politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
You're not arguing against Democrats, you are arguing against basic math. Here is a primer for why going third party is a complete non-starter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
The way forward is to transform the Democratic party from the inside out. It's not impossible, Trump did it to the entire Republican party in the span of less than a decade. Vote in PRIMARY elections.
Good video on the problem with system we're stuck with (the only ones who can change it are the ones who benefit from it). Another interesting related video is this one about the history of parties and once again you see that while sometimes extra party movements pop up, they always get absorbed into one of the two big ones.
It's math. Until we change how we elect, it will always be this way. And just like you mention changing the Democratic party from within, so do we have to change how we vote from the lower to the higher. Some states have started better systems, and the more than do, the more likely it can be worked into the federal level.
Yes, I agree, any kind of ranked choice voting system would help to end the two-party duopoly. If you are lucky enough to have your state consider a ballot measure to introduce such a system, do everything in your power to help it pass.
Unfortunately, it will not be easy; for obvious reasons, there are many powerful political forces opposing such reform. Here is a page showing how well such measures have done in recent elections: https://ballotpedia.org/History_of_ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)_ballot_measures
By the way, if you liked the CGP Grey Animal Kingdom video, it continues as a short series: https://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/
I mean, you don't legitimately think that we can do that in the current system do you?
Like, try and see the contradiction in your thinking.
It's not contradiction, you're talking about something different. I'm talking about First Past The Post elections vs. other systems that allow more than two parties to be competitive.
To be clear, you are repeating the same argument that has been being repeated, for effectively 25 years. This is exactly the same argument being made in the year 2000 when the Democrats rolled over on Bush V Gore.
If you want any one to take this argument seriously at this point, you need to tell me how the last 25 years of evidence showing that this approach to politics doesn't work, will work this time. Because to be clear, your exact strategy is the theory of change thats been in application. And the result was the rise of fascism globally.
Give me a reason to take this argument, thats been repeated and repeated, again and again, seriously, when the data we have shows that pushing for change from within the DNC isn't working.
Your strategy is quite literally the only strategy thats been attempted, and what we got for it was the rise of fascism. So whats different this time? Why should we take you seriously?