4 ms·

Both parties are still running primaries. None of the races have happened yet so whether Biden or Trump get the nomination isn’t set in stone. In addition to th

Both parties are still running primaries. None of the races have happened yet so whether Biden or Trump get the nomination isn’t set in stone. In addition to the two major parties, there are several independent and third parties. Because they are not popular enough to win isn’t a condemnation of democracy. That’s how it works.

_heimdall 3y ago
The Republicans are running a primary, though the candidate with by far the most support isn't taking part. Trump will be on the primary ballot and always loves hearing himself talk on an empty stage, but he's avoided debates entirely. That isn't the fault of voters or the party necessarily, though the party can and possibly should require candidates to take part in the primary process if they want to be on the party's ballot. The Democrats effectively aren't running a primary at all. There are technically two challengers[1], though there are no debates planned [2]. RFK was running on the ticket and had plenty of support in polls to warrant primary debates, though he's now running as an independent after what he viewed as a refusal by the party to allow a primary process to challenge Biden (his opinion, I can't vouch for inner workings of the DNC). [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democratic-candidates-running-us-president-2024-2023-09-18/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democratic-candidates-runni... [2] https://deadline.com/feature/2024-presidential-debates-schedule-1235523892/ https://deadline.com/feature/2024-presidential-debates-sched...
- girvo 3y ago
  > RFK was running on the ticket As a non-American, who's RFK? Not the long-dead Robert F Kennedy, of course, but my ability to search that acronym pretty much only brings him up
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    Oh sorry, yeah I shouldn't have gone with initials there! Yes that was referencing Robert F Kennedy
    - girvo 3y ago
      Oh! I must've really misunderstood your comment, my apologies, I thought you were talking about someone today!
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        Well I'm failing at writing clear messages today. I was referencing a candidate today, Rover F Kennedy Jr Honestly I never really think to refer to him as a Junior, his dad was assassinated shortly before I was born, but I should have not only avoided using initials I should have also included the "Jr"
actionfromafar 3y ago
That's not how it works in a first-past-the-post voting system! Third parties can not gain traction. (Hence all the effort spent on co-opting and riding one of the existing parties like a zombie.)
- dartos 3y ago
  This. Third parties effectively exists as free research for what positions will be popular next cycle
- kemotep 3y ago
  Well at one point the Republicans were a third party. Yes First past the post is terrible, but to say your candidate can’t win without getting the most votes is how nearly all election systems work. A lot needs to be reformed with regards to voting and election systems in the US but to claim it is impossible for a third party to win is factually incorrect. How else would independent politicians like Bernie Sanders or third party candidates like Abraham Lincoln would have ever been elected?
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    That's not how nearly all election systems work. Who wins is often not determined on election day, but in coalition making after the election. If you have 5 - 10 parties, it's often not immediately apparent on election night who can gather a majority behind them.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    Agreed that third parties are possible, though it is still worth noting that a third party win would almost certainly result in an existing party being replaced for a different two party system. The parties in the US have changed around something like 5 or 6 times. In the last 2 or 3 changes the party names didn't change but the parties did fundamentally change. After each shakeup, we've ended up with a two party system that's structurally unworkable for independents to win at the highest level.

_heimdall 3y ago

The Republicans are running a primary, though the candidate with by far the most support isn't taking part. Trump will be on the primary ballot and always loves hearing himself talk on an empty stage, but he's avoided debates entirely. That isn't the fault of voters or the party necessarily, though the party can and possibly should require candidates to take part in the primary process if they want to be on the party's ballot. The Democrats effectively aren't running a primary at all. There are technically two challengers[1], though there are no debates planned [2]. RFK was running on the ticket and had plenty of support in polls to warrant primary debates, though he's now running as an independent after what he viewed as a refusal by the party to allow a primary process to challenge Biden (his opinion, I can't vouch for inner workings of the DNC). [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democratic-candidates-running-us-president-2024-2023-09-18/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democratic-candidates-runni... [2] https://deadline.com/feature/2024-presidential-debates-schedule-1235523892/ https://deadline.com/feature/2024-presidential-debates-sched...

girvo 3y ago
> RFK was running on the ticket As a non-American, who's RFK? Not the long-dead Robert F Kennedy, of course, but my ability to search that acronym pretty much only brings him up
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Oh sorry, yeah I shouldn't have gone with initials there! Yes that was referencing Robert F Kennedy
  - girvo 3y ago
    Oh! I must've really misunderstood your comment, my apologies, I thought you were talking about someone today!
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      Well I'm failing at writing clear messages today. I was referencing a candidate today, Rover F Kennedy Jr Honestly I never really think to refer to him as a Junior, his dad was assassinated shortly before I was born, but I should have not only avoided using initials I should have also included the "Jr"

actionfromafar 3y ago

That's not how it works in a first-past-the-post voting system! Third parties can not gain traction. (Hence all the effort spent on co-opting and riding one of the existing parties like a zombie.)

dartos 3y ago
This. Third parties effectively exists as free research for what positions will be popular next cycle
kemotep 3y ago
Well at one point the Republicans were a third party. Yes First past the post is terrible, but to say your candidate can’t win without getting the most votes is how nearly all election systems work. A lot needs to be reformed with regards to voting and election systems in the US but to claim it is impossible for a third party to win is factually incorrect. How else would independent politicians like Bernie Sanders or third party candidates like Abraham Lincoln would have ever been elected?
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  That's not how nearly all election systems work. Who wins is often not determined on election day, but in coalition making after the election. If you have 5 - 10 parties, it's often not immediately apparent on election night who can gather a majority behind them.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Agreed that third parties are possible, though it is still worth noting that a third party win would almost certainly result in an existing party being replaced for a different two party system. The parties in the US have changed around something like 5 or 6 times. In the last 2 or 3 changes the party names didn't change but the parties did fundamentally change. After each shakeup, we've ended up with a two party system that's structurally unworkable for independents to win at the highest level.