- cross-posted to:
- Mirror@50501.chat
- cross-posted to:
- Mirror@50501.chat
You must log in or register to comment.
Here in the Netherlands our house of representatives has 150 seats and they’re filled by 15 parties, the biggest of whom has 37 seats, the second 25. People sometimes suggest that political fragmentation makes things more complicated, because usually at least 3 or 4 parties are needed to form a coalition. I don’t really think it matters because I look at it this way: there are different views on things in society and compromises need to be found one way or another, it’s where this takes place that’s different. In one case it’s on the conference of 1 or 2 big parties, in the other case it happens in parlement/government where the many small parties meet. The benefit of a many-party system is that people actually got a choice, if you’re on the left and don’t like what a particular party is doing, you can pick another leftwing party. You don’t have that option in a 2-party system, you’ll probably stick with your party despite everything you don’t like about it. Here, if a party really fucks up, they’re done for, a party can get 20% one election and 1% the next one. The system is more dynamic. At the same time, the actual governments usually have an overlap, like there will be different coalitions, but our center-right party has been in the coalition for over a decade now. There may be a certain charm to knowing that every other election a completely new set of people forms the government, but that also has many downsides I think. There’ll be little continuity, republicans undo everything democrats have done and in 4 years we’ll see the reverse. Haven’t heard any really convincing arguments against political fragmentations. It’s just the path towards it that may be difficult if you’re in a 2 party system, because as soon as you go third party, you’re hurting your side of the spectrum. What would be helpfull is if it would happen on both sides simultaneously. Can’t you setup a structure where people from both sides would together commit to voting third-party?
Can’t you setup a structure where people from both sides would together commit to voting third-party?
Can’t really do that with a First-Past-The-Post system because someone needs to get past the post. If there are four major parties (left and right both have significant numbers voting 3rd party), there would ultimately have to be a coalition or two that just ends up being the Republicans and Democrats all over again.
The system itself has to be changed first, and the two parties who benefit from there only being two parties aren’t going to change it to allow for that.
Someone also needs to start a fourth party at the same time which is socially left but fiscally right. A lot of conservatives don’t give a shit about the social aspect of the Democrats but just like the financial side of Republicans more so they vote that way instead.
A 4 party system is better than 3 party, and this way instead of a third party syphoning votes from only Democrats you’ll have another party syphoning votes from Republicans at the same time so there’s no downside.
That’s triangulation and it’s been the basis of the DNC since Clinton’s presidency
Fuck yeah, there it is. Let’s go. New party. This one’s dead. November was the DNC’s last chance. Time for a new party. DNC leadership and political consultants aren’t allowed anywhere near this one.
I love it but it’s real risky
Can it get any worse?
The decision needs to be made right now, because there are always going to be those that encourage voting 3rd party like 3 months before the election even though none of the groundwork has been done for the previous 4 years.
If the work is started now it’s a lot better then 3 months before the election where it really just syphons votes away from at least preventing Republicans from winning.
It can always get worse. I agree with you.
I don’t see the Democratic leadership making the right moves, they’re not going to align themselves with the general public. They keep trying to woo moderate Republicans instead of the huge amount of voters who they could easily get.
I don’t consider Libertarians or Greens a real third party, they only come out every four years and only care about fund raising by taking advantage of voter frustration with the Dems and GOP.
I think it’s worth a shot, but there’s only a year left to go for it. If it can’t get the ground swell in a year to get a bunch of candidates ready to get local gov positions, it’s unlikely to work by the midterms. And I think the midterms are the best shot to gain ground.
But what do I know? If I was smarter and more knowledgeable, I’d be able to help start it. But I’d certainly help the movement.
Fuck it. Look where we’re at now, the only safe bet is that the Democrats will not change and this cycle will continue indefinitely until something else takes over.
How would it be worse than the current situation?
Fwiw, that was my logic up until the election. I fully admit I was wrong. The DNC is simply not capable of mounting a winning campaign in this context. It has atrophied into an unrecoverable state. Refactoring is not going to be useful. A new project is the best way forward.
How would elections even work if there were three parties? Doesn’t there need to be a majority for the president to be declared? Or is that because of the current two party system? Does it just need to be the party with the most electoral votes, not over 50%?
If there were three parties and it ended up being 33/33/34, would the party with 34% of the electoral votes be the one to win the presidency?
The candidate that gets 270 electoral votes wins. In most states, the candidate who gets the most votes and not a majority wins all the electoral votes for that state.
Short version: If we’re talking national level (that is, electoral votes), then Congress elects the president (House for President, Senate for VP).
If we’re talking state level however, for most states the 34% will win and take all of the state’s electoral votes.
This is the cornerstone of the two-party system, which emerges naturally as a consequence of plurality voting systems. If you have two left-wing parties, one of which gets 10% and the other 42%, they both loose to the 48% of the single right-wing party. Hence, it’s strategic for the left wing to unite, which would theoretically earn them 52% of votes (practically, voter disillusionment makes it more complicated).
This is called the Spoiler Effect: A left-wing party would end up splitting votes off the Democrats, leading to a plurality victory for the Republicans. And in winner-takes-all systems, that plurality is enough to get the respective state’s electoral votes.
There are as many ways to do it as there are countries. In France for example it’s a two round system, so in the first round you vote for whoever you want, then the two top candidates make it to round two and everyone votes again between these two.
You can read the current top comment to see how it works in the Netherlands (one of my favourites). Otherwise you can also look at the Australian system which has ranked voting which is also pretty cool.
I think this is the same shift for Republicans post-Obama. Every Republican started saying, “I’m an independent.” and the Tea Party started. Back then, Trump’s claim to fame was the birther movement, which eventually became MAGA & the presidential run.
Nowadays, I have very little respect or identification with Democrats. It feels like a failed party. I think they’ll either transform more left (see Bernie & AOC’s shifts & populism) or die out to something else. I like the Working Families Party because it focuses on the economic disparities rather than identity politics.
I’m glad we found more freedom for more people, but I think the Left has lost cohesion in doing so. We don’t need to all be the same, but the message used to be “Working class vs. Rich” and the Right manipulated that into its current populism. Now there’s the “Liberal Elites” that are out of touch, and recent events make it feel that way, not just propaganda any longer.
Nowadays, I have very little respect or identification with Democrats. It feels like a failed party
Yeah, but lots of us reached that point decades earlier…
08 Obama was the lone bright point going back forty years of the party.
Hell, at Carter’s time he faced a fractured party because he was moving to far right. So really it’s more like 50 years.
Dems have lost the plot for longer than most of us have been alive, and I’m all about reducing the strength of the party as an organization.
But we still need a DNC and state parties if only to facilitate primaries, that’s a very important function.
What would it take to get a primary system up and running for Independents (or more accurately I guess it would have to be a proper party for a primary to make sense)?
I assume it’s some combo of setting up the event hosting ($$$) and somehow coming up with the rules for deciding on how to operate the primary (schedule, thresholds for qualification, voting system, etc). And unfortunately I have no idea how to accomplish either.
It’s not just having the money and national organizing capacity to run a primary in every state. Each state-level organization has to get, at a minimum, enough non-contestable signatures for the Secretary of State to even put the party on the ballots. And then they need to win enough of a percentage of the popular vote in that one next election to retain ballot access without having to get all those signatures again next time. The Green Party doesn’t even actively operate in 10 states. That’s why people like me insist that the only way to effectively shift left is to flood the Democratic Primaries with progressive candidates and voters, -or- (if your state allows it) get a direct voter ballot initiative to adopt some kind of ranked choice voting.
What would it take to get a primary system up and running for Independents (or more accurately I guess it would have to be a proper party for a primary to make sense)?
A lot, because you’d need a national and one for each state…
But the time to talk about this was anytime in the last fifty years up till a month ago when we got a DNC chair who will let a fair primary happen…
You’re trying to fix a problem we literally just fixed, and in doing so likely hand control back to neoliberals.
You want to know why it took mainstream media up until the last month to start talking shit about Dems?
It’s because the neoliberals just lost power
Now is the time to rally around the new Dem party, not make a new one
I’m not super informed here. Why do you think the new DNC chair will change how the Dem primaries will be operated?
I tried googling around myself, but couldn’t really find anything meaningful. But that’s probably more a reflection of how tired my brain is than anything (work’s been hell).
If you have anything readily available you could share, I’d love to feel some positivity about the Democrat party.
But we still need a DNC and state parties if only to facilitate primaries, that’s a very important function. a month ago when we got a DNC chair who will let a fair primary happen… Now is the time to rally around the new Dem party, not make a new one
Totally agree here with emphasis on the new part. Surge the turnout in the primaries. Without ballot access in every state it’s just not realistic to expect a 3rd party can rise up and replace the Democratic party in 2026 or 2028. Except in states with direct ballot initiatives to switch to ranked choice voting, but even that is only a solution for at best the election after getting that voted into existence.
I’m just a bit worried about any potential schism among the Democrats because the electoral system in the US is still incredibly broken and will always gravitate towards a 2-party state.
To me, it seems easier for the Democrats to rebrand as more left-leaning than they currently are and try to remain a united front, rather than splinter into several competing parties.
If anything is to supplant the Democratic party, it would need to be one party supplanting the whole of the Democrats, or else Republicans will remain a plurality and retain control of the US government until the electoral process changes or their numbers diminish.
Well, I suppose one way to look at it is that we needed the unified front against Trump, but didn’t get it. So for now, and especially for the midterms, maybe now’s the time to get an alternative party started?
And then they can choose to run a presidential candidate in 2028 or not, depending on the momentum they get?
I dunno. Mostly thinking out loud here.
After how 40 years of operation, the Green Party still isn’t on the ballot in 10 states. Less than 1% of the legislative offices around the country (state and federal) are held by 3rd party or independents. You need to either make ranked choice voting the state-wide method in your state first, or put that energy into taking over your state’s Democratic party via the primaries and the internal leadership elections.
The green party doesn’t realistically try though
Ballotpedia makes it even more bleak than I thought: “Three minor parties were recognized in more than 10 states as of January 2025”
https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States
I thought the Libertarians were on the ballot in all 50 states. Just crazy when you consider Perot had just shy of 20% of the popular vote in 1992 (and still received zero electoral votes).
3rd party for anything beyond county level just isn’t happening without ranked choice.
We just need to get big enough with defectors that the parties come to us willing to deal because they know they cant win without us.
So long as they don’t sit on their hands doing nothing and then decide to run one candidate in 2028. You don’t lead by taking the top seat, you lead by building a base that wants you to lead.
I like the Working Families Party because it focuses on the economic disparities rather than identity politics.
The WFP is awesome, but this is definitely not their politics. And they’re awesome precisely because they don’t act that way.
It’s not focused on the economics?
Not “rather than identity politics”. What about that makes you think they’re not about social justice? They’re dedicated progressives, not class reductionists.
A multi-racial party doesn’t mean you downplay racism, it means the party has solidarity across races. That’s what solidarity is.
Oh we’re just talking past each other. I agree it’s more-so “do both” but it felt like Dems really dropped the economic piece.
The independent party is back!
We really should be calling the “centrist” ones “Republicrats.”
Neoliberals are Fascist enablers.
Sanders and AOC can come.
Unpaywalled link: https://archive.ph/s09Er
Hell, run as Republicans and infiltrate.
You can get a good number of republicans to agree with leftist ideas as long as they aren’t presented that way.
You can say something like:
“Why should we let those liberal elites control all the businesses when real hard working Americans are doing all of the work? the people doing all of the work should all have part ownership over their workplace”
And they will agree with you
Yeah, this is common on all issues. Political hacks are adept at turning things into partisan issues with branding when we all agree on them. Ask a conservative if they like Socialism and they’ll say hell no, but ask them if they support labor unions, minimum wages, social security, UBI, etc., you’ll find lots of support.
It’s the same with guns; gun control is a scary plot by the left to take away your guns, but sure, they support reasonable measures universal background checks, permits, and restrictions in certain large-capacity weapons. Just so long as it’s not gun control!
worked the opposite way for fetterman
I think he may have actually been progressive before the strokes.
Their music isn’t that bad
They did make Jukebox…
Maybe! But here’s a 45m video that looks at who he was before, and it ain’t all roses. https://youtu.be/28M_zkoAGQM
Make Red Left Again.
I dunno. Couldn’t hurt.
Porque los dos?
Run a progressive independent in both primaries, take a note out of the wealthy’s book
“Have you tried rebranding?”
Brilliant.
At this point the Democratic brand is so tarnished that it might be best to abandon it. More people now approve of Tesla than Democrats.
Republicans started their takeover by running a ton of local candidates. And in a lot of places having a D next to your name is an automatic defeat.
If republican voters agree with progressive goals - as many claim - then the best way to actually get things done is to run as a progressive independent in these local races.
Our two parties are engrained at this point, for better or worse, and will not change until we change our First Past the Post voting system. Everyone that’s disenfranchised with the Democratic party in this thread right now represents the owl voters in this video - watch it please, it’s very clear at explaining why what you are suggesting will absolutely NOT WORK and will allow the GOP to win in perpetuity.
I’ve seen that video. Everyone’s seen that video.
And if my only option is to keep voting for the party that has failed so completely a fascist is in office then we are well and truly fucked.
Well, if you truly understood that video, then you would know that by voting independent you’re fracturing the vote away from the one-of-two major parties, which means victory for the bad guys. It explains this.
Look, I 100% agree with you that what we have is absolute shit. You’re preaching to the choir. But the bad guys aren’t going to fracture their vote. They’re just not.
The system is the issue, and what we have to work with is by design. If you vote for anything but one of the two parties in power, you’re just giving the worst of the two the actual win.
The ONLY way to fix this is to fix the system. Period. End of discussion. That’s the cold hard truth.
Why do you think so many Russian trolls tried to push Bernie so hard back in 2016? Because they actually understand that video - you can’t do SHIT as an independent running in the system unless EVERYONE does it.
You’re incredibly passionate about our plight - so am I. Even if we don’t agree on everything, we’re in a small subset of people that are INVOLVED and INFORMED. The general populace is fairly dumb as shit. Their knowledge goes about an inch deep. Unless you can guarantee that EVERYONE is going to switch from Dem to independent, your suggestion is literally doomed to fail.
Nope, still disagree. Don’t have time or inclination to explain why, though.
Goodbye.
Everyone is terrified of the word socialism, God damn
corporations and the wealthy love it. been enjoyers since time popped into existence.
How would any other party get any time on a national platform to campaign, the way Democrats and Republicans do? I mean, we do have more than those two parties; but they’re never included in big debates or really given any attention at all. I’m surprised I don’t hear idiots saying shit like “Dude, I voted today and there was like 6 motherfuckers on the ballot instead of just two!”
He means in our local level. We can win state and local, also the fucking Congress as independent or different party. But only thing those parties do is run for president.
I’m with him. Time to build a new party and start taking over states. Of course that our last line. Best beat think only true choice we really have is to get out the guillotines. We won’t fix fascism and nazis without spilling blood.
It’s my understanding another party needs 5% of the vote in an election to get federal money and news coverage.
This may be our time.
It’s worked out so well for them so far. The left organizing themselves into anything useful and productive, historically can be compared to cats herding cats.
Do me a favor and search, “FDR New Deal.”
You clearly have very little knowledge of history. Is recommend starting with early 20th century Russia.
You clearly seem to think because something was effective in the past- it automatically defaults to being effective in the present.
I’d recommend you learn why we no longer prescribe cigarettes to help asthma sufferers like we did back in the 50’s.
I’d also recommend you learn the difference between Russia in the early 20th century and America in the present.
Dude should be saying we need our own tea party movement where we take over the Democrat party. Not that we need to fracture ourselves even more.
That said, I think there is an argument for independent runs in purely local politics in areas that only have Republicans run for things and have a hatred for Democrats they can’t seem to move past.
Regardless. Bernie should know how our system works by now, he should know that fracturing has and will always be a stupid idea that only removes power from the leftists and progressives in the country and then gives it to the Republicans. Which then makes the Democrats move right because the progressives have left the building. This is just fucking stupid on a non local politics scale and Bernie should know better.
Bernie should know how our system works by now,
Yes, and he’s saying run as independents despite very much knowing how the system works.
So then he’s saying “Split your votes and make sure no one you support ever gets into power anywhere above the local level because the democrats suck and the system is broken”?
I think he is saying in the nicest way possible, the the democratic party no longer represents us and we should be using our vote so we can have representation that does.
Which is fair to say. I just think he should be talking about primarying the establishment Dems as opposed to just not running as Democrats.
Dude should be saying we need our own tea party movement where we take over the Democrat party. Not that we need to fracture ourselves even more.
He already started it in 2016.
That said, I think there is an argument for independent runs in purely local politics in areas that only have Republicans run for things and have a hatred for Democrats they can’t seem to move past.
Yes. Or even run in the Republican primary (might be easier to get on the primary ballot than to get on the general election ballot).
Started a Tea Party like movement? Or started saying we need one? Because he did not start one at all. If he had we would have Democrat voters coming out in primaries more, and kicking out establishment Dems more if they don’t adhere to the parties core beliefs. He may have wanted to start one back then, but it was a false start because people lost a lot of steam when he wasn’t the candidate. Sure there were a lot of progressives elected in the next midterm, but that should have been a continuing trend, instead of something that plateaus. The Left has lost steam with their movement because they don’t keep their eye on the ball, we get distracted with infighting and splitting our votes with third parties instead of relentlessly pursuing our goal of remaking the party, something the Tea Party movement did extremely well at.
Dunno if running in the Republican primary would be worth anything because Republican primaries are very MAGA and if you aren’t that then you won’t get the nom at all.
Started a Tea Party like movement? Or started saying we need one? Because he did not start one at all.
The Republican Tea party movement started with Ron Paul running in the 2008 Republican primaries, and that having an impact on the kinds of Republicans who won the 2010 primaries and became part of the House flipping that year. Bernie started a progressive movement for the Democratic party by … running in the 2016 Democratic party. And that had an impact of more progressives running in the 2018 primaries (hello Squad) and helping flip the House that year.
If he had we would have Democrat voters coming out in primaries more, and kicking out establishment Dems more if they don’t adhere to the parties core beliefs. He may have wanted to start one back then, but it was a false start because people lost a lot of steam when he wasn’t the candidate. Sure there were a lot of progressives elected in the next midterm, but that should have been a continuing trend, instead of something that plateaus.
Well maybe progressive voters should have kept at it, then. It’s a long road to change an organization that big. I would actually put the moment as being in the 2020 primaries when a bunch of the moderates dropped out to coalesce for Biden before super Tuesday when it looked like FPTP was helping Bernie. But that just again speaks to the fact that not enough progressives were coming out to vote.
The Left has lost steam with their movement because they don’t keep their eye on the ball, we get distracted with infighting and splitting our votes with third parties instead of relentlessly pursuing our goal of remaking the party, something the Tea Party movement did extremely well at.
Ok we’re on the same page mostly. The Tea Parties continued momentum was, in no insignificant part, thanks to the billionaire Koch brothers co-opting it by funding a bazillion primary challenges to win over state legislatures towards their goal of calling a Constitutional Convention to rewrite it in their anarcho-capitalist ideals. They weren’t quite as interested in the US Congress or the presidency.
So, I still maintain that Bernie already started the movement in much the same way that Ron Paul started theirs. Just by running in the primary and inspiring both voters and candidates to go out to the primaries.
Dunno if running in the Republican primary would be worth anything because Republican primaries are very MAGA and if you aren’t that then you won’t get the nom at all.
Sometimes just getting a platform to speak your ideas is enough to get things going. Progressive ballot measures did well in 2024. Conservative voters can change their minds when confronted with first hand experience. Bernie convinced a Fox News studio audience to like Medicare for all. And even losing the primary after that, the exposure could very well help you get the signatures to appear on the general ballot as an independent.
Okay I see what you’re saying now. Yeah I think we are on the same page. It’s really all about persistence and progressives voting consistently. I was thinking more about how the movement he started didn’t continue on its pace, not necessarily that nothing he did mattered.
I also think the 2020 primaries is complicated in just that the moderates that dropped out weren’t polling super well anyway so them dropping out didn’t give Biden as much of a boost as much as just him being Biden. That said, Bernie should have been the candidate but not enough people voted for him in the primary to get that to happen. He also still faced the “He’s not a democrat” accusation which was a problem for him in both primaries he ran in. Again, if more progressives had come out to vote for Bernie, he would have won.
It’s all about voting in the primaries.
also think the 2020 primaries is complicated in just that the moderates that dropped out weren’t polling super well anyway so them dropping out didn’t give Biden as much of a boost as much as just him being Biden.
It’s an interesting event to think about. Because if it did solidify numbers that weren’t they with all the candidates still in, then that means a ranked choice system still should have put Biden as the winner. And if it didn’t really provide Biden extra numbers he needed to win, then it was coordinated messaging against the rising movement, and it worked but also turned away voters they needed to hold onto in the long run.
I mean the thing that signaled Biden had any chance in 2020 was him winning South Carolina pretty big and that showed the establishment moderates that there was someone to back who could win against Bernie. Since Bernie had a plurality not a majority it was a tough race to win outright. Super Tuesday solidified his lead but then Covid happened less than 2 weeks later and made it so Bernie couldn’t have made up for his losses on Super Tuesday. Basically guaranteeing that Biden would win. The people that dropped out before ST were Buttigieg, Klobochar, and O’Rourke had kinda already crashed and burned. But Pete was the more left leaning out of those people so even with him dropping out it would make sense for much of those voters to go to Bernie. So realistically a Bidens bump started with South Carolina and the moderates then realized he was their only chance. Again, Bernie could have, and likely would have over come this without COVID. But he didn’t. If voters in South Carolina had picked Bernie Biden wouldn’t have gotten any bump and Bernie would have continued his way to a plurality of votes. Biden also eventually got a majority of voters to his side while Bernie has never had a majority of voters. Mind you, neither did Obama. But Obama was…Obama. Being a young charasmatic person who can inspire in your speeches helps a whole lot.
Bernie was doing well but couldn’t overcome that Biden was viewed as a strong candidate by moderates overall, that covid happened, and also that he just wasn’t a Democrat. People had the same thought process for Bloomberg because he was a Republican. They wanted a democrat at the head.
This is also why it will be easier for someone who has always been a Democrat to win the presidential primary as a progressive. Bernie also has the trouble with being a guy with great ideas but still being an old dude and going on tangents that aren’t necessary to make his point. He is also not the best at inspiring in his speeches, not that they can’t be inspiring. Just that he’s not as Charismatic as Obama was. Someone like AOC though has the charisma down, has the ideas down, has the ability to talk like a normal person down, is young, and is able to use things like social media and be just as normal as anyone else.
Maga had to do that to capture the rnc…
We just pried the DNC out of the hands of neoliberals…
Which is why mainstream media is suddenly ok with criticizing the DNC.
