Allow me to address the elephant in the room:
The Trump administration is not setting the course for a four-year term.
The Trump administration is setting the course for an everlasting dictatorship.
If Americans don’t want that, the window to stop them is closing quickly.
The window closed when 11 million people who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 couldn’t be bothered to vote in 2024. Now everyone is up in arms because nobody bothered to read the writing on the wall that’s been there since 2016.
@benroyce is probably the best person to comment on this, but I'm not sure it's just that people "couldn't be bothered”. There was an epidemic of #ToxicIdealism spread perhaps primarily by the “G-n-c-d- Joe” brigade leading a non-trivial number to not vote as some sort of masochistic protest.
The left wing must, finally, learn the lesson:
Fight in the primaries, unite in the election
@mmalc @HamonWry @Strandjunker
It's rather weird still encountering people, as I have recently, who think "teaching Democrats a lesson" is more important than {gestures broadly}
It's also extremely entitled
That the bad effects of the Trump administration won't affect them
(Or, rather than entitlement, extremely fucking stupid to think it won't effect them.)
@benroyce @mmalc @HamonWry @Strandjunker I think it's much deeper than just idealism, having 2 choices and having to choose something you disagree with because the other option is... well, unacceptable is a rotten system.
We've seen how a two party system keeps shifting right. Eventually your options will be just far right or farther right.
@Sh41 @mmalc @HamonWry @Strandjunker
yes but you have cause and effect backwards
it's not "this shifts right, so i won't participate"
it's "i'm not participating" and then as a consequence, things shift right
it's a feedback loop that accelerates
the only solution is more participation
you're never going to get perfect, it will always suck in some ways
but if you hold your nose and participate you can iterate on that and proceed left
in fact, that's the only way it will ever happen
@Sh41 @mmalc @HamonWry @Strandjunker
100% no
clarification: i want 3rd parties
but to have them, we need ranked choice voting
currently in the usa we have an FPTP voting system
what that means is if we were to add a new 3rd left party, we divide the left, and we guarantee MAGA wins
we need ranked choice first. so we need to get candidates that support that
that has to come first. without that, we are guaranteeing failure
the left has to take over the democratic party
it is the only way
@Sh41 @mmalc @HamonWry @Strandjunker
Right
so a general comment for Europeans:
what you need to do is not comment on the American voting system if you don't understand it
many of you speak of a solution: 3rd party
but we're not parliamentary
we're FPTP
which means 3rd party divides the left and hands MAGA more wins
You don't want that
But that's what you get
Please Europeans:
understand our voting system is completely fucked up
we need to change our system before getting 3rd parties
@benroyce @Sh41 @mmalc @HamonWry @Strandjunker
Traditionally in USA, one party falls over the edge, and a new second party emerges from the opposite side of the surviving party.
As I recall, that has already happened three or four time - which is why you no longer have a "The Whigs" party.
Fundamentally however, USA has always been a one-party system cosplaying as a two-party system.
The only documented cure for that is to have a revolution.
@phloggen wrote:
<">
Fundamentally however, USA has always been a one-party system cosplaying as a two-party system.
The only documented cure for that is to have a revolution.
</">
Do you say that the one-party systems in Fascist Italy; Nationalsocialist Germany; Frankist Spain; the Soviet bloc; Yugoslavia ended with revolutions?
@benroyce @Sh41 @mmalc @HamonWry @Strandjunker
"we need to change our system before getting 3rd parties"
Speaking as a dual US/UK ctizen, changing the system is almost impossible if the Democrats refuse to embrace progressive ideas. It's from that quarter that the sort of system change you hope for will come. The Democrats are comfortable with FPTP because at least sometimes they're in office. They're essentially conservative and will always try to preserve the system. See also the UK.
@riggbeck @Sh41 @mmalc @HamonWry @Strandjunker
"changing the system is almost impossible if the Democrats refuse to embrace progressive ideas"
false
and an impotent self-defeating mentality
1. you show up in the primaries and you *replace* spineless centrists. you don't think of centrists as some omnipotent force. they're weak. boot them
2. demanding centrists magically turn into leftists before you vote is a joke. all that happens is you don't vote and you don't matter. you're ceding power
@benroyce @Sh41 @mmalc @HamonWry @Strandjunker
1) When Democratic candidates are at all progressive, they are either viewed with suspicion by the leadership or actively connived against.
2) I didn't say that. It's important to vote Democratic even if the candidate isn't all you want them to be.
But, they'll never ditch FPTP unless there are sufficient progressive Democrats to make it possible. The party has to change. That's a stone cold fact.
I'm just describing the political reality.
@riggbeck @Sh41 @mmalc @HamonWry @Strandjunker
" The party has to change"
yes
and you only achieve that by showing the fuck up. especially in the primaries to jettison the centrists
if you don't show up, nothing changes
nonvoting is moronic beyond belief
"they are either viewed with suspicion by the leadership or actively connived against"
who gives a fuck!
"adversity exists in the world, therefore i give up"
da fuq?
@benroyce @Sh41 @mmalc @HamonWry @Strandjunker
Where did I say anything about giving up or not voting? You seem to confuse seeing a problem clearly with not wanting to do anything about it.
@riggbeck @Sh41 @mmalc @HamonWry @Strandjunker
you're asserting centrist democrats are some omnipotent alien force that are impossible to dislodge or defeat
this is the rationale of giving up and not voting
it's also a lie
in truth, the centrists are massively weak and the democratic party is primed for take over by the left
@benroyce @Sh41 @mmalc @HamonWry @Strandjunker
"you're asserting centrist democrats are some omnipotent alien force that are impossible to dislodge or defeat"
No. Where did I say that?
"in truth, the centrists are massively weak and the democratic party is primed for take over by the left"
I think that's delusional. The leadership will lurch to right for fear of offending Republican voters. Which makes it even more important to elect progressive candidates.
I'm actually agreeing with you.
@riggbeck @Sh41 @mmalc @HamonWry @Strandjunker
"i'm actually agrteeing with you"
good. then that closes the discussion, with a caveat:
"where did I say that?"
🤦
@benroyce @riggbeck @Sh41 @mmalc @HamonWry @Strandjunker I am surprised nobody has tried to "trump" the D party yet. They are wide open for it.
You can just as easily attack the media as shills for Big Pharma and Big Money, as Trump attacked them for being leftist.
The same argument of "what have you done for your base lately?" is wide open here.
Is their primary system just too corrupt? The Rs initially tried to block Trump but eventually got on board. The Ds will not do that?
@cy @benroyce @Sh41 @mmalc @HamonWry @Strandjunker
Obviously it does, since the Democrats are one party in a two party system that neither party wants to ditch.
Short of a revolution, the system won't change unless the Democrats change. The Republicans are very happy with it the way it is.
So apart from trying to elect progressive candidates, which has already been talked about in this thread, do you have any other suggestions?
@benroyce @Sh41 @HamonWry @Strandjunker
If you’ll forgive me, I’m not understanding your point here.
“Parliamentary” and “FPTP” seem orthogonal? In the UK, for example, each seat is determined by FPTP, which is how Labour ended up with a landslide even though they barely had a third of the popular vote.
(Other than that agree about 3rd left party and dreadful election system)
@mmalc @Sh41 @HamonWry @Strandjunker
you are correct that FPTP and parliamentary are not directly related
the important point is that parliamentary and FPTP introduce aspects in the system where 3rd parties are enabled or denied
so however votes are tallied in a parliamentary system, parliamentary enables stable effective 3rd parties
while FPTP, alone, denies 3rd parties
it's about where 3rd parties become possible or not
it's not a direct contrast, you are correct
Andrea Junker 
Ham on Wry
mmalc
ᴮᵉⁿ ᴿᵒʸᶜᵉVOTE IN THE PRIMARIES
Raul Portales
Poul-Henning Kamp
Vassil Nikolov | Васил Николов
Fardels Bear
mike805
Cy