One of the two Georgia seats goes to Democrat

[Gorbles]

Again and again and again. That the other side did it too is not a reason why to give the side with which you identify a pass to do the same. This stupid whataboutism is part of the reason why US is getting deeper and deeper into this mess.

Except, and I don't believe you don't know this, there are only two sides. Which means if the Democrats do not get control, the Republicans have control. And I'm sure you know what happens when the chambers go both ways (see: Obama). No?

Also yes, incredibly specific timing. Didn't see any of this for the past four years, which isn't whataboutism, it's a remark on the consistency of your criticism which you are alleging is some kind of bipartisan act.

 

[Sarin]

Except, and I don't believe you don't know this, there are only two sides. Which means if the Democrats do not get control, the Republicans have control. And I'm sure you know what happens when the chambers go both ways (see: Obama). No?

Also yes, incredibly specific timing. Didn't see any of this for the past four years, which isn't whataboutism, it's a remark on the consistency of your criticism which you are alleging is some kind of bipartisan act.

I've only been active in OT political topics a short time, but I've always wrote the same thing.

There are more than two sides. In last presidential election, there were at least 4 candidates. Now and then, an independent congressman gets elected. There are more choices, but people need to realize that, otherwise this keeps being a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But voting for third parties is the only democratic recourse left to american people. But that means taking up your responsibility, as participants in democratic process. It's much easier to just go with the flow, do not burden yourself with responsibility for your country, let yourself be brainwashed into believing that there are really only two sides and everyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically the evil from the other side.

But when you accept that and actively propagate that illusion, you're no longer victim of the corrupted US system. You're its enabler and co-perpetrator. Doesn't matter if you vote Democrats or Republicans.

 

[Gorbles]

I've only been active in OT political topics a short time, but I've always wrote the same thing.

There are more than two sides. In last presidential election, there were at least 4 candidates. Now and then, an independent congressman gets elected. There are more choices, but people need to realize that, otherwise this keeps being a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But voting for third parties is the only democratic recourse left to american people. But that means taking up your responsibility, as participants in democratic process. It's much easier to just go with the flow, do not burden yourself with responsibility for your country, let yourself be brainwashed into believing that there are really only two sides and everyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically the evil from the other side.

But when you accept that and actively propagate that illusion, you're no longer victim of the corrupted US system. You're its enabler and co-perpetrator. Doesn't matter if you vote Democrats or Republicans.

You specifically mentioned the POTUS, and both chambers. You weren't talking about electing individual congresspeople at a far smaller scale. Let's not move the goalposts, eh?

And let's not dress serious differences over important issues as "doesn't agree with you". People don't go to bat for politics over their favourite brand of lager (at least, I hope not). They go because of things that save (or don't save, or even harm) lives. That ain't a mere disagreement, nomatter how you try and claim it is so.

 

[Cutlass]

But when you accept that and actively propagate that illusion, you're no longer victim of the corrupted US system. You're its enabler and co-perpetrator. Doesn't matter if you vote Democrats or Republicans.

Yes, it does matter. Because even if you want to argue that both sides are bad, or not what you want, there is no argument that they are the same. There is an extremely large gulf between the 2 sides, and it has been growing wider. So if you don't take a side, if you pretend that your 3rd party vote maters, then you have no damned business complaining if the worst of the worst get elected.

Because that is the choice that you made. That is the action you choose to take. That is the outcome you chose to make happen.

 

[innonimatu]

The only counter-arguments you've made is to attack the integrity of someone you've likely never met and bring up that Portugal uses paper ballots. That's it! Well, Zimbabwe uses paper ballots, too!

I'm not your personal assistant, do your own research.

 

[innonimatu]

Yes, it does matter. Because even if you want to argue that both sides are bad, or not what you want, there is no argument that they are the same. There is an extremely large gulf between the 2 sides, and it has been growing wider. So if you don't take a side, if you pretend that your 3rd party vote maters, then you have no damned business complaining if the worst of the worst get elected.

We shall see just how large that gulf is. Be afraid.
Of course 3rd party matters, in fact in the circumstances - a duopoly where each "side" is very confy wether it's in power or not . it's the only thing that matters.

 

[Cutlass]

We shall see just how large that gulf is. Be afraid.
Of course 3rd party matters, in fact in the circumstances - a duopoly where each "side" is very confy wether it's in power or not . it's the only thing that matters.

If you understood American politics, you'd understand that the rightward shift of the Democrats has largely been a reaction to the political success of the Republicans. You want the Democrats to move left, you need to remove the political success of the Republicans. Voting 3rd party does not accomplish that.

 

[Ajidica]

We shall see just how large that gulf is. Be afraid.
Of course 3rd party matters, in fact in the circumstances - a duopoly where each "side" is very confy wether it's in power or not . it's the only thing that matters.

The issue with third parties is then you get situations like the LibDems in 2010 where they exist as a conservative spoiler.

 

[Broken_Erika]

The only way to get meaningful third parties would be to split up the Democrat and Republican parties into several smaller parties.

 

[Cutlass]

The only way to get meaningful third parties would be to split up the Democrat and Republican parties into several smaller parties.

Which wouldn't last. The reason 2 parties dominate nearly all the time is because they can do more for the candidates.

 

[Sarin]

Yes, it does matter. Because even if you want to argue that both sides are bad, or not what you want, there is no argument that they are the same. There is an extremely large gulf between the 2 sides, and it has been growing wider. So if you don't take a side, if you pretend that your 3rd party vote maters, then you have no damned business complaining if the worst of the worst get elected.

Because that is the choice that you made. That is the action you choose to take. That is the outcome you chose to make happen.

Gulf in rhetoric, in polarization, yeah. In actual policies? Don't be so naive. I've been watching the US politics from a country that has more diverse political field and I'm telling you, both main parties are remarkably similar, and jointly refuse to address most of the issues that plague common people. How come that the ballooning costs of education, housing and healthcare have never been adequately addressed? In past 20 years when these were already really big issues, both parties had the means to do so, and if they did, it would secure them even bigger majority and stability. They did not want to, because they want the theatre going, they want people to take sides.

If you make a choice that supports this state of affairs, you're complicit. If you want to change it, then you have to vote for actual change. It might look hopeless, but it's the only choice you have for a real change. Vote and don't be shy about it. If anyone asks...tell them why. The more third party people get elected into lower offices, the easier it will get to make third parties appear as legitimate choice.

And if your vote truly matters so little...then you have nothing to lose anyway.

 

[Arwon]

Gulf in rhetoric, in polarization, yeah. In actual policies? Don't be so naive. I've been watching the US politics from a country that has more diverse political field and I'm telling you, both main parties are remarkably similar, and jointly refuse to address most of the issues that plague common people. How come that the ballooning costs of education, housing and healthcare have never been adequately addressed? In past 20 years when these were already really big issues, both parties had the means to do so, and if they did, it would secure them even bigger majority and stability. They did not want to, because they want the theatre going, they want people to take sides.

If you make a choice that supports this state of affairs, you're complicit. If you want to change it, then you have to vote for actual change. It might look hopeless, but it's the only choice you have for a real change. Vote and don't be shy about it. If anyone asks...tell them why. The more third party people get elected into lower offices, the easier it will get to make third parties appear as legitimate choice.

And if your vote truly matters so little...then you have nothing to lose anyway.

Nah this is really silly. The Dems are mostly somewhere around European style Christian Democrats with a small SocDem fringe, while the Republicans are a bundle of various freakish white nationalist grievances, theocrats and libertarian trolls at this point. There's basically no electoral left, but the two parties are not the same.

 

[Sarin]

Nah this is really silly. The Dems are mostly somewhere around European style Christian Democrats with a small SocDem fringe, while the Republicans are a bundle of various freakish white nationalist grievances, theocrats and libertarian trolls at this point. There's basically no electoral left, but the two parties are not the same.

Not really. They pay lip service to the differences, but in the core, those who call the shots within the parties-not people who elect them-are pretty much the same. Look not at the rhetoric but actual policies they enacted. The difference between them is about the same as one would find within one party in European politics.

 

[Lexicus]

Not really. They pay lip service to the differences, but in the core, those who call the shots within the parties-not people who elect them-are pretty much the same. Look not at the rhetoric but actual policies they enacted. The difference between them is about the same as one would find within one party in European politics.

This is bass ackwards. The ideological differences within the two American parties are approximately equivalent to differences between some European parties.

 

[Sarin]

This is bass ackwards. The ideological differences within the two American parties are approximately equivalent to differences between some European parties.

You're comparing the lower rungs of political spectrum. I'm talking about the highest. In Europe, if you have ambitions, you usually ride with party closest to your ideology. In US, if you have the funds, you can try going in as independent, try a third party, or take the path of least resistance and hitch a ride in one of main parties. But if you differ from the ideology of the bosses, sooner or later they'll bar you from advancing. That's what happened to Sanders in 2016 primaries, if you don't remember. He was just too different, so they had plans to rig the primaries against him, as revealed by leaked emails.

 

[mitsho]

Well, then change the parties. They are not set in stone.

I'm just not convinced voting third party in elections where they don't have a chance is a fruitful strategy. Sure, in local races that give some viability and especially in primaries, but else?

 

[Arwon]

This is bass ackwards. The ideological differences within the two American parties are approximately equivalent to differences between some European parties.

Yeah this. Depends on the exact system but yeah of course parties in prop rep systems are narrower and more numerous than in single member district simple plurality systems. Serious entryism in the latter case has no choice but to try to contest in the existing parties. Hence you have someone who is basically an ordinary social democrat in AOC trying to take over and drag to the left a party mostly made up of centre right types, the system does not realistically allow for anything else except wishful thinking.

 

[Zkribbler]

Hillary tweeted: "Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell."

This means:
Green Energy.
Free tuition at public colleges and universities.
Taxing the wealthy.
Some form of universal health care.
Return to civil rights.
...and maybe civility.

 

[mitsho]

Yeah this. Depends on the exact system but yeah of course parties in prop rep systems are narrower and more numerous than in single member district simple plurality systems. Serious entryism in the latter case has no choice but to try to contest in the existing parties. Hence you have someone who is basically an ordinary social democrat in AOC trying to take over and drag to the left a party mostly made up of centre right types, the system does not realistically allow for anything else except wishful thinking.

It does allow for regional variation. See the Scotish National Party and the Liberal Democrats in the UK (at least for the former at this moment still). But I know, that's pedantry. The main problem is with these parties versus factions in parties is that in the American case, the (exact same) debate is hashed out behind closed doors whereas in more diverse party systems, the haggling may happen more openly.

 

[Arwon]

It does allow for regional variation. See the Scotish National Party and the Liberal Democrats in the UK (at least for the former at this moment still). But I know, that's pedantry. The main problem is with these parties versus factions in parties is that in the American case, the (exact same) debate is hashed out behind closed doors whereas in more diverse party systems, the haggling may happen more openly.

I would actually say it strongly over-privileges geographically concentrated interest groups for this reason.

I'd actually say the opposite about the US party system too - it is staggeringly open and public and lacking in internal secrecy and discipline compared to virtually any other party system. The central leadership has virtually no control over candidacy because of the open mass primary system, all they can do is try and put their thumbs on the scale with endorsements and the odd process change.