YSK: No Labels is a political party trying to run a spoiler candidate for President in 2024 that should not be taken seriously.
YSK: No Labels is a political party trying to run a spoiler candidate for President in 2024 that should not be taken seriously.
WYSK: There funded by dark money PACS, but some good reporting has brought out these names: David Koch, Peter Thiel, Reid Hoffman, Mark Cuban, Harlan Crow, and Michael Bloomberg. Some of there members are most famous for stopping big bills. Joe Leiberman, for example, single handedly stopped the single payer portion of the ACA. Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsen Simena kept the John Lewis voting rights act from passing, and famously kept the senate from repealing the filibuster.
-
Edit: please note that I made at least one mistake here (as well as some kind of boneheaded comments later). FPTP, even in the US, does not require a 50% majority, just more votes than anyone else (a "plurality"). It can still benefit parties to get to 50%, since it makes their winning more likely, and so in the absence of any drawbacks, most successful parties will still aim for it, but it isn't strictly necessary, as has been sometimes demonstrated in the UK. Thanks to squaresinger for linking a YouTube video that mentions this below. /Edit
I just want to share my thoughts on this. It started as a response to one comment, but I realized that there's a lot more that can (and I think should) be said, so here goes.
First, for those who don't know, FPTP stands for First Past The Post, meaning a system where everyone votes for a single candidate and whoever gets more than 50% (i.e. "past the post") wins the entire election (the losers get nothing). For many Americans, this might be so familiar that one would wonder how it could be any different (in a small-d democratic system), but there are in fact many alternatives: ranked voting, proportional representation, Condorcet method, etc.
They all have strengths and weaknesses, but for FPTP, and other similar systems, there's a result in political science called Duverger's law that says FPTP-like rules tend to cause a two-party system, essentially because because even if you don't team up with a larger party you may disagree with on many issues, to get a majority, others will, and then they'll win and you'll get nothing. And since getting significantly more than 50% consumes party resources that might better be used elsewhere, but gives no reward, 50% (plus a small "safety margin") is what all the successful parties will eventually aim for, and thus you get two roughly equally-successful parties. Tiny swings in voting then lead to massive differences in outcomes, which threatens the stability and security of everyone (even America's "enemies").
So saying "just vote for third parties" (like I see some calling for here) is tone-deaf at best, or part of a cynical ploy to fracture the opponent's party at worst. Even if a "third party" does win, the best that can be hoped for under FPTP is they just end up replacing one of the two parties, becoming one of the two parties in the "new" two-party system. And the two existing parties have likely spent far more time and effort researching ways to stop even that from happening than any of us ever will.
If we, as Americans, or others with a stake in what America decides to do, want to change this (and I personally do), then we need far more fundamental changes to how the system works. Just choosing a candidate we like (whether they have any chance of winning or not) won't cut it. I don't know what's the best voting system to use, but I know I'd like to scrap the Electoral College, for a couple reasons:
-
Even though one might argue that Congress and the Supreme Court are more essential to reform, it's hard to deny that the President has a very large leadership role today.
-
One might argue that relying on a convoluted/Byzantine method for choosing the President makes it harder to manipulate, and that's probably true, but the two parties have shown that it being difficult is not a deterrent to them doing so: in fact, they likely both benefit from it by keeping smaller parties that can't afford to do it out.
It reminds me of the fallacy in computer security of "security through obscurity": if it's possible to break into the system, and large numbers of people can benefit substantially from it, then someone eventually will, no matter how hard we make it to exploit. We need to change the system, not only so that it is prohibitively difficult for anyone to exploit the system, but also to get rid of a lot of the corruption that makes most people want to exploit it in the first place.
All of this is much easier said than done, I know, but we need to explain clearly to the public why "quick fixes" won't work, before we can convince them of the need for more fundamental changes. We still need to work on figuring out the details of the best changes, but unless we can show people the reality of the deep structural problems that acually exist, why they exist, and how we know we're right about what we're saying, we'll never convince most people to change anything.
-
You are totally right. The problem isn't zqthat such a change from within the system can only happen from a position of immense power. So to actually fix these bugs you need to
- Have enough power to change the constitution
- Have gotten that power through the current system
- Be so dedicated to change the system that you are willing to risk all that power for the change, because any meaningful change means that the systems that brought you to power won't work in that way anymore.
Now, to make matters more difficult, representative democraties usually spread that power over hundreds or thousands of people. So not only you need to fit the bill above, but also the top few hundred politicians in your country need to agree to potentially losing their power.
So what tends to happen is the opposite: Politicians amass power and make it harder and harder to replace them, until a war/civil war/revolution happens and the next crowd tries to make it better.
The US has had centuries to concentrate power, contrary to many European nations that were re-founded after wars in the last century.
So unless the US as we know it collapses, there won't be significant change to the better for the political system.
-
One of the biggest problems with making this change is that in areas where one party is dominant, voters of that party are afraid of changing the system because they fear it'll mean that they won't dominate anymore.
-
-
If someone refuses to admit their political affiliation in the US you can basically guarantee they're right wing.
-
so democrats are like vegans?
-
No, leftists are like vegans. Call a vegan a vegetarian, "I'm not a vegetarian, I'm a vegan!"
Call a leftist a democrat, "I'm not a democrat, I'm a leftist!"
(btw, I'm a leftist. Not a vegan though)
-
-
Ya know, it's not always democrats versus republicans....
Until everyone stops voting for this bullshit two-party system, it's just going to keep being dems and repubs pointing fingers at each other.
(This- is in no way me providing any endorsement, or affection for whatever candidate is in question. I know nothing about the person).
-
This isn't going to happen until the majority of the country implements ranked choice voting, so that third party voting isn't just throwing your vote away. As long as we are in the current system, third party voting is pointless.
Focus your efforts on getting ranked choice adopted. It is the key that will actually unlock the ability to vote for third parties.
-
its literally always democrats versus republicans. thats how a FPTP winner take all voting system works
-
In the current fptp system it has to be. Until ranked choice for president and proportional representation for the house then usually the left will shatter. The republic strongest point is they all vote under one big group even if they disagree internally. All splitting the vote will do is empower that "team"
-
Good luck electing anyone not in the two party system. I think there's 1 or 2 independent senators and no independent representatives. You need to change the rules of the game, cause like it or not were all playing the game. And not voting or voting 3rd party when they're polling at 1% is just giving an extra vote to someone who disagrees with you.
-
-
No Labels as a name isn't even going to appeal to left-leaning folks, it sounds nonsensical and oversimplified. Things need labels, a Nazi is a Nazi. Useful label, even if the Jewish-hating, strong ethno-state sorts don't like it.
It'll appeal to moderates, but that'll pull from both sides.
Unless they run an environmentalist or something? Like a Green Party type spoiler? Would have to be an idiot not to run under their own banner though, raising awareness is their whole thing.
-
Yeah, I gives me similar vibes as "I don't see color."
But even if we remove bigotry and politics and all of that... labels aren't necesarily bad. Like I am a creature who identifies as one of two main types of sexes that is sexually and emotionally attracted to creatures who identify as the same.
Which is a weird way of saying I'm a man who is sexually and romantically attracted to men, but those are labels, so I couldn't say man, human, etc.
Of course I could also just say I'm gay. While yes, everyone is a little different, it has worked so far for me. People tend to get it.
Labels are not bad. It's an idea only used by edgy teenagers and liberals who want to be good for the praise more so than for simply being good.
-
Yeah, I certainly didn't think "progressive" when I read the name. It sounds like they're afraid to say what they are, which is a common far-right strategy.
I've been saying it since 2000 and I'll keep on saying it: the time to push for third parties is every year except election year. We need election reform first. The current system simply does not allow for a meaningful election between more than two parties. It cannot represent the will of the people. It needs to change.
-
It's very both-sidesy. I think we're all smart enough at this point to be able to see through that equivocating bullshit.
-
Centrists in 2023 are just MAGAts who don't want the shame
-
-
-
Also their candidate RFK, is a lying moron who's been called out many times over the years by his supposed "sources".
-
RFK is completely unfit for office, but I don't think he's involved.
-
I don't know my friend who almost died from COVID and blamed me for viral shedding from the vax seems to like him. Then again he voted maga so not quite the group they are trying to spoil.
-
-
RFK is a registered as and running as a democrat, and afaik has no affiliation with "no labels".
-
-
Biden is doing a good job given the circumstances. If you don't want the total destruction of the United States, there is really only one choice for president... Joe Biden. All other roads lead to the Dark Lord Trumples, the Silly Piggy.
-
Biden. Voting Reform.
-
The dems are never going to pass voting reform for the same reason the UK labour party (a considerably further left party than the dems) has never passed it despite pretending they would consider it for multiple decades now. They benefit from FPTP. All they would be doing is diluting their power and handing over a huge portion of the political landscape to socialists who would immediately become relevant, they would then be forced to actually come to agreements with those socialists as opposed to just completely and totally ignoring them as they do currently.
-
-
Joe Biden should be in an old folks home. He can barely stand up let alone lead a nation. No fan of the other guy either, but let's face it. Both of them are only puppets on a string.
-
Biden has accomplished alot of big things actually, they just aren't culture war issues so Republicans have never heard of any of them.
-
nonetheless, Biden still sounds far, far more coherent than Trump ever did when President
-
"a historic bipartisan infrastructure bill, generational investments in clean energy and semiconductor manufacturing, the first gun safety law in almost 30 years, a bill codifying same-sex marriage, a bill aiding veterans who suffered health effects from burn pits and an electoral reform to prevent a repeat of Trump’s attempt to use Congress to undermine the election."
I think he's doing a fine job.
-
go back to the fox news grandpa
-
-
tbh I think if Biden gets reelected, america will inevitably collapse as a nation. we're already close to the tipping point and biden has done nothing but accelerate that collapse.
-
-
I feel like Trump will be running as a spoiler candidate in 2024 at this rate.
-
Forgot to mention, they have no Platform.
-
Their website suggests they'll be releasing policy positions later this summer. Seems that they'll announce a candidate in april if they're running.
-
-
I mean, if you're a wage earner in this country, all the candidates are spoilers.
-
Thats not what spoiler means
-
Agreed. Working Class people must vote for a Working Class party. A party that tells everyone from the Professional/Managerial Class to Small Business Owners to the super-rich: fuck off, we don't want your votes and we don't want your money.
-
-
I remember reading an article that did a deep dive into them once, and I was absolutely astounded by just how much they embodied the "enlightened centrist". I didn't think there were an appreciable number of people who were actually like that.
They continue the trend really of there being no good third party in the US - largely because FPTP makes two large parties preferable.
-
When you really look at their ideology, "enlightened centrists" are right-wingers who think they're smarter than the usual bigots that group has. This can be seen by the fact that they pretty much always will complain about hate speech being called out, but will not call out the hate speech itself.
-
Yeah pretty much. It's always such a big tell.
-
No labels is just a bunch of rich white dudes that want tax laws and legislation that makes them richer. They could not care less about social policy.
-
Lol
-
-
-
I just want to live my life without being harassed tbh. I vote D, but they are largely all corporate shills at the presidential level. I don't know what else to say. The money involved in politics sort of makes the whole thing a farce imo.
-
If I was the the maga or republicans right now I would fund as many leftist third parties as possible as the best way to secure a trump victory
-
See also: Forward party, both parties have lots of catchy slogans about working together or moving forward. Yet no platform.
-
And they will.
The problem is they don't have to lie about how bad Democrats have been for the people. (Not that Republicans would be any better, mind you.)
Most Americans have seen their cost of living jump 30%-50% under Joe Biden, and Biden's response is to send $100 billion overseas to fight another country's war, not to give a dime of aid to people here who actually need it.
-
-
When I see a name like No Labels, it tells me they don't want to be upfront about what their real platform is. So they should more straightforwardly be called Hidden Agenda.
-
Aw man, I kinda liked Mark Cuban.
-
He probably donates to ALL parties. That being said, business does not like rule changes (laws) being made. This entire party is made of people who stopped legislation in favor of big money people. Under 'Domestic Policies' on the wiki there is this "Efforts to block tax increases on the wealthiest Americans and corporations, especially in 2021 and 2022, have been attributed to No Labels by The Intercept[11] and Jacobin.[12]"
-
So the rightist want to appeal to the voters to appear like they are not partisan and instead are just bunch of centrist?
-
Other than the Wikipedia article in this thread, do you have other source material?
I would like to know more. -
I'm surprised about Mark Cuban. It's not obvious but I assume you mean to include frm. Senator Joe Lieberman, and senators Manchin and Senima in the "no labels" party? I don't dispute just want to be explicit.
-
The New Yorker article said Cuban was approached to be a donor, but it doesn't say whether he is actually a supporter. Apparently, the group is very close-lipped about where their money is coming from (what a surprise).
I don't want to turn the thread into too much of a political discussion, but when one political party believes in democracy and one party is an existential threat to democracy, there's no room for spoiler candidates.
-
Thank you for the insight about the article. Thought better of Cuban (crypto bro and all, seems like a good guy at heart). Not a fan of Manchin, Senima or the idea of a spoiler candidate. Just wanted to validate the statement as it wasn't clear if the second half of OPs comment were actual people in the group or just a list senators of ill reprieve. Hopefully they just steal moderate republican votes.
-
-
-
The Dems and GOP have similar business models: trade policy and legislation for campaign donations, and deliver tribalism to voters.
That's not to say the two parties are the same - they differ significantly. One party is funded by the truly psychopathic billionaires, and the other party is funded by the usual greedy bastard billionaires. Chalk and cheese, as the British say.
-
Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Labels
-
Ew, Crispy Enema's in on this? That's all the information I need to shun this scheme. We HAAAAATE Crispy Enema here in Arizona. Plus she's a terrible dresser. She came into Congress one day to vote down an important bill while wearing this overblown yellow dress with huge shoulder pads. I was like, "You're a senator, not Jor-El from the planet Krypton."
-
Other than the Wikipedia article in this thread, do you have other source material?
I would like to know more. -
ultimately I will be voting for the best candidate, regardless of party. My litmus is ubi. no ubi, no vote. if the "spoiler candidate" is the only one supporting and pushing ubi, then I will vote for them. If you don't like that, then endorse ubi and I might vote for you instead.
-
Issue is that once they realize UBI is what needed to the votes, they will promise it and not delivery like with everything else since FDR.
Political process is a waste of time. Vote with your money and feet. It has more impact.
We need ability to give no confidence vote, I guess voting third party would work like that
-
Yup. I actually went ahead and look at "no labels"'s website and.... I like the spirit, but their language use and lack of policy is concerning. It seems their focus is more about unity between democrats and republicans by "compromising with moderate policy" and opposing "far left and far right" however what I found is almost the exact opposite of that. People are tired of democrats and republicans being essentially a uniparty and not doing literally anything to accommodate the demands of those who are considered "fringe" yet are the majority.
Instead of a "sensible middle milquetoast candidate" what we need is someone who will openly accept and endorse the key points from the left and the right. The left want economic justice, sane urban planning, fixing out of control capitalism. The right want a return to sanity in social policy, culture, and proper national identity. These are not incompatible views! I keep seeing "far left" and "far right" people actually end up agreeing on both the problems in society, as well as the fixes. It's the hysteric "centrists" of democrats and republicans who seemingly work to push the corporate interests, but nothing the actual public wants/needs.
Left and right are both unified on ukraine: we don't want war. left and right are both unified on supporting mom&pops and removing support for large corporations. we want fair marketplaces with local businesses. Left and right are both unified on policing: we're tired of corrupt police who do literally nothing to keep society proper and instead just harass people. Both left and right are unified on elections, we see that the 2 party system is broken and that 3rd parties and alternative structures are needed.
The democrats and republicans are opposed to literally all of these.
While it's true things are polarized, most of the "never working with you" types end up being the centrist establishment of dnc/gop, while the far fringes have started mobilizing into a populist unity.
My hope is that these 'no labels' guys can see this, and run a candidate that marries the two in a populist bid. But what it sounds like is that they plan to run a candidate who's essentially the middle of trump and biden; the worst of both.
I guess we'll have to see when they release their policy positions?
-
-
-
Other than the Wikipedia article in this thread, do you have other source material?
I would like to know more.