What's your radical opinion?
Populism Updates @PopulismUpdates Tell me your most radical position that cannot be placed on the left-right political spectrum
Admiral Snaccbar @Chris Mench Serving shrimp with the tail still on when it's already mixed into something (pasta, rice, etc) is insane.
You're viewing a single thread.
Blindly supporting the Two-Party System, and bullying those who don't, is anti-American. It will only lead to fascism.
EDIT - @chaogomu provided quality information on how to actually work with US voting and how to make a difference. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem and https://equal.vote
No one supports the two party system. We recognize it exists and work within it to change it. But it's designed to not change, so it's hard.
Stomping your feet and voting third party for president is performative at best, disingenuous at worst.
Local elections, vote third party if you want.
Is that bullying? I lost track of the line between facts and harassment.
Voting for and propping up bad politicians is support. You were doing great until you said, "Stomping your feet...". That's devaluation of a position you don't agree with and defamation of the opinion haver all in one. It's generally considered bullying. Just consider if everyone who shared your view voted third party instead of voting for a Republican in Democrats clothing?
Easy to be idealist when you never hold office. 3rd parties never have to show where they would comprise, because they are not running for these higher offices in a meaningful way.
The republican agenda is so profoundly awful, and the US electorate has not yet resoundly rejected it. Meanwhile, we're too busy "trying to send a message" to recognize that the democrats are the only party even marginally open to progressive policies. Depending on where you live, there are a lot of groups pushing for election reform, and many places where that will be on the ballot. Get involved, help make that change happen...but you can do that and also flush the big orange turd.
How did I get dragged into this in a joke thread??
If you're never given a seat at the table, then how can they talk about their compromises? I agree with a good portion of what you said. I wasn't trying to fight people, but it did ask for "Radical Ideas" lol.
Yeah, it'd be great to see more 3rd party candidates in down ballot races. Should your first seat at the table nationally be the presidency?
It wouldn't be the first seat. A quick search shows that there are independent and third-party representatives. I agree though.
It is literally to have a viable third party under First Past the Post. It boils down to Duverger's law. Or more broadly Arrow's Impossibility Theorem
We need to focus on the actual voting system before we can start generating and supporting Third Parties.
Specifically we need a cardinal voting system. It's literally the only way to gain viable third parties that are not just extensions of the major two.
Sadly it's too late to get voting reform on any more ballots this year.
But you can still get involved.
I know there is the Ranked Choice Voting concept which sounds appealing. I'll read on this too. Thank you for the information!
Ranked Choice is an Ordinal voting system that fails Arrow's Theorem.
In some rare cases, it can produce a result even worse than First Past the Post. There are a bunch of flaws in RCV, because it was invented before mathematical evaluation was as robust as it is these days.
Simulation, and some unfortunate real world examples, show that if you vote in and election with at least three somewhat viable candidates, and keep strategy in mind, you can rate your preferred candidate second and improve their chances of winning.
No voting system should be able to do this. RCV has more flaws in addition to this already game breaking one.
OK, Ill keep that in mind. I need to read more. Thank you for the education, I know it isn't your responsibility.
No, that's not how our system works.
In our system you never vote FOR anyone. You are always voting AGAINST the worst candidate. That is literally how it is set up. That is the definition of a two party system.
Voting against a worst candidate is not propping up that system. Because one of those candidates is going to win either way due to the electoral college.
If everyone, literally everyone, that was Democrat decided to vote Green, then they'd still lose. Again, electoral college. Nevermind the fact that getting everyone to do it is literally impossible.
What you described is also not how our system works. The Electoral College does what it pleases. See the elections from 2016, 2000, etc. I do agree that the EC is a major issue in this.
That too. Faithless electors are a train wreck waiting to happen. some states have laws thankfully, but not all, and that's a huge issue.
Everyone should just ignore their actual incentives. Wow. What a wonderful solution to collective action problems; why didn't anyone ever think of that before? Come on. I don't believe you are that stupid.
They gave facts and you dismiss them with a label because of a little ridicule? Your ending suggestion doesn't even do the job... we can grant you the impossible, sure all those people vote third party. Result, still a loss, and their least preferred major party wins. Whoops, all those voters we granted you picked different third parties. Because as little as they barely agreed on preferring one of the major parties, they agree on a ranking of the "third parties" even less. If you ask for us to grant the impossible, at least make it one that would work.
This is currently a multi-tiered 170,000,000 people system we are discussing. History and mathematics are against simplistic appeals for quick changes. Propose childish thinking, and it is little wonder you get ridiculed as acting childish.
Your post is a prime example. i didn't dismiss what they said. I pointed out where I disagreed with their concept of support, pointed out what bullying is, and then asked a consideration. I don't need you to agree with me. I just was asking for consideration of a concept. Your generalized dismissal is enough.
I presented a position on the topic. You ignored it in favor of discussing my comment's tone.
As for the concept, I considered it decades ago. The math was the same then as now, and time has only added those decades of supporting evidence.
Ridicule of the ridiculous is warranted. And characterizing ignoring the reality of political systems as stomping one's foot is the mildest of ridicule. It isn't bullying. If you weren't dismissing the facts in surewhynotlem's comment, then I'm glad you accept them.
Your position was not ignored. You spent your first paragraph insulting me, that isn't tone. I'm reading on the math you mentioned to better educate myself regardless of your "tone".
Do people blindly support it? I live with it and vote accordingly but I also advocate for alternative voting methods. People voting third party do not fully understand that our first past the post system makes it so their candidate has no chance.
Ross Perot came pretty close… 30 years ago lol
Yea my bad. Blindly wasn't the right word to use.
Jesus, it's always "bullying" when people get told the consequences of their choice. You don't need to believe in politics, it will still fuck you over. A lot of people don't have the luxury of not participating because they aren't spoiled white suburbanites able to just hide from the consequences of ignoring how their country functions.
I think you missed the point of my comment. Detailing consequences is not the issue, losing the plot is. I'll work on my delivery for the future. I agree with your overall statement though.
As far as I can tell the incrementalist argument goes like this:
Voting for president is the smallest part of civic participation, not the end-all-be-all
We need work to end the two party system, NOT work that demonizes people for making rational choices under current circumstances.
the truth!