn’t.
It’s the fact that the two shitty right-wing parties are essentially all powerful that we have two shitty right-wing parties.
The system is designed to have two parties. With fptp voting you encourage a system of two parties that agree on most things because you’re not allowed to have a party with nuance as that will be a wasted vote and simply allow your most disliked candidate to win by splitting the vote.
Your vote is wasted regardless if you’re a wage worker.
while this is true, most western nations have some level of FPP, and while they usually have two major parties, Like Conservative-Progressives and Labour in Canada, they still have more than two parties represented in the legislative body. I’m unaware of the last time someone was elected to congress who ran as a party other than R/D (no independents don’t count).
I think cause and effect are mixed here. Americans having to pick between two shitty right wing parties is the reason why one would feel like every election is the most important election. The fact that they’re so much alike is the biggest reason why they create as much dissent as possible.
Back in the 1970s, The Moral Majority took over the GOP by voting. They would show up at every local GOP club at every event. If 20 people had shown up the last time they picked the new dog catcher, the MMs would show up with fifty people. They didn’t have a lot of money or connections yet, but they had people showing up all the time. Need someone to pass out petitions? MMs were there. Drive folks to the polls? Meanwhile, the Dems had counted on the Unions to do those jobs. That’s why the GOP hated the Unions and did everything to dismantle them.
No one is going to hand you power.
and yet nearly half of American union workers vote Republican. Usually because they are more concerned about “conservatives” two bread-butter issues, abortion or gun rights.
I agree with everything you just said but I don’t think either big US party can be reformed to serve people instead of capital. Whichever organizing done by people, through the the voting system or otherwise, will fall flat if allowed to be co-opted by them, the two party system ensures it.
https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/images/graphics/news/1956republican.jpg
That’s the 1956 GOP Party Platform.
Politicians do what it takes to get elected. Period.
If people show up and do the job, things will change.
The own website you got the image from says that is mixed factuality https://web.archive.org/web/20230624204530/https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1956-republican-platform/
I’m shocked - SHOCKED - that a quick meme isn’t an exact representation of a much longer document.
The article
Well, yes and no. The Democrat Party is structured to prevent takeovers like what happened to the GOP (e.g. super-delegates). I think it is moving to the left, but glacially slowly. 20 years ago, somebody like Bernie would have been a joke. Now, he’s a viable contender. Maybe in another 50 or 60 years, they’ll be where European leftist parties are now.
Or, and here’s a wild idea, you can vote in the coming election. The entire House and a third of the Senate changes hands every two years. The GOPs vote in every single election. That’s the absolute least we should be doing. Pushing for more Squad members starts in your town.
https://youtu.be/t0e9guhV35o
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/t0e9guhV35o
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Super-delegates had the their role in the nomination massively reduced, with no role whatsoever in the first round of voting. Bernie is not a viable contender at the moment because he represents only the left flank of the party. He’s also toxic in the general election. Praising Castro and honeymooning in the USSR just aren’t great things to have on a president’s resume.
I sincerely doubt they’ll change past what their owners allow them to. Maybe that’s a step towards actual change but it’s certainly not enough by itself.
What part of that confuses you?
Nelson Rockefeller was one of the richest men in America. He thought he was a shoo-in to be the GOP candidate in 1968. Nixon had no big backers and was seen as a loser by the media.
Except Nixon had spent all his time after his California Sneate race loss working 24/7 for every GOP candidate he could find. He made speeches, raised money, helped organize, and when he went into the 1968 convention, he ran rings around what the establishment wanted.
Money is huge in politics, but organization can beat it.
So you’re telling me with enough organization within the system we can swap a piece of shit for a piece of shit? Sign me tf up
So, if voting doesn’t matter, why is the GOP working so hard to deny people the right to vote?
https://youtu.be/t0e9guhV35o
That’s a defeatist additute. You can be a realist withotu being a defeatist. There’s always hope. I probably have as little faith in electoral politics as you do, but forming real relationships with real neighbors we can actually create the world our politicians would never support.
I don’t think so. In Michigan, for example, seven parties have auotmatic ballot access for the general election. Often people will say the would prefer one of the so-called third party candidates, but they just cant’ vote for them this year because the greater of two evils is so incredibly evil but next year will be different.