If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we’d all have a merry Christmas. We can only work in the reality we have, not the one we want. As long as voters are married to the idea that the only meaningful opposition to Republicans is the Democratic Party, then that’s what we’re stuck with.
I think it’s far more viable to introduce ranked choice voting (which would allow for electing a third party while ensuring voters aren’t ’throwing away their vote’ if the third party doesn’t win) than it would be to convince the vast majority of Democratic voters to abandon the party and vote for a party that has won no elections. Maybe that would have worked a century ago when there were more parties and people were more used to the idea of living outside a two party system.
You correctly state that we have to work with the reality we have, but then spend the rest of your comment talking about something that is both highly unlikely and insufficient for change. History has proven the necessity of the working class organizing outside the electoralist boundary in order to achieve meaningful change.
the reality is that another effectively 2 party system at the united state’s southern border went third party in almost 10 years ago and things got better.
it’s odd that you dismiss a political voting system change that literally happened in the real world within our lifetimes; but advocate for another shift that has never been permitted by a political duopoly.
I wish we were when halfway smart enough for ranked choice voting. Unfortunately, not only are most voters too dumb to get it, but many jurisdictions are actually banning in right now.
If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we’d all have a merry Christmas. We can only work in the reality we have, not the one we want. As long as voters are married to the idea that the only meaningful opposition to Republicans is the Democratic Party, then that’s what we’re stuck with.
I think it’s far more viable to introduce ranked choice voting (which would allow for electing a third party while ensuring voters aren’t ’throwing away their vote’ if the third party doesn’t win) than it would be to convince the vast majority of Democratic voters to abandon the party and vote for a party that has won no elections. Maybe that would have worked a century ago when there were more parties and people were more used to the idea of living outside a two party system.
You correctly state that we have to work with the reality we have, but then spend the rest of your comment talking about something that is both highly unlikely and insufficient for change. History has proven the necessity of the working class organizing outside the electoralist boundary in order to achieve meaningful change.
the reality is that another effectively 2 party system at the united state’s southern border went third party in almost 10 years ago and things got better.
it’s odd that you dismiss a political voting system change that literally happened in the real world within our lifetimes; but advocate for another shift that has never been permitted by a political duopoly.
Ok. Your opinion has been noted and dismissed. You clearly don’t know fuck about shit.
I wish we were when halfway smart enough for ranked choice voting. Unfortunately, not only are most voters too dumb to get it, but many jurisdictions are actually banning in right now.
Well yeah, it makes it harder for them to win. Especially after seeing it help a dem win in Alaska