*Long term effects of a broken 2 party voting system…
FTFY
Not sure this makes sense. I think the window shifts right as people continue to vote right.
From the Wikipedia article about the Overton window:
The most common misconception is that lawmakers themselves are in the business of shifting the Overton window. That is absolutely false. Lawmakers are actually in the business of detecting where the window is, and then moving to be in accordance with it.
Ah yes, so the best option is to not vote and let them succeed unimpeded.
I’m all for voting for a better candidate, but we have a broken 2 party system, and it very much is if you don’t vote for one of the two main parties, you are pretty much just not voting at all.
I don’t vote for this person. I’m voting against that person.
That’s exactly the voter attitude, that gets the broken 2 party system. Politicians know this kind of thinking and use it to their advantage.
Dems have been nothing but a doormat for the last 30 years, the party of complicity. I’m absolutely positive they’ve been playing the dupe and moving the US further to the right all the while playing the victim.
Could have fixed the electoral college but didn’t. Could have codified abortion into the constitution but didn’t. Could have filled RBGs supreme court seat without Senate confirmation regardless of the pearl clutching, but didn’t. Could have put pressure on the justice department to get their investigation done with to get the trial for Trump for treason at least started…but fuck me, they didn’t… seriously- they couldn’t put a case together in 3 years???
Could have, should have, would have. Fucking useless.
I agree, but also stand by my point. In a horrible 2 party system, they’re simply “not conservative”, and so I’m forced to vote for them. That being said, Bernie should have won.
Bernie got railroaded.
They are conservative though.
Ah yes, so the best option is to not vote and let them succeed unimpeded.
The best option is to scream at anyone who isn’t fucking delighted that your side of the party has moved so far to the right that they’re supporting genocide.
No one can gripe about your shit wing of the party.
In my country we stopped voting the socdem party, because they betrayed the workers. From one election to the next they lost like half the votes.
For 4 years the conservative party ruled. But after that the socdem change their politics we voted them again and had had a fairly leftist government for the last year.
They are slacking again so I plan not to vote next election, hoping thar more people get the memo, they sink again in votes and sit to think on why people felt betrayed, and change for the better.
4 years of conservative party were worthy giving that after the socdems turned left again we conquer a lot of things that we wouldn’t have gotten otherwise if we would have keep on voting their moderate centrist version.
In the US the ruling party fills lifetime judicial appointments, which means the 4 years of conservative rule can have decades of lasting impact that will thwart any progressive policies that the next leftish government tries to implement.
You can get around the courts. FDR did.
Then they better fucking learn quick, huh?
Ah yes, so the best option is to not vote and let them succeed unimpeded.
Your very first lines are a false dichotomy.
Because yes, “the left” never changes anything, and only goes further right.
(hint: That’s not how this works)
Over the decades we’ve made massive strides in equal rights for various marginalized groups. But sometimes the dance takes a step backwards before moving forward again.
Homie, the Democraes right now are pretty much as much on the political right as the republicans were in the 90s.
Smugly claiming “that’s not how this works” isn’t as good a point as you think it is.
In an American vacuum I could see where you are coming from. In comparison with literally the entire rest of the world, it is clearly a flawed standpoint.
The American Democratic party is the oldest standing political party in the entire world. It last changed it’s political stances in the 1960’s and not because they wanted to, but because they needed to respond to the Republicans flipping the entire south in their favor.
Other countries have real leftist parties that actually get government members elected.
Also the lesser evil kills all enthousiam and loses the election.
Which is just fine by the lesser evil wing of the party.
Incidentally that’s also the effect of not voting for the lesser evil, you can just cut out the two steps in the middle then.
So if you don’t vote for the lesser evil it gets salty and joins the evil? Yeah i am not voting for that psycho manipulating abusive shit.
So if you don’t vote for the lesser evil it gets salty and joins the evil?
Not quite. If you don’t vote for the lesser evil, it loses influence, which means the greater evil has it easier to shift things over in their direction and control the narrative. They’ve won after all, so clearly that’s what the voters want. The lesser evil will take cues from this.
(It should also be said that this whole meme only really applies to shitty 2-party systems. In a proper parliamentary democracy, you have more realististic choices than “greater evil” and “lesser evil” and don’t have to play this stupid game at all.)
The two party System is more a consequence of first past the post than the system they are voted into.
If you look at Canada as an example in the last 30 years the parties on the right have amalgamated and have been rewarded for it as the vote splitting on the left is what gets them elected. It’s just a matter of time until the left follow suit and then 🎉 two party system.
Yeah, I agree. FPTP is a horrible system that will inevitably lead to this kind of situation.
The same shit happens in systems with more than two parties. You also have the problem to think about rallying behind the main party on the left or right side vs. one that is closer to your ideals but probably wont become part of the government coalition. In Germany, where i am from, we had 12 out of 16 years under Merkel with a “big coalition” of the conservative CDU and the social democrat SPD. All that happened was the SPD moving more and more to the right. Now we had a coalition that was supposedly progressive but collapsed hard as well as the Green party and liberal party FDP also moving strongly to the right. We now in 2024 have policies among the supposed center/center-left that used to be fringe far right by German standards. This is why voting “tactically” or for “the lesser evil” fails. It gives a false sense of what is demanded by the people.
Also for the narrative control just take the win of Biden in 2020 as a counter example. Despite Trump holding office the Dems managed to win.
I’m also from Germany and I don’t think it’s a similar situation at all. In our system, it’s absolutely possible and doable for a new party to arise and gain influence. You don’t have to vote for the lesser evil, you can find a party that actually suits you and there is a realistic shot of getting it elected if enough people want it to happen. We’ve gotten 2 new parties in parliament over the last decade (I don’t like either of them, but that’s beside the point). And yes, we have a general shift to the right in Germany as well, but that’s more due to the actual attitudes of the population, a generally weak left and things like Russian influence. Contrary to the US, voters can absolutely reverse that trend though.
In a system like the US, that’s almost impossible. Let’s say the democrats split up into left-wing democrats and right-wing democrats. Half of the voter base goes to either party, so 25% of the population votes for each. However, elections are “first past the post”, so even if the left gained a lot of voters and reached, say, 35%, it will be a total victory for the Republican party. Any party that can’t get an absolute majority of votes is powerless. The momentum for a new party to get to power would have to be insane.
Also for the narrative control just take the win of Biden in 2020 as a counter example. Despite Trump holding office the Dems managed to win.
Well, yes, but pretty much exclusively by running on a lesser evil “We’re not Trump” platform. Had the Trump presidency never happened, it could have been way more about actual policy.
Then they don’t need to worry about your vote and are stuck competing for the remaining voters
Well, they would get my vote if they changed their policies and behaviour. If you vote them no matter what they dont have to fight for it. (Note i am not a US citizen but the same principles apply. I have similar dissapointment with the formerly progressive parties in my country moving to the right)
And we can also observe this empirically with the current election. The Dems were so tone deaf that they thought to compete over Reps not too happy with Trump, fielding people like Dick fucking Cheney as their advocates. Meanwhile they lost a lot of votes they expected to just have secure because they expected the voters to be blindly loyal hence irrelevant to their strategy.
You perceive it going the opposite direction of whatever you are.
This is a lie. People just spread this to trick you into not voting so the Republicans win.
or voting third party in a backwards outdated voting system like that of the US
This is a lie spread by corporate elites that want to make sure both parties align with their interests instead of having Democrats create a popular platform and win on that basis.
Did you learn nothing from hanging on to Biden until even the billionaire donors got scared by his dementia?
How many people did you vote for that weren’t Republican or Democrat in your local elections? If you didn’t vote for them (3rd party, new party) there, don’t expect them to ever exist as a presidential candidate. You can’t even qualify to be on the ballot if you don’t have the party established. You have to petition on all 50 states to be shown there and you will likely be denied on many.
If you don’t like the Republican or Democrat party, a solution would be to get local candidates to run under a new party that fits your views better, still you would NEED to vote for whichever of the 2 parties fits your views best in the presidential vote to SLOW the movement right/left/up/down whatever… And establish that party in enough city’s/counties/states to take seats that matter there. Once known… Then and only then would it be viable to split the vote, and you likely lose 4 years to a hard push into the directions you don’t want… While the final negotiations and realizations of merging or replacing/allying with the lesser evil party.
Likely meaning a pledge that you would hold primaries that would endorse each other if the winner of a primary shows more people. But you cannot and will not win a presidential election if you split the vote and don’t endorse each other
Do you mean that democrats are not centrists?
In most other countries your 2 parties would be classified right wing and extreme right wing.
Every time someone says this they exaggerate the positions further and further to the right, and it becomes less and less true.
You think I did that?
I’m Danish and here your 2 parties would absolutely fit the categories I described. No exaggeration what so ever.
Thank you!
The effect shown isn’t untrue, but the conclusion doesn’t follow from that.
also known as
Things move to the right when the right wins. Things move to the left when the left wins. If the center wins, then things don’t move much at all. The lesser evil prevents greater evil
Removed by mod
Oh my. You win the argument today!
Thank you, thank you for taking the time to put together such a meaningful and well thought-out comment. We are all slightly better off because you paused your surely very important work and gave us your insights.
Removed by mod
a system where you get served only two options to vote for but are held responsible for the outcome instead of those who limited the available options in the first place?
eh yes, you are right, this is stupid.
as a completely unrelated sidenote:
“winner takes it all” is the actual opposite of democracy, no matter how the voting was done, and this fact can already be read 1:1 within those 4 simple words 😉
Removed by mod
Care to explain?
The argument is when there are more than 2 options a majority of people would not have selected the “winner” over any of the other individual losers. Therefore majority rule is an illusion, democracy is self-contradictory!!!
However, by reducing the options to just 2 you no longer have the same result and “democracy” is more “self-consistent”. You can do this in a fair/Democratic way by “simulating” the pairwise interactions (IE ranked choice voting, pairwise majority rule, etc.) or by establishing a false dichotomy (2 party systems, left v right spectrum, etc.).
This is not ‘not a thing’ but it’s a really old idea and is largely solved (ie. Distributed networks like the social media platform we are currently on, or stuff like this).
However, the claim isn’t entirely misplaced as modern social institutions refuse to implement any of those methods because it would be against their best interests as those in power are deeply unpopular (yes, especially your favourites whoever that may be). So yes almost all “Democratic” systems you interact with on a daily basis are inherently self-contradictory on the most cursory of examinations, but they dont have to be.
Removed by mod
I just wish those campaigning were required to provide policy ideas/plans for what they want to do, and where they want the money to come from. In an ideal world I would give the candidates 0 face time, possibly even no names to the public at first. (Would never work but would be interesting)
The options get a set of questions framed around current events, past events, and possible future events that they would give detailed responses to how they would have, would currently or would plan for those events. No party affiliations known. Eliminate contenders from the list by most accepted answers from the lists bringing it from say 50 candidates to 25, then 10, then 5, the 3 then 1. The election period is 6 months. No prior rallys, no posturing, no ads, and no names tied to the responses so no one cares about popularity.
The President is whomever wins 1st, Vice President 2nd, and 3rd place is placed on stand-by but works directly with both members to stay informed. If at any time a person makes decisions as president that the other 2 do not believe coorelate with the responses they gave to the people, they call an emergency vote to veto that directive, and recall a ranked choice vote where the population votes for all 3, where the 1st takes the presidency, 2nd VP, 3rd taking the back seat.
Would be fucking crazy, but at least itd be more fun than what we have now…
I don’t think it’s crazy in the slightest and see no reason why it “would never work”, it’s just not a conservative idea. Why did you feel the need to minimize it so?
Removed by mod
Democracy is mathematically impossible.
if democracy was not possible, how does it come that the greek did democracy and it is said they were once overrun in a war because of beeing democratic? if something was a cause for a turn of a war, i pretty much believe it to really exist, no matter what some kind of half baked formulars “predicted” once.
if democracy existed and your math says thats not possible, i’ld guess your math might simply be ‘slightly’ wrong about it or was created with (un-)intentional biases in mind ;-)
just to note:
in the history of human predictions based on thought through and wordly/mathmatically described rules, the most common thing afterwards was, that those rules and also their predictions were just fundamentally wrong and biased.
Funny that a lot of people see this shit and immediately go but Dem and Rep, this shit applied for a lot of countries that have more than 2 parties. When the more popular parties are all shit people go with “lesser evil”.
This is true, but it’s also STILL WORSE to vote for the greater evil. You need to change the options available to you to fix this.
It’s also true that you get backlashes normally if the system doesn’t get to far out of wack. FDR wasnt right of Hoover Coolridge and Harding. Sure one can argue overall we were shifting to the right… But we were NEVER going to be left of center so long as the U.S. existed, because the constitution is built on capitalism. Capitalism has a slow decay, can it be fixed? Maybe. Is it fixable now, maybe not. Could we have fixed it if we followed Carter with a closer to center President instead of Reagan, A LOT easier to have done it then… It took 60 years to get taxes on the rich to this point.
I don’t think the constitution is very capitalist tbh
Or we can go directly to the bottom frame like we’re gonna do - but go ahead and keep rationalizing why your moral pedestal was too lofty to vote for Kamala.
Only fascists can be accurately represented by Kamala Harris.
So you really think we’re better off with Bonespurs? Cuz realistically he was the only other viable choice, and reality trumps moral purity pedestals.
The image only works if the right always wins though?
No?
Then please explain how this works. This image isn’t doing it for me.
If the republicans win, it goes further right. If the democrats win, it stays where it is. So the only movement is to the right, never left.
That simply explains what’s visible in the image, not whatsoever why.
If the democrats win, it stays where it is.
Like, why is this the general assumption?
If this were true, there wouldn’t ever have been a democratic president, right? Except maybe once in the beginning?
I think you’re taking this a bit more seriously than it’s intended to be, but yeah, there have been Democrat presidents, but there still isn’t gun control, univseral healthcare (not even for children!), etc.
What?
😐… where exactly did I lose you? Just asking “What?” doesn’t really help me to answer you. What is your actual question, please?
The “lesser evil” won in 2020. We didn’t move back to the left.
Are there more examples of this happening? One event isn’t a very good sample size… “IT DIDN’T WORK GUYS, SEE?!”, I mean, sure… But there are more circumstances and variables and conditions to an election lol.
How many times do you want to move to the right and not back to the left? How many more times will it take to satisfy you?
I mean, as long as it’s a stable ratio, the whole concept in this post falls apart. What are the statistics on left/right leaning presidents throughout history?
Does the rightward shift that has resulted in the “good” party supporting genocide indicate stability to you?
It does not, but this happening for one election doesn’t prove an unstable ratio, or rate of change. You have to look at the historical pattern for that.
I don’t think this is the problem of some sort of “phenomenon” of a left party becoming the right party because people are voting for the “lesser evil”. That makes no sense to begin with. If everyone voted for the lesser evil (the left), the lesser evil would not feel the need to take on some evil from the right to please the American people who are voting with their rectums, dropping straight up doo-doo in their ballot boxes. They would be able to just have sane politics. No? Otherwise, why are they doing some evil? And why is the right doing a shit-ton of evil? It’s because they are playing the American people for fools. Exploiting their culture of “protect our land of the fReE” and their “black or white” argumentation and “we vs them”, “good versus evil”, “no gray areas” small brain mentality.
For one election?
Which of GWB’s rightward policies did Obama undo? Which of Reagan/Bush’s policies did Clinton undo?
You’re defending a rightward shift that has been going on for decades.
Pray tell, how is strengthening unions & workers rights, forgiving student loans, not ‘left’? SMH
Pray tell, how is strengthening unions & workers rights
Strikebreaking and photo ops didn’t strengthen shit.
forgiving student loans
Was the only bright spot in his presidency.
Now how was supporting a genocide “left?” I mean, it may be to your left. Maybe you want active participation?
Pray tell, how is genocidal fascism “left”? SMH
Are you chronically hard of thinking? The US approach to Israel isn’t a Democrat thing, and the Biden administration did more to restrict sales than most. But keep banging that drum mate
and the Biden administration did more to restrict sales than most
Oh? Provide examples.
Genocide apologist
Ok I’ll try this again without calling you a c***: saying that X is is not responsible fo Y does not mean that you think that Y is good. In this case, nearly everyone in the US govt (regardless of party affiliation) has supported arms sales to Israel for as long as they’ve held the position. The fact that you think me pointing this out is equivalent to excusing or approving it surprises me, but then many single-issue individuals can get irrationally passionate on those issues, so I shouldn’t have been as surprised as I was I suppose.
Boring cunt
