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
Fun fact, under First Past the Post voting, supporting a third party is the absolute worst thing you can do.
It's called the spoiler effect, and it often results in the absolute worst candidate winning an election.
If you support a third party that is loosely aligned with one of the major parties, you can end up in a situation where candidate A gets 40%, and your third party candidate, whose platform is closest to A, gets an astounding 15%, and they both lose to Candidate B, the most hated of both A voters and Third Party voters because B got 45%.
The classic example is the 1992 presidential election, where Clinton won with 43% of the vote.
The 2000 election is another example where Bush won* with 307 votes, far less than the 97488 votes that Ralph Nader got,
*the recount was stopped early so that Bush would win.
The point being, you cannot have a third party until you change the voting system to actually support third parties. And that means a cardinal voting system, such as STAR (my current favorite)
Sorry, but that is simply false. There are 50+ third parties that have run candidates under their name in recent years Wikipedia. Ultimately who succeeds is up to who people vote for and when you categorically state you can't have third parties you are trying to tell others who they should vote for. Support who you want to support. By all means if you want the status quo to never change continue doing what everyone else does. But by supporting alternative voting systems you are already saying you think our system needs to change.
It is pretty naive to think that the existing parties will change the existing FPTP voting system that explicitly benefits them. It's like expecting a company to advocate for more paying more taxes. It's pretty unlikely to happen on a wide scale.
I am aware of how the current system, which is why I advocate for supporting a party and people who are actually advocating for changing the existing system. As my above comment mentioned, they are starting by focusing locally on the state level as that is where the election laws are decide. Just like STAR voting did in Eugene OR.
If people want to vote for a third party they can. It helps no one for you to attack people for expressing their rights in the way they choose. It is not their fault the system is rigged against third parties. By supporting a third party like Forward, they are at least expressing support for changing how the system is rigged instead of tacitly accepting that the system is rigged.
Ultimately, STAR is just another of way of reforming the FPTP system that can work if it is supported locally. That is same goal as the policy positions of Forward which includes a similar way via Ranked Choice Voting. If you support one, you should be supportive of the other since they are very similar ways of achieving the same goal. Quibbling over the details is largely counterproductive. Perfect is the enemy of good in this case. Both are good improvements to the current system.
Okay, you're not understanding the simple fact that third parties are actually harmful under First Past the Post.
You are giving people bad advice.
This is an older video that explains it quite well.
The concept talked about is Duverger's Law
Here's a scholarly article about it.
As to passing voting reform, it does happen. RCV is gaining (and losing) ground, and Approval has been used in a few elections now. STAR is just better. It's newer, so doesn't have as much of a push behind it, but there are plenty of advocates. Want to make a real difference? Advocate for voting reform.
Who do they harm?
Please specify
I understand the concepts but reject the idea that existing leaders will support something that will harm their party.
I am. The average American (wrongly) thinks of politics as a team sport. I am advocating for a team that supports voter reform.
In a FPTP voting system, a vote for a third party will dilute the vote of the party closest-aligned to the preferences of the voter casting it- an effect that implicitly aids the party farthest-away from the voter's preference. This means the winner doesn't need a majority, they just need divided opponents.
In a ranked-choice system, by contrast, the voter can signal their top preference without creating the spoiler-effect described above.
The existence of this spoiler effect in FPTP requires voters to vote based on how they bet other voters will vote, instead of signaling their actual preferences, in order to avoid dividing their support and throwing the election to the opposing side. This prevents the parties from knowing what voters really want, while giving donors and insiders massive leverage by way of giving them the ability to influence which candidates voters will bet 'can win'. It's harmful to democracy, to the voters, and to the public interest, but it's fantastic for party insiders and donors that want things the public doesn't want.
You just agreed with my point. Third parties harms the existing parties by adding the possibility of voters having more choice than either of the two dominant parties. Therefore it is naive to think party insiders would implement this change willingly. Hence supporting the Forward party which has committed to changing the FPTP via RCV.
No, I just argued that voting 3rd party in an FPTP system is bad for the voter doing it, bad for the public interest as well.
I agree on the point that RCV is needed, but I call bullshit if you're claiming I just supported Forward party (a third party, in a FPTP election) because I don't. Sure, in your opinion, I should, but I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth, it's very off-putting.
It's nice that they're promising to support RCV, but I don't believe promises like that any more than I believe promises the Democrats might make about enacting election reform like RCV. IMHO, for so long as they're running as a 3rd party in a FPTP system, they're a threat to split the left and hand an election to actual fascists.
Right now, I think the place to press for RCV is in the primaries of the major parties, and at the State and local level, not by getting people to gamble on splitting the electorate and throwing the result of a federal general election to the the party that doesn't govern and can only seem to agree that the purpose of government is punishing people that aren't like them
Yeah, I was referring to the point that third parties help to dilute the strength of the duopoly.
I can understand your viewpoint of wanting to change the system from within the parties. My viewpoint is that expecting party insiders to change the way things are done is foolish. By your own admission, current party insiders have no incentive to do so. The current system is fantastic for them.
The reason I trust that Forward would support RCV is because it is the only way they have a chance to succeed as an outside political party in the FPTP voting system.
I also get not wanting to split the vote in the circumstances outline. However, I think it is worth considering that most local elections simply do not have any competition. There are thousands of uncontested local races where no one competes with the dominant party. That just leads to the independent and loosely affiliated people that make up ~30+% of the voting populations having no voice to change how the system is implemented.
I guess you are more hopeful than me in the current state of party institutions. I view them as corrupted, dogmatic, and unyielding to any possibility change. But I applaud anyone willing to try to change them, even if I think it is unlike to work.
Fair enough, but there's no law saying it has to be done from within the parties. Alaska now uses RCV in its elections- a thing the Alaska GOP does not like- largely because Alaskans voted for an initiative to do so and it stuck.
The result of its implementation? After 2 eliminations rounds of ranked-choice voting, the running was down to Mary Peltola (D) and Sarah Palin (MAGA), but enough first-and-second-round supporters of Chris Bye and Nick Begich (R) preferred Peltola to Palin. With their first-pick candidates eliminated from the running, Peltola had a majority and that ended the process.
In the same election, they re-elected Lisa Murkowski (R) to the Senate and Dunleavy (R) to the Governor's mansion. The result: it looks a lot like RCV reduces the leverage of MAGA money within the GOP, and it will be fascinating to see what effect it might have on the Dems.
Eventually, things will have to change in a party that's still mostly being run by people that came of age in the Watergate era. Your Pelosis and Clintons and Bidens and Feinsteins won't hang on forever, and eventually the guard is going to change. But again, this doesn't have to be initiated from within the parties.
Yeah, I'm quite familiar with the implementation. Some states are somewhat supportive of RCV and similar voting systems and I applaud them for being open to change.
Uhh, there kinda is when it is basically either democrats or republicans who make each local states elections laws. It is true that sometimes that can be worked around via the voter initiatives. However, the state legislatures can usually amend or repeal those ballot measures if they have a majority of the legislature.
True, they will change but I'm not convinced that those who replace the leader will be any better than the current leaders. I think the only people allowed power within a party are the ones most beholden to their funders.
In what way does addition to a third sum dilute the first two sums?
If Candidate A has one vote, Candidate B has one vote, and Candidate C has one vote, does adding one to Candidate C's sum somehow detract from Candidate A's sum?
Does it somehow give Candidate A an advantage over Candidate B, who still have equal and unchanged sums?
Of course not. That would violate basic math.
It's interesting, however, that you highlight a basic need for divided opponents as the con to a third party... yet it applies better to the current duopolistic nature where either party is increasingly dependent on nothing more than the polarized and divided voterbase. Look no further than continued blue no matter who etc. and ongoing painting of entire parties in a given light to the neglect of the actual candidates.
FPTP places no such requirement on voters - the only presence of such is your absurd insistence such a requirement exists.
Do you see this requirement in place in some form of legislation you must adhere to? No?
Ironically, if a voter signaled their actual preferences - to the disregard of blue no matter who and similar nonsense - it's likely third parties would be faring far better. Unfortunately, you and others here seem to be dead-set on vote shaming outside the duopoly.
Oh? Canvassing has ceased to exist? The results of other elections - especially those in primaries where the primary differences are policy choices and messaging (to those policies) - can't serve as any form of indicator?
Interesting.
You once-more describe the current state of things while attempting to describe some other state of things.
The only harm here is your insistence a voter should vote how you believe they should vote to the neglect of their actual preferences - a thing that actually damages democracy.
It's not addition, it's division . If you divide a finite pool of votes among more candidates, the effect is that candidates similar to each other will draw from the same pool of voters, while not drawing votes from the candidate most-ideologically opposed to them. Imagine, if you will, the scenario with a green and blue candidates B and C, where a third (let's call him "A", and place him close to the greens) gets in to the race.
A is third-party, center-green
B is green
C is blue
In this scenario, there are two candidates dividing the pool of green/center-voters between them. A and B probably aren't appealing to any of C's supporters. Let's say that A and B got 25% and 35% respectively, you've got a green-blue split of 60-40 that awards the blue candidate victory because it got the remaining 40% and A and B split a green-majority's votes enough to lose. A entering this race divided (or diluted) the greens' available votes.
Because splitting up a majority of votes can hand victory to an undivided minority party, there is very much an incentive for voters that don't want their side to lose to coordinate voting to vote on the one that "can win". This involves betting on how other voters will vote, in order to avoid splitting their majority. That in turn transforms voting from an exercise in selecting your preference into an exercise in voting where you think other voters on your side of the spectrum will vote.
A ranked-choice voting system (which allows the voter to signal their choices in ranked order) does not require them to vote in the way they imagine most of their ideological allies will vote- it allows them to send their preferences as discrete signals instead.
If you don't understand this, you don't understand it, and you would do well not to finger-wag about basic math
I've explained the spoiler effect of Durvurger's Law and linked to great resources, but again, under First Past the Post, a vote for a third party is almost indistinguishable from a vote for the ideologically opposite main party candidate.
In 1992, Ross Perot ran the single most successful third party campaign in US history. If he had not run, George H. W. Bush would have likely been reelected.
In 2000, Ralph Nader ran an average performing campaign and scored just over 1% of the vote in Florida, and that alone made sure that George W. Bush was elected.
Because under First Past the Post, a vote for a third party candidate is a not just a wasted vote, it actually helps your least liked candidate win. Because if you had held your nose and voted for the lesser of two evils, the lesser would have won.
Again, if you want actual change, it's only possible through electoral reform. Hell, even the stupid Forward Party that you linked to is pushing for electoral reform, because that's the only chance Yang has of being elected to anything outside of maybe a mayoral race.
I personally recommend this group. The Equal Vote Coalition.
Their site explains the spoiler effect in pictures. (calling it vote-splitting)
You answered none of the clarifications I asked for. You just repeated the same things you already said. Since your answer doesn't address the questions I asked you in a clear way, I will.
Third parties and Voting Reform both harm the existing parties by promoting more competition. That is good for the American people and democracy.
You are trying to claim third parties are bad because they split the vote. Splitting the vote is otherwise known as people voting for what they believe in. That is in no way a bad thing. It is how democracy is supposed to work. No party or person is entitled to your vote they have to earn it. It is not bad advice to support a political party or candidates that supports changing the FPTP system. In fact it is exactly what you are arguing for doing.
Third parties on a presidential scale is entirely beside the point to both changing the voting system and the Forward party. If you read through my replies you would see that Forward is starting by focusing locally on the state level so the anecdotes about third party presidential candidates are irrelevant.
There are hundreds of thousands of elected positions in the US and the majority are uncontested. That is what is bad for America. Restricting peoples choices down to at most 2 viewpoints is the problem. And the solution is electing politicians who will work to prioritize voting reform like Forward candidates.
I have no idea why you are calling a group that is pushing for the similar policies you are stupid. Seems pretty counterintuitive to me.
Their supporters. You've not been reading.
And vote splitting is fucking horrible. A vote for a third party under First Past the Post is a vote against your own interests. Even at the local level. If the election features more than two candidates, the majority will often get screwed over by FPtP.
That's why it's so important to change the voting system to one that doesn't actively punish you for supporting who you want. STAR is great for that. It's the best voting system designed to date. It's also supported by the Forward Party on the front page of the site.
The other options are still better than the horrible option of FPtP. That said, I'm not a fan of RCV (Ranked Choice, aka, Instant Runnoff). RCV shares many of the same problems as FPtP while not actually fixing the vote splitting issue. It also introduces some other wrinkles that are just bad.
Did you not read that the majority of local elections are uncontested? How is having another choice other than the default party bad?
They are not screwed over by FPTP but by the parties and people who benefit and refuse to change the existing system.
That assumes that the major parties have your best interest at heart. They have their donors best interests at heart. You are just someone they have to pretend to please to get you to choose them over the other team.
I never said anything against STAR voting or argued against vote splitting. I simply challenged your assumption that vote splitting is harmful.
Vote splitting is just a way of describing the phenomenon where it is harder to start a third party in a FPTP system.
I reject the idea that vote splitting should have any effect on how you cast your vote. That is essentially censoring your own vote and your own voice.
You misspelled impossible. See Durvurger's Law.
See video, after video, after video.
And a load of different sites.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Duvergers-law
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/why-just-two-parties-a-voting-game-to-illustrate-duvergers-law/31740530FD6AE83819083E3AF956BFFC
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199207800.001.0001/acref-9780199207800-e-382
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-09720-6_5
We can then divert into Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, but that's a bit outside this conversation.
The point being, Durvurger laid this all out. Plurality voting will strongly preference two-party dominance.
As to local politics. Again, you run into the two party system. I will admit that it's not impossible to win as an independent in local races, but the fact that we as a species are very team orientated makes it harder.
No you are misrepresenting it.
From the first sentence of wikipedia
Tend does not mean impossible.
Heck, you even contradicted yourself. First you say its impossible. Next, you say it will strongly preference two party dominance. It can't be both.
You are also conveniently ignoring that most local races only have one candidate. That makes said 'law' irrelevant.
All you are doing is repeating the same thing over and over again even if it is in no way relevant to the discussion. You are clearly just arguing for the sake of arguing. Therefore, I will disengage.
It's interesting that you continuously link-drop with no ability to speak to the subject beyond "just trust me bro, watch this video, it says it all".
It's the behavior I'd expect of the flat earthers and QAnon folk.
As a side-note, you are aware those videos do nothing but restate the same baseless nonsense in different ways, right?
I explained it several times, then linked to videos, and websites, and scholarly articles that all explain it better because the guy I'm arguing with doesn't seem to want to understand.
Hell, his own preferred third party makes voting reform a priority, because otherwise they cannot win.
What utter nonsense.
I believe you aren't understanding that third parties are necessary to bring about significant change in a duopolistic system.
Ahhh... the "law" that theorizes not that "third parties are actually harmful", but rather that "plurality would act to delay the emergence of new political forces and would accelerate the elimination of weakening ones, whereas proportional representation would have the opposite effect".
An attempt to provide evidence for a "law" after-the-fact? Interesting order of operations, there.
Did you have any citation from that article, or was this just an attempt to drop a pay-walled article and move on?
No form of voting reform will be allowed by either establishment party; the only way this will come about is through introduction of a third party - any third party - which can be used to force the establishment parties away from simply maintaining power.
Oh?
I note you predicate this theory on the flawed assumption that a third party ... is loosely aligned with one of the major parties.
Which third parties in the United States would you say are loosely aligned with either the Democrats or the Republicans? Beyond the DSA, there's... nada, and even the DSA is a stretch.
Oh? So the fault of this is on the voter for choosing to support a candidate in alignment with their values - one who represents their interests - in an honest use of the vote, rather than the candidate failing to win over the voters?
Do you believe there's nothing a given candidate could do to, say, win over a given set of voters? No reflection and analysis to be done on why voters are voting a specific way - say, what policies are repelling them, what policies might attract them, etc? The voter is the only one able to act differently?
You seem to entirely invert responsibility.
This is an outright lie; a third party can be supported by simply attaining votes. There is no real mechanism or barrier beyond the lies and propaganda you're sharing here which discourages people from voting honestly.