General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThere are better ways to stop third-party presidential voting-
-besides loudly calling people out for doing so in thread after thread after thread.
We've known, since at least 1980, that just demanding people not vote third-party in presidential races largely doesn't work.
We know that, to get the Right out of the White House, we need to find ways to get them to stop.
Why not try things like THIS
1) Committing our party, in exchange for third-party voter support for our ticket, to implement proportional representation in state legislative and congressional races(a measure that would also help OUR party win seats in areas, such as the South and Mountain West, where we don't win them now);
2) Committing to support for either instant runoff voting in future presidential elections or an end to the Electoral College(the last being something most of us support anyway) in exchange for that support;
3) Supporting eased ballot access laws in states where we control the legislature, so minor party voters, in exchange for backing our ticket on the presidential level, could at least have some outlet to vote for what they more specifically want;
4) Taking a hard look at ourselves as a party to understand why we don't have the trust of those voters;
None of these would do us any harm, the first would actually help us, and all of them would make the country more democratic and more progressive. And all would greatly increase the likelihood of the election of a long series of Democratic presidents.
These are approaches that might work. Since demanding that third-party voters switch to us doesn't work, why not try these?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It was in response to thread after thread after thread where the tactic was to call people out as idiots and traitors for doing so and for
blaming them for everything that happens when they do.
Yes, it is a bad idea to vote third-party in presidential races.
Yes, such votes have consequences.
Yes, it would be a lot better for the country if people didn't do so.
But lashing out at people for doing it demonstrably DOES NOT WORK.
And overall, it's as much on our party as it is on them when people make that choice.
What is the point of staying with an approach that has failed?
I'm calling for constructive alternatives to that approach.
What alternate wording would you suggest for that part of what I posted?
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)What the base of the Democratic party is conversing on this issue is relevant. This is a message board where there is welcome conversation from Democrats supporting the Democratic Party.
Again, how we start the conversation says so much, doesn't it.
Thank you for fixing the "screaming".
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)
brooklynite
(94,384 posts)...but perhaps that wasn't what you meant by "third party"?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)My goal is a united progressive vote for the Democratic ticket.
What I'm saying is that we can never achieve that goal by just attacking people for not doing that.
brooklynite
(94,384 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What they would do would facilitate swinging their votes to us presidentially without forcing those people to give up their own principles.
We wouldn't lose anything we need in any of them.
They could potentially have the effect of turning some non-voters into voters.
Besides, would it harm anything if, in some situations, we controlled a legislative chamber in coalition with a party to our left?
brooklynite
(94,384 posts)2. The Green Party (or any progressive Party of your choice) have shown no willingness or ability to compete for local legislative seats.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What I'm suggesting could create that mechanism, and would only help our party...just as fusion voting helped us in many areas in the Thirties.
We can't come back if we keep doing things exactly the same way.
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)Proportional voting would increase the number of splinter parties and not solve the issue raised in the OP
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Sweden and Norway do well with a dozen parties each. New Zealand does well with seven.
Seems irrational to lay the root problems of a government at the feet of a multi-party system (a political fallacy, in fact-- post hoc ergo prompter hoc). Seems even more irrational to do so while offering zero evidence to back it up.
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)Have multiple parties does not work in the US system. Does anyone remember 1992 and 1996. Clinton won clearly but the GOP always ignored this and treated Bill Clinton as not being legitimate.
The effect of the OP's silly proposals would be to increase the number of parties and the risk that the POTUS would be elected by a low percentage of the vote. Under the constitution and the electoral college system, there is no way for a run off such as in France.
The proposals in the OP will not work in the real world for the US
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It has worked just fine in post-1945 West and now united Germany, and in most of the rest of Europe, and it is now used in Scottish and Welsh legislative and some local elections.
The electoral system we have now was designed to preserve slavery, Jim Crow and economic royalism.
Why should the party of the non-wealthy and the coming rainbow majority want to preserve an electoral structure that underrepresents our base?
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)The premise of this thread is that your proposal will get third party voters to vote for a major party candidate.
I disagree that we need ten or 12 parties. Your proposal has zero chance of being adopted in the real world. I like living in the real world. Come visit.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The idea is that they would vote for our presidential ticket, and be able to vote for what they more specifically wanted in legislative or congressional levels.
It helped us a lot in the Thirties and Forties in some areas when we had fusion voting.
It created a relationship with smaller parties that gave us most of the ideas used in the New Deal-and bore no responsibility for the devil's bargain FDR had to make with Southern segregationists-that was caused by the seniority system, the House Rules Committed, and the antidemocratic, proslavery institution known as the U.S. Senate.
kcr
(15,315 posts)even with the threat of the GOP breathing down their necks, what makes you think they'd suddenly magically do so with this proposal?
The answer is they wouldn't. They'd still thumb their noses and proudly proclaim their right to vote their conscious because their vote is a protest message, and their conscious simply cannot allow them to vote for the Dem. Nothing would change.
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)Ken's proposal make zero sense in the real world
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)Your theory makes zero sense in the real world. In the real world, these small splinter parties would also be running candidates for POTUS. This would mean that we were more likely to see a situation like 1992 and 1996 with the winner of the POTUS race with far less than a majority. In a parliamentary system this may work but the US is not a parliamentary system. In France and other nations, there are run off procedures for when there multiple candidates and that will not work in the US.
Ken, I like the real world. I like knowing how politics works in the real world. This thread has been very amusing
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Living in the real world doesn't mean assuming nothing can ever change.
It doesn't mean assuming that nothing beyond bland centrism is ever achievable.
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)No one who understand politics in the real world would believe that these proposals make any sense
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You don't believe it because you work in a state that's been unrelentingly right-wing for twenty-three years.
But in the real world progressive policies get people elected all the time, especially at the local level.
I've worked in Democratic politics in Oregon, Alaska, and now Washington, and done so since 1976. I was surrounded by people who joined me in working in real world politics that believe those things are possible.
If you don't agree with the things I suggest, that's your call. But you are not the Official Arbiter of Reality.
I have never disrespected you in the slightest...I've never maligned you on a personal level... I've actually praised the work you do. it's not too much to expect you to refrain from your pointless fixation with trying to delegitimize me personally.
And if you can't handle even reading what I post...why don't you save yourself the trouble and put me on "Ignore"? You're a busy man...there's no reason for you to waste your time following me from thread to thread and post to post. Nothing I post here is worth the trouble. I'm just one guy posting some things.
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)Your posts tell me all I need to know about your real world experience. None of these proposals would work i the real world. The proportional voting concept would not make it more likely that third party voters would not vote for a future nader or Stein but but make it far more likely that we would have more third parties and very divided electorates.
To adopt proportional voting the GOP would have to agree and that i not gong to happen in the real world. The concept that more third parties are better is not a smart concept and neither party will agree to stupid proposals that help third parties but provide zero benefits to the major parties. We do not need more third parties
I live in the real world and I find your proposals to be amusing. Come visit the real world Have you made it to an indivisible meeting yet?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)in "the real world".
It was claimed that slavery couldn't be ended in this country in "the real world".
It was claimed that Jim Crow couldn't be ended in "the real world".
It was claimed that women would could never win the vote in "the real world".
It was claimed that working people could never come together and win victories against management in "the real world".
It was claimed that same-sex marriage would never be politically possible in "the real world".
I could go on and on but the point stands...change is always seen as unachievable.
As to proportional representation, you don't actually have to have GOP consent for that-in many states it can be passed by referendum(pr has been put in place in local elections all over the country).
In the actual real world(the one I live in as much as you do), victories for progressive change happen all the time. In most states, it is progressive activists, not dismissive sectarian centrists, who keep the Democratic Party going on a day-to-day basis.
I signed up for Indivisible and they haven't had a meeting since I have. That puts that to rest. Indivisible is not full of people who say that change is impossible, or that the Democratic Party has to be painfully centrist to win. The people in it that I've met are as left as me.
And if you don't think I have real world experience, why would you be obsessed with getting me into that one group? If you really thought I was out of touch with reality and was lying about my decades of real-world political work, why would you be so fixated with recruiting me to that group? In pushing me to join it, you're admitting that I DO live in the real world and that all your name-calling was unjustified.
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #138)
Post removed
George II
(67,782 posts)Not a single person?
You verified this?
Show us THAT data, please!
KTM
(1,823 posts)You consistently condescend to him in thread after thread, and speak to him as if he were a child when you damn well know you have been wrong about the assumptions you have made about him in other threads. In any thread in which he comments at all, you are always right there to insult him and and insist he get "into the real world." While they seem individually free of defineable personal attacks, when read as a body of posts yours have been aggressively antagonistic, dismissive, and insulting to Ken specifically, without any apparent reason. You seem to be his personal playground bully here, and I think that sucks.
One of the "silly ideas" he mentioned in the OP is Instant Runoff Voting. You have post after post here saying proportional representation would never work, and then dismissing everything else as "amusing," but you dont seem to speak to IRV at all. Do you undertsand how IRV works? It is specifically used to encourage minority parties to participate while mitigating their splinter effects. It allows someone to say, "Well, If it were up to me, Lefty Lefterson would be in charge, because I support x,y, and z that they stand for, but if my candidate fails to reach a large enough number of votes, my second choice is Center McCenterly because we cant allow Righty McTaintstain to win under any circumstance."
What prevents that from working here ?
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)Proportional representation will not help the major party candidates in the real world but would lead to more splinter parties. That would be a really dumb move in the real world.
I admit that I do not take Ken's post seriously. Ken and I have exchanged a number of amusing but sad PMs that told me all that I need to know about Ken's real world experience. You are welcome listen to Ken's unrealistic proposals but I prefer to live in the real world
KTM
(1,823 posts)Like here, when you told him "It is clear that you are a college student who has no idea as to how politics works. " And "Have fun in college," and "While you finish your college degree, I will continue to work in the real world," and "Please get out into the real world. It is a good way to learn as to how things work. In the meantime, enjoy your college days."
Of course, you dropped from that thread when he replied "I'm a RETURNING college student... I retired from the state of Alaska in 2016, after spending years as a steward on the Alaska Marine Highway System. I'm 56, a widower and a grandfather. Older people go back to college all the time. And I worked in the Democratic Party in Alaska for decades, after working in Democratic campaigns in Oregon going back to the Seventies. "
But hey, you do you, and just keep telling that young punk to "get into the real world."
Your posts speak for themselves as well.
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)Ken is claiming that the adoption of proportional voting will mean that third party votes would not vote for Nader and Steins in the future. That premise is so silly that it is funny. Again, Ken's posts speak for themselves. The proposals submitted by Ken would increase the number of the third parties which is not a good thing.
Can you explain how the adoption of proportional voting will make third party voters less likely to vote for a Nader or Stein? I look forward to seeing your analysis
As for instant run off, have you worked on an election? Do you know how voting systems work? I volunteer as a lawyer for voter protection efforts. Instant run offs will not work under the election code of most jurisdictions and the current voting machines are not set up to do this unless we hook all voting machines up to the internet which is a bad idea. I serve as an election judge once a cycle. Under most systems including the system that is being tested in Travis County, each polling location has one machine that tallies the votes and that machine is not hooked to the internet. In the majority of counties in Texas, this is called a Judge Booth Controller and each of the voting terminals are hooked by cables to the JBC. After the close of polling and after paperwork is complete, the JBC is taken to the election office where the seal is cut under observation of the parties and chip removed to tally the votes. You cannot no instant run off in that system. Instant run off systems require that each polling location be hooked up the a central computer so that we can determine the two top candidates. That system is not a good idea due to concerns about hacking.
I live in the real world and I know what works in the real world.
I look forward to your explanation as to how proportional voting will decrease votes for future Naders and Steins. I also look foward to hearing about your experience working on elections and how machines that are not hooked to the internet can do instant run offs? If we do hook all machines to the same computer through the internet, are you worried about hacking?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And what is also silly is acting as though we are owed the votes of everyone on the progressive side of the spectrum no matter what.
I wish they would all vote for us. I wish we'd offer programs that would win their votes.
Neither of those things are happening.
If we stay with the status quo on our electoral system, we can never get out of the current situation. The existing electoral is irrevocably rigged against the Democratic base-working people of all races, genders, creeds, and identities.
My suggestion is designed to significantly reduce third-party voting in presidential elections, something we both want-I never guaranteed it would eliminate it.
The idea is to create ways to vote for ideas the two major parties refuse to support at levels of governance other than the presidency-presidential races being a futile way to work for such ideas. They would vote for us presidentially on antifascist grounds, then work for more advanced ideas at the local, legislative, and congressional level.
As those ideas build support, our party would adopt at least some of them.
It's all good and it can only hekp us.
If you are against the Democratic Party being open to change(at least in the present), you have to accept there being some other way for people to work for them. We can't base our identity as a party as the official enforcers of the leftward boundary of the possible.
We can't demand progressive loyalty and put strict limits on progressive politics at the same time.
Our party doesn't prosper by doing that.
And it was the idea of our party playing that kind of a "gatekeeper" role in politics that created the Nader phenomenon. Yes, that was a phenomenon manipulated by the Right, but it was based on a genuine popular yearning for a way to work for change.
What I suggest practical, it is inexpensive, and it works all over Europe.
And of course I know how voting systems work. And there are voting systems in place all over the world that accommodate proportional representation.
We could do it with hand-counted ballots, as is done in many places.
And nothing I'm suggesting here conflicts with the short term need to fighting voter suppression. I live in Washington state, where that largely doesn't happen, but support efforts to fight that and to defend the ACA.
KTM
(1,823 posts)Just because the current ancient method you use now doesnt support it in way that you know, doesnt mean that we cannot do it, and there would be nor more need to connect to a network than there is now. You understand that in IRV, voters only cast ballots once, right ? Why would you think IRV required the internet ? It can be done with paper ballots FFS! All that changes is the ballot and the method of counting.
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)work in our system and lead to minority rule...mostly conservative rule.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Where only one candidate is elected for an entire constituency-a system that is biased towards the Tories.
If they'd had pr in the Seventies and Eighties, Thatcherism wouldn't have happened. The Tories would never have had a parliamentary majority by themselves, and would not have been able to get enough support from other parties to stay in power...they'd have been defeated in Parliament by the parties of the left-of-center majority, and those parties would then have formed a coalition.
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There are a lot of progressive coalitions in Europe, especially on the level of municipal governance.
If it's the choice between trying to force all progressives into ONE party with a bland message or having a variety of parties that speak more specifically to issues during campaigns and then find common ground afterwards, I go with the second.
First-past-the-post(the system we use here for every election other than the presidential race)is always biased towards the Right, because it's usually far easier for the Right to cohere in one large party.
It's why Margaret Thatcher was able to essentially destroy workers' rights and the social welfare system in the UK, even though her party never won more than 43% in any general election.
Within the next week or so, a progressive coalition government(the New Democrats and the Greens)is going to take power in the Canadian province of British Columbia. It is pledged to a transformational program and the introduction of pr in future elections. Watch to see what happens there
I'd recommend you go to these sites to monitor developments there:
https://thetyee.ca/
http://www.straight.com/
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)shows on Netflix) , you would know they have issues also. for example...they have serious immigration issues at the moment...
"...Sweden's far-right party is rejoicing: long shunned by the political establishment, it has suddenly been invited in from the cold by a main opposition party eyeing a return to power -- and Swedish politics is all shook up.
Breaking a longstanding taboo, Sweden's conservative Moderate Party last week opened the door for a cooperation with the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats, causing a deep rift within the stunned four-party centre-right opposition Alliance.
All of the political parties in parliament have long held a cordon sanitaire around the Sweden Democrats because of its roots in the neo-Nazi movement, but Moderates leader Anna Kinberg Batra argued the party could no longer be ignored."
https://www.thelocal.se/20170128/turmoil-in-sweden-as-conservatives-woo-far-right
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)and would lead to constant conservative rule...I say rule because the Republic would be destroyed.
Bettie
(16,078 posts)where we are at this point, in constant conservative rule.
What are your ideas for ending that?
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)get back in power. I was disappointed that Howard Dean was not named DNC head although I like both Perez and Ellison. Dean has great experience...we field good candidates (tailored to that state) in all 50 states and campaign. You are not guaranteed to win always. Sometimes you lose and must fight harder. It will be a heavy lift no doubt. 16 was a bad election to lose...but we can do it and must...and wasting time on things that won't and shouldn't happen is a waste of time...let's marginalize third parties not help them as they are spoilers...multiple parties leads mostly to minority conservative rule.
Bettie
(16,078 posts)Seriously, how do you think they can be 100% eliminated?
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)We have to call them out and marginalize them...discourage people who might vote for them. Make it plain that a vote for say a Green is a vote for Republicans because it is...limit access at the state level too...don't make it easy for them to spoil our elections.
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)I know that sounds odd but that is how you stop conservative 'rule' ...you win.
Bettie
(16,078 posts)despite gerrymandering, voter suppression, and a host of other crap, I sure wish you'd have waved it in November.
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)Bettie
(16,078 posts)perhaps some new tactics might be in order.
We need to get back whatever Howard Dean had in the DNC...he was able to generate a broad appeal and get people elected.
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)consider each state...I think this is true for Senate races and house races as well...there is no top down tactic that can work...and we shouldn't turn every election into a national election...there is a saying that" all politics are local"...not sure that is true completely, but there is some truth...have the stuff we all agree on in the platform, and fund raise so our candidates have plenty of money. Then we need a 50 state strategy...the message will vary depending on the state, but health care can work in every state I think...not single payer for all...but we need to save the ACA and the GOP wants to destroy it...and no litmus tests please.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's impossible for the non-rich to have a fair shot in elections held under first-past-the-post and the Electoral College. Why keep anything in our system that was designed by 18th Century slaveowners?
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)The Greens gave us United so too bad for them. I am against lifting a finger to help third parties especially Greens.
DFW
(54,302 posts)Four words: "caucuses with the Democrats."
Sen. Sanders, I-Vt, caucuses with the Democrats
Sen. King, I-ME, caucuses with the Democrats
As recently as the Bush Lite regime, Jim Jeffords made history, not by becoming a Democrat, but by caucusing with us, something an Independent can drop and change in an eyeblink.
It's not as prevalent as in a parliamentary government like Germany, where coalitions are the norm, but we do have our token instances. If Murkowski gets fed up with kissing the feet of McConnell and Trump often enough, and Collins follows her, it could get REALLY interesting up on the Hill. Not in the cards now, but you can bet both women bury their faces in their hands these days far more often than is caught on camera.
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)However, there is no doubt that Stein had enough votes in key states to keep Hillary from winning...she was on MSNBC the other day crowing about how ;effective' she was. Fuck her and hall third parties. They need to be called out to prevent people from considering them a viable option. They are not...spoilers who enable Republicans.
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)1890's to the 1920's. Would not be a good mix today.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What we CAN do, if we adopt proposals like the ones I listed above, is make it stop(or at least limit it) in presidential voting.
We have no right to simply expect everyone on the progressive side of the spectrum to vote for everybody we nominate, no matter what.
Third-party voting happens because our party has alienated people we could have made common cause with.
They might agree with our national platform in all respects, but they would vote for us if we treated their principles with respect and at least made it clear that, if elected, a Democratic administration would listen to their ideas and take them under consideration.
There are also some issues where we don't absolutely have to be as supportive of the status quo as we currently are.
We could commit to defending the country from external attack, for example, without being indistinguishable from the GOP on the national security state and the defense budget.
We could give human rights(including economic human rights)as great a priority in our foreign policy as we give "access to foreign markets", and we could accept that other countries have the right to stronger social welfare systems, stronger labor movements, and better indigenous rights and environmental standards than we have.
We'd lose no significant number of voters from making either of those changes.
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)There are treatises on this issue and law professors who specialize. I reviewed and updated the memo for Clinton to get on the ballot for the Texas primary and I know that Clinton campaign consulted with one of the experts.
Bettie
(16,078 posts)That would be the only way to truly, 100% stop it.
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)in a useless attempt to send a message. That trick never works, but often leads to losing elections by one party or the other.
I'm not in favor of making such things illegal. I'm in favor of educating people.
maxsolomon
(33,252 posts)to add "Ways"
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It has proportional representation with instant runoffs, and also independent redistricting.
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/05/new-house-bill-would-kill-gerrymandering-and-could-move-america-away-from-two-party-dominance/
But I have some pretty serious doubts that it's going to convince the Jill Steins of the world to stop aiding the GOP.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And it's good that that proposal is there...our campaigns should emphasize and publicize it when we back such proposals.
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)That is so amusing.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)In 1936, FDR won the votes of about 80% of the people who had voted for Norman Thomas, the Socialist candidate, in 1932. He did that by listening to what those people had to say and by incorporating some of it into his policies in his first term.
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)Again, your posts speak for themselves. These proposals not only do not address the issue you raised in the OP but there is zero chance that these proposals would ever be adopted
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)Gothmog
(144,945 posts)Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)progressive.
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)Prior to the Wisconsin case, the courts had only struck down racial gerrymandering. I spent the afternoon reviewing trial briefs for the case going to trial on Monday July 10 and the issues there is limited to racial gerrymandering.
The SCOTUS is hearing the Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering using the efficiency gap theory. i think that we have a far better chance of prevailing in court under this theory than getting the GOP to agree to the silly but funny plan in the OP
Again, the proposal cited is a hail mary type way to try to deal with partisan gerrymandering and has no chance of being adopted in the real world
Bettie
(16,078 posts)would make a huge difference.
Jill Stein personally isn't the problem, people who voted for her are the ones we have to shift.
It can be done, but not by telling them their votes are not needed or wanted.
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)
Voltaire2
(12,965 posts)Jill can still be Jill, but 99% of her votes will end up in the 'D' column.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)If I understand you correctly, that seems like a decent idea. Third party voters would be voting FOR third party power instead of (what I think usually happens) against the two major parties. Better to vote for something you believe in than against something you don't like.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That could also be a part of Congressional races.
It would invigorate our party for other voices to raise new ideas.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)Any third party voter has to realize that no third party candidate for president ever stands a chance. But with support from Dems, third party legislators stand a much better chance. Plus, they will have input at all levels.
I can see the nay sayers will point out that there is already too much bickering within the Dem party that allowing others to join will just add to the divisiveness already present. However, I think this is worth a try. Yes, it would invigorate our party. But we would have to find allies who are committed to working within the major party (no Nina Turners).
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"We've known, since at least 1980, that just demanding people not vote third-party in presidential races largely doesn't work. "
For one, there is very little way to quantify that statement, if any. Even in years where third parties increase their vote totals, your connection to "demands" has zero backing. Additionally, how would you know it largely doesn't work when third parties are, and for the most part have been, extremely marginalized in this country.
Your argument starts with a completely flawed premise and flows from there.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I'm just trying to suggest better ways for us to beat the Right.
The existing way we work as a party isn't getting us anywhere.
I'd like you to look at the specific ideas I suggested.
Do you disagree with them? If so, why?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Also, I have recommended a number of your ops over the last two months. No need to fall on your sword.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I based that on the "oh no you don't" response I seem to get from you over and over again, and the suspicion you often express about my motives.
I don't want anyone to "take over the party".
I just want it to be a party of the 99%, of all who are left out in the cold by the status quo.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"I don't want anyone to "take over the party.""
What are you talking about? I'm guessing it was directed at another conversation you are having.
"Status quo"
And there it is. Transparent.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The status quo simply means the existing order of things. It's not a reference to HRC or President Obama.
And the response you say makes no sense is about people implying that I want Bernie to "take over the party".
I don't. I just want us to get the support we need to win.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Just stop. That's completely on you. I wish you would stop refighting the primaries.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)This thread is about nothing but a way to get more votes for our presidential ticket. That's all it is.
You have no reason to make that accusation to me.
I'm talking about the future. I'm being positive.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You just happen to pull Clinton and Sanders out of thin air. I never mentioned or made any comment that could have brought someone to an educated assumption that I was referencing either.
"Status quo"
"Bernie"
"Clinton"
Not as under the radar as you think.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's only refighting to say we should have nominated somebody else or to attack former candidates or former nominees or their supporters. I haven't said anything even close to any of those things.
I only mentioned those names to prove that I wasn't doing what you keep accusing me of doing.
We can't be a progressive party if any discussion, any criticism, any suggestion, gets labeled "refighting"-if even the mention of last year's candidates is taken as "refighting".
Mentioning names is just mentioning names. It's nothing else.
And you're doing that "oh no you don't!" thing again when I wasn't doing anything that needed to be shut down.
Please stop jumping to conclusions about my intent.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)After interjecting Clinton and Sanders out of nowhere. That's status quo.
The whole premise that starts your argument is still one hundred percent flawed. Bringing Sanders and Clinton into your argument and trying to refight the primaries didn't change that.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What are we supposed to do...never mention either of those people by name again?
What good would THAT do? What purpose would that serve?
And what is so terrible about the goal of a party that blends what both of them stand for?
That's ALL I'm trying to do.
I'm sorry I used the phrase "the status quo"...it was solely a reference to how the party works, not to any individual or to any former candidate.
KTM
(1,823 posts)I think you know that.
In our current system, there are voters on both sides who feel the two mainstream parties dont fully (or even mostly) articulate their views. There are those who, regardless of what you think of their candidates and beliefs, prefer the Green party, the Libertarian party, or one of the many alternate parties in our country's history.
They are told not to vote for their preferred candidates because those candidates have no chance of winning, and thus they are throw-away/spolier votes. They can either vote for a losing candidate or accept that they must vote for someone who only partially represents their beliefs. They are "left out in the cold by the status quo." All of them, left or right.
The term "status quo" does not inherently refer to the policies of our Democratic candidates in the previous election. It refers to the dominant political architecture in our country, in which voters on the Left and the Right have to accept candidates who have tempered their views towards the center.
YOU decided that it could only apply to a specific candidate/period/election. Ken tried to clarify by saying he was NOT speaking of HRC/BS, and you distorted that clarification 180 degrees from what he meant.
YOU pulled this stuff from thin air - it wasnt the other way around.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Your reply is deceptive at best. That is giving the benefit of the doubt. This whole argument is based on a group that has been so marginalized that they are just about insignificant, a premise that is based off of "someone on the internet said", and an over-inflated need for individual recognition in a process that should be about community.
It's become a regular and comical "look at me" pattern combined with an obsessive need to refight the primaries.
Stien supporters are ignorant and a very small group. Few lack the limited intelligence to see she is a snake oil salesman. There are much more significant groups to go after. To claim her supporters are a part of the left in any way is simply and offense to rational thought.
KTM
(1,823 posts)Not sure what part of my reply leads you to that suggestion, but since it appears you are reading things that arent there in other posts in this thread as well, I'll just assume you are inferring something unintended.
I dont care what you think of Stein and her supprters, or the supporters of any other third party... but your string of replies and insuations above are pretty clear, and they are unfounded. It seems you are seeing an inference that isnt being made, and hearing an argument that isnt being voiced.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The pattern is clear and there for all to see.
"outside of the first part?"
which first part ?
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)hate Democrats. Stein said Trump was a a better choice than Hillary...that is unacceptable and shows there is no working with that lot.
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)You only have to read a few of the threads on JPR to have this confirmed
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)trying to earn these votes. the whiny, spoiled-baby demanding that everyone vote for the dem candidate probably loses more votes than it gains.
emulatorloo
(44,072 posts)They earn votes with their speeches and policy positions.
That being said, I take my civic duty of voting very seriously.
Anonymous Internet Whiners on Message Boards of any political persuasion don't sway me much. They definitely are not going convince me to punish candidates by "spite voting". Nor am I gonna abandon the most vulnerable people in our society when I vote.
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)that support third parties...this isn't one of them. I object to your name calling of Democrats. This is a Democratic site.
seaglass
(8,171 posts)called out on thread after thread, they shouldn't even be here.
That being said, you are never going to get rid of 3rd party voters. There are too many people who don't understand how politics or basic math works.
Many of those on the left who voted 3rd party in the last election did not do so out of principle but out of emotion. They think they were making a point - but instead they showed how untrustworthy, selfish and unprincipled they are because they did not care about how the Trump/Republican shit show would effect anyone but themselves. Immigration, healthcare, social justice, economic justice, environment, education, war - they have no claim to being on the side of good for any of those issues after what they just did.
They can apologize and work hard to make amends otherwise fuck them.
betsuni
(25,380 posts)When I read about these people I'm so thankful I don't have to be around them in real life, I'd want to slap some sense into them. It makes me feel old. My husband's thinking about retiring early because he keeps getting accused of "power harassment" at work by such types. This last time by a young woman, he told her she was being unprofessional in the way she spoke to customers, she needed to speak more formally to them. That's harassment now. People are losing their sense of society. As Larry David always says, "We have a society here, people!"
JI7
(89,241 posts)i would say the same about 2000 and every other eletion, especially after what happened in 2000.
but 2016 was so clear and the republican was so vile that i don't get it when people say things like trump got support for campaigning from the left.
so all the fucked up things he said did not affect them in any way. to me that says something about how they view these issues.
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)You are exactly right.
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)These voters need to live with the consequences of these votes
KTM
(1,823 posts)"only those who voted for Hillary in the GE are welcome here" is not a true statement.
"Democratic Underground is an online community for friendly, politically liberal people who understand the importance of working together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government... Do not post support for Republicans or independent/third-party "spoiler" candidates."
See that last word there ? We dont welcome those advocating support of outside party *candidates* here. But those candidates, whom we do not support, have voters that are welcome to come here, get educated, and maybe join our ranks. They have ideas that appealed to those voters, some of which might be worked into our platform.
Im pretty sure even someone who voted for Trump in the last election, who now regrets that choice, is perfectly welcome here. Same goes for those who voted for *any* candidate. Same for those who simply didnt vote.
Past voting history is not a requisite for membership here... we wont grow our numbers by preaching to the choir, and though Im sure it was unintentional that statement is incorrectly exclusionary.
seaglass
(8,171 posts)The price of admission to DU after this election is your vote for Hillary Clinton (or your support for her if you are not eligible to vote in the United States). If you are able to vote, but you can't bring yourself to vote for Hillary, then I'm not particularly interested in listening to your bullshit for the next four-to-eight years. I don't care if you live in the bluest of blue states or the reddest of red states, if you are looking for excuses to vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or god forbid Donald Fucking Trump, then this isn't the place for you. Fortunately for you, there are plenty of other places on the Internet where you can get your Hillary-hate on, and some of them are even filled with former DU members.
KTM
(1,823 posts)I think it was likely a heat-of-the-moment statement, but perhaps you are correct. Until clarified I cant believe that that statement as written speaks to the current mind of the Admins, or to policy between now and 2018. I think they SHOULD clarify that though, as it seems very important. I will post in ATA and see what we get, but thanks for reminding me of that post.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)A vote for ANYONE BUT Hillary Clinton in the GE was a vote for Donald Trump. Period. A failure to vote when eligible was a vote for Donald Trump. That includes Stein, that other guy who everyone has forgotten, a stupid "write-in" vote, etc.
Skinner is right. Anyone who voted by proxy or purposely for Donald Trump is not welcome here.
KTM
(1,823 posts)We dont need anyone else. We dont need your vote. That familiar refrain *always* works. 
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)should be coddled? We should beg them for their votes when most of them don't even know how the voting process WORKS? Please.
I don't care if they voted for Trump directly, voted for the appalling Stein or the stupid other guy, wrote in to make a dumbass "statement," or didn't vote at all because they were pouting. If they want to come to us in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, fine. We'll welcome them. But I for one am not going to crawl to them.
Vote Democratic. Anyone reading this who doesn't is at the wrong site. There's a reason it's called DEMOCRATIC Underground.
David__77
(23,335 posts)That's news to me. So, those who voted for Trump and regret it aren't welcome? For that matter, former Republocans who voted for Reagan in 1984 aren't welcome?
seaglass
(8,171 posts)David__77
(23,335 posts)That said, those who, for instance, voted for Nader in 2000, or Reagan in 1984, aren't addressed in the post to which you lined.
Personally, I voted for Clinton in November.
seaglass
(8,171 posts)their ways and voted for Clinton in 2016 are OK.
I imagine at some point that some who did not vote for Hillary and acknowledge their error will also be welcome here.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)to voting 3rd party. They just drag the smears about Democrats here under false pretenses--like passing off stale and recycled criticisms as some kind of "support". It's very transparent.
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)Gothmog
(144,945 posts)The proposals in the OP would hurt both major parties and lead to a dozen or so parties all running POTUS candidates
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)my son...I pointed out to him that those countries that have multiple parties end up under minority rule...often conservative rule. Look at the UK...Theresa May should be gone, but she is not. Way more voted against her than for her.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Is to appeal to more voters than the other candidate.
It's not about purity or third parties or centrism or anything else. It's about convincing a majority of people to get off their asses and go out and vote for us.
I think Democrats mostly have the correct positions on the world (although there are is a wide spectrum of opinion, and I don't agree with ANYone ALL of the time). I think we have serious messaging issues, as well as issues around voter mobilization (which includes everything from making a compelling enough case to go vote to active GOP voter suppression).
What I DON'T think our problem is, is the Green Party. Those with any sense will vote Dem. Those without any sense are unreachable because they are privileged and/or insane, and probably have names like "Sarandon" or "West."
The first three points only work with sane people, and can't work in a federal-position because of constitutional issues
Snackshack
(2,541 posts)Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)I think it is important to get PR in this country for the myriad of benefits it would bring. And sriking a deal with all thirrd parties to curry their might be a good start.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)That means, ipso facto, some people will be Democrats or Republicans as a matter of circumstance rather than choice. If those voters are not appeased, they could very well split the vote. This isn't difficult arithmetic, and I suppose under other circumstances I might have found it surprising someone actually felt it urgent to spell it out so plainly, as you did.
But the responses here make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that simple arithmetic is, for some, exceedingly difficult. They argue that these voters should be better people and not play dice with the well-being of the country, that people should stop being the people they are and become the people we want them to be... which is about as productive as pissing against a brick wall.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)They can pretend they made a decision but they can always say; don't blame me I didn't vote for that candidate.
MichMan
(11,870 posts)Since Johnson received many more votes than Stein, it would appear that third party voting took more votes away from Trump than it did Hillary.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Almost all of those who voted for Stein would, on policy grounds, have been closer to Clinton than to Trump.
With Johnson, the situation is more muddled, because they don't fit neatly into the left-right spectrum. Libertarians certainly appeal to many people on the right, with their calls for cutting taxes and slashing the social safety net. They do attract votes from the left as well, however. Glossing over the differences among libertarians, I'll just note that many of them are aligned with progressives on social issues (reproductive rights, the war on drugs, etc.) and on foreign policy (Ron Paul was the only Republican in the House to vote against the Iraq War Resolution.
If we elected the President by direct popular vote but with IRV or a jungle primary, I don't know how Johnson's voters would have divided when it came down to Clinton versus Trump.
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)Putin gave her a bonus. Policy? Bullshit..voting for Greens is throwing away your vote and electing Republicans...I have friends who are Republicans, we don't discuss politics. Some told me they voted for Hillary this year as they dislike Trump but I don't get into it with them...third party voters like the Greens, I would not give them the time of day. They are rats who pretend to be progressive and enable the GOP for money in some cases. Stein's policy is to spoil elections. She can go fuck herself. And Greens should not be defended here either...you imply that their policy is better than Democratic policy. It is not. Support Democrats is part of TOS. And of course these monsters...who helped elect Trump...care for nobodies who are willing to watch thousands of Americans die because they hate the Democratic Party so much can fuck themselves and twice on Sunday. It has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with a hatred of the Democratic Party and some stupid belief, you have to tear it down and from the flames will come this paradise on earth...that never happens. People who are willing to allow others to die for their ideology are the lowest scumbags on earth. The thing is Greens and the GOP are exactly the same...they both lack empathy and place their ideology above people's lives.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Do you have anything substantive to contribute on that subject?
The question is not whether Stein affected Democrats more. The question is whether the third-party candidacies, collectively, affected Democrats more. Johnson received more than three times as many votes as Stein.
Purportedly in response to my post, you write:
This is just silly. Absolutely nothing in my post implied that the Greens' policy was better than the Democratic policy. What I actually said was that, *from the point of view of the Greens*, Democratic policy is better than Republican policy.
My amateur psychologizing (take it for whatever it's worth): You and some other DUers are so full of rage at Stein that you want to lash out at anyone who supported her. Your problem is that, as you note, the ToS doesn't allow pro-Stein posts here. Therefore, frustrated by a shortage of targets, you jump to vent your righteous anger at anyone who so much as mentions Stein without instantly denouncing her. This tendency causes frequent and major fails in reading comprehension, as in this instance.
In case you care, I voted for Clinton in November. If you want to argue with Stein supporters, go over to JPR.
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 7, 2017, 04:20 PM - Edit history (2)
more right leaning voters turned out. Now it is my opinion and there is no way to prove this...that down ballot candidates like Feingold may have been affected...I think this helped Toomey in PA...in general I hate third parties...but it is my opinion that Stein alone cost Hillary votes in key states...and I say fuck you Greens... I know you Greens feel great electing Trump...heard you (Jill Stein ) say it on MSNBC.
There edited so the true meaning cannot be mistaken.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write: "I know you feel great electing Trump...heard you say it."
Wrong. I never said that. Link or slink.
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)'Fuck you Greens, I know.... Not you Jim Lane...why the faux outrage? It is clear what it means...but in the instances of civility, I will change it Greens I know.... OK.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)As for the Greens, I think they're a mixed bag. Some would say there's absolutely no difference between Trump and Clinton. Some would even say Trump was better. I think there are a few (the ones in the ward closest to the door) who would grudgingly admit that Clinton would be a little better, but who would say that getting that slight advantage for the next four years is less important than building the Green Party, which will totally transform American politics (any year now... any year now...).
I have more sympathy for the Johnson voters. For someone who's a thoroughgoing libertarian, we can't say (as we can for a Green) that one major party's policies are clearly preferable to the others. That's why I'm not sure how Johnson's 3 million voters would go in a Clinton-Trump runoff.
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)I just have no use for them. They are spoilers...and anyone who thinks now that Trump is OK is delusional and has a deep hatred of Democrats.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Gothmog
(144,945 posts)I do agree that we need to get rid of the electoral college but this would do nothing to help with third party candidates. The National Popular Vote interstate compact is the only mechanism that has a chance here.
As to proportional representation, this plan has no chance whatsoever of being adopted in the real world for a host of reasons. The concept that this proposal will eliminate or reduce third party votes for POTUS made me laugh. There is no way to condition the adoption of this silly but funny proposal on third party voters agreeing to support one of the main party candidates. Such concept would also run counter to the plank on changing ballot access rules. Any third party who runs for a legislative seat would also field a candidate for POTUS and there is no way to prevent third party voters from voting for both the legislative candidate and the POTUS. The parties would get zero benefit from the silly plan in the real world.
All this plan would do is encourage splinter parties so that there may ten or more parties. Look at Italy and Israel for what happens when you have proportional voting. Multiple parties would lead to still more gridlock.
In the real world, neither major party has any incentive to support this silly but funny plan. The GOP has some advantage in gerrymandered districts and will not give up this advantage. The Democrats are focusing on litigation and President Obama/AG Holders plan for 2020 redistricting http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/311966-obama-holder-redistricting-effort-picks-leader
The fact that anyone thinks that this above proposals could be adopted in the real world made me laugh. If adopted, this plan wold lead to more third parties who would be fielding their own candidates for POTUS. There is Io way to condition the adoption of this silly plan on third party voters agreeing to support one of the two major party candidates
I like living in the real world. The Texas redistricting trial starts on July 10 and I have a couple of friends who will be testifying. The Democrats should pick up 3 to 7 congressional seats and 10 or more state house seats. The concept that anyone thinks that this proposal could be adopted in the real world and the adoption of this proposal would force third party voters to vote for one of the major party candidates made me laugh
Ken most of these proposals would do real harm in the real world which is why there is zero chance that anyone would take these proposals seriously
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And nothing I proposed there interferes with any of the work any is doing in the short term
If you disagree with what I say, fine, but you have no call to claim I don't live in the real world.
It's insulting and it's a lie.
Your view of politics is not the only reality.
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)Again, these proposals (other than the electoral college one) are not going to be adopted in the real world and these proposals do nothing to solve the issue raised in your OP. The fact that you think that the adoption of proportional voting would encourage third party voters to vote for one of the major party candidates made me laugh. That concept cries out that you do not understand the real world and how politics operates.
The adoption of proportional voting would increase the number of minor parties much like what is happening in Italy and Israel. Instead of two splinter parties, we would have ten or more each with their own candidate for POTUS. In the real world, this is what happens when proportional voting is used. Your claim that proportional voting would help the issues raised with vote splitting does not hold up in the real world.
Do you really think that the GOP would consent or allow this concept to happen? Again, the real world is a very different place compared to the alternative world where these proposals could be adopted
Have fun in your alternative reality. Instead of fighting gerrymandering with a silly proportional voting concept, I will be trying to help the plaintiffs in the Texas redistricting case.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... you're always a thoughtful voice of reason. We need more of that around here. (Thank you!)
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)to do those things.
We do have the power to chose how we vote.
We also have the power to take responsibility for the effect our actions cause.
So many want a way to cop out of that responcibility
louis c
(8,652 posts)What left-wing third party voters who write in or vote 3rd party in a general election do is to help elect the mirror opposite of their positions.
There is no difference between a 3rd party vote in a presidential Election and staying home. I have found general election 3rd party voters to be uncompromising. It's either their way or that's it.
In 2000, voters for Ralph Nader changed the world for the worse. In 2016, Jill Stein voters made it even worse than that.
I have more disdain for these voters that even Trump voters, because these Green party voters really should know better.
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)I agree. They are destroyers of progressive policy...in 16 though, they outdid themselves.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)matter more than the well-being and lives of their fellow citizens. What is to respect about that? They are the political equivalent of sociopaths. It's all about them, the hell with the lives of their neighbors millions lose health insurance, they double down to ensure more people die. If a candidate won't lie to them about getting a certain payment system for health insurance through congress, they prefer to ensure tens of thousands die from lack of access to healthcare. Republicans have a different view of what is best for the country. Third party voters know that the GOP is repugnant, but decided that the supreme court, equal rights, medical coverage, and other laws and policies that allow people to live are worth sacrificing because ultimately citizens lives are inconsequential to them compared to their egos. They are narcissists actively seeking to do harm. They know people will die and they don't give a fuck. That makes them a million times worse than any Wall Street banker.
They are already focused on 2018 and 2020. Trump could set up concentration camps and they'd still be complaining that Democrats dare to try to represent someone besides them, when they are certain they are the only people on the planet who matter.
Not that their so-called unity meetings are not open to Democrats. Republicans and White Supremacists are welcome, but not Democrats. That says everything about their ideological orientation.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"just demanding people not vote third-party in presidential races largely doesn't work..."
Who specifically is arguing that simply demanding people vote one way or another is effective?
"why not try these..?"
You then have knowledge no one is in fact, attempting any of these and/or additional options?
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)they'll still vote third party, so what then?
ismnotwasm
(41,968 posts)"Stopping" them was never the point. Anyone who helped Trump into office is a racist sexist bigoted piece of shit. We have better opportunities to Improve our messaging than chasing those fuckers.
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)
lapucelle
(18,190 posts)might be a useful place to start.
I think we also need to be more careful with the use of words like "evil".
Demsrule86
(68,504 posts)Orrex
(63,172 posts) DetlefK
(16,423 posts)What's the biggest domestic political problem of the US?
Partisanship.
Where does it come from?
Because there is no reason for the two leading parties to work together.
Why are there only two parties?
Because winner-takes-all.
Other countries do not have winner-takes-all. Instead of 2 parties, they have about 5-10. And that means that bipartisanship/compromise/negotiation becomes a necessity for political survival.
For example: The Neo-Nazi-parties in Germany. They refuse to compromise and are perpettually splitting up into more and more extreme-right splinter-parties that battle for the same, tiny segment of voters.
The only outlier is the AfD, because, just like the Alt-Right in the US, they are racists with a friendly image: The closeted racists you can vote for if you don't want to vote for open racists.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)"implement proportional representation in state legislative and congressional races"?
Are you saying that the party should declare that the candidates in certain districts will be from that third party?
I don't want the party declaring to the voters in a district who their candidate will be for a race. We have primaries for a reason.
Response to Ken Burch (Original post)
HopeAgain This message was self-deleted by its author.