Georgia court rejects counting presidential votes for Cornel West and Claudia De la Cruz
Georgia court rejects counting presidential votes for Cornel West and Claudia De la Cruz
You're viewing part of a thread.
It’s the very duopoly you’re stuck with that makes real change impossible without challenging it.
Indeed. But no 3rd party candidate has received a single EC vote since 1968. Voting 3rd party for president in the general clearly isn't doing a god damn thing to shift the parties.
While ranked-choice voting (RCV) is important, dismissing third-party voting as useless only keeps the system locked in place.
I never said it was useless. But it's true that voting for a less popular left-leaning is going to reduce the number of votes that the most popular right-leaning candidate needs to receive to beat the most popular left-leaning candidate.
Voting for a third party is part of pushing for bigger reforms like RCV—it’s a step towards showing there’s demand for alternatives outside the same old two-party narrative.
I don't think you will get the ear of the Democratic party by skipping the primaries or voting in a 3rd party primary. They don't know how you vote in a general, so you showing up in their primary is the only way they know reliably that you have opinions for their direction. Bernie succeeded in shifting the Democratic party left by running in the Democratic primary. Lets do that at the local levels, especially for primary candidates who support RCV. There's pretty much no chance we can get RCV as a federal law, SCOTUS would absolutely knock it down as unconstitutional, so that fight has to come through the state legislatures.
Bernie succeeded in shifting the Democratic party left by running in the Democratic primary.
And look how bad they screwed him by choosing Hilary. How'd that work out?! lol
I liked Bernie and would have voted for him too.
But I am not listening to the duopoly any longer. I'm voting third party. Proudly.
And look how bad they screwed him by choosing Hilary. How’d that work out?! lol
She won more votes. There was non super-delegate rat fuckery thwarting the popular vote. Put that on the voters. But his campaign was popular enough that the party platform adopted some of his campaign goals:
What did he win? Included in the new platform is his call for a $15 per hour minimum wage, Social Security expansion, a carbon tax to price its impact on the environment, tough language on Wall Street reform and antitrust, opposition to the death penalty, and a “reasoned pathway for future legalization” of marijuana.
Also after his campaign we saw more progressives running and winning around the country. Just because he didn't win the nomination doesn't mean he utterly failed to achieve anything. And that's what I'm talking about with winning state races in the Democratic primaries to fight for RCV and force the party left.
There was non super-delegate rat fuckery thwarting the popular vote. Put that on the voters.
Fair point!
But I don't think after a Harris win we are going to magically have RCV. How many fucking years have they had to change the system? I just don't share your faith they will.
So I'm not voting for them.
But I don't think after a Harris win we are going to magically have RCV
I never claimed electing Harris will get us RCV. I've said pretty consistently that the presidential election is in no way connected to us getting RCV. We will only get RCV from a bottom-up effort to shift individual state legislatures.
And I am saying that Democrats (and Republicans) don't really want that to happen, or they would have made it happen already.
The Tea Party successfully shifted the Republican party farther right by running and winning in their primaries. Why is it inconceivable that progressives can do the same in the Democratic primaries?
It's not inconceivable, but I think it's improbable. So I'm not voting for them. Why haven't they done it yet?
Because there haven't been primary candidates winning their primaries on that issue. They won't do it as a party.