4 ms·

They are the same on boxing out third parties. While Democrats don't like losing to Republicans they also don't like losing to a third party. Elected Democrats

They are the same on boxing out third parties. While Democrats don't like losing to Republicans they also don't like losing to a third party. Elected Democrats oppose any system that modifies the status quo that "correctly" elected them.

jeffrallen 2y ago
[flagged]
- ecb_penguin 2y ago
  > There is no party less democratic than the Democratic party This is such nonsense there's no reason to take you serious as a person. The two independents in Congress caucus with the Democrats. > Their preferred world is a two party system where the Republicans are losing. A private political party doesn't support other private political parties?! Definitely a first in the world.
  - jeffrallen 2y ago
    The problem is that their revealed preference is "keep a two party system", when another choice would be "support coalitions in order to broaden the discourse and ensure the most democratic outcome possible".
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      And yet there's multiple areas where Democrats have introduced systems for getting better support for independent and third parties... Meanwhile Republicans have pre-emptively banned all forms of ranked choice voting at all government levels in eleven states. But do go on.
    - ecb_penguin 2y ago
      A private political party does not have to support positions it does not agree with, while simultaneously losing strength to advance their own agenda. Democrats are an organization with a specific political agenda. As are Republicans, and every other party. It doesn't help that most of our third parties are terrible choices too.
- Braxton1980 2y ago
  What's the preferred world for Republicans?
TimorousBestie 2y ago
They are not. Some form of non-first-past-the-post election system is necessary for any third party to become viable. Democrats pushed for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine and Alaska. Republicans have been trying to repeal both since implementation, and now have proposed a federal ban on RCV. These are not the same.
- pxx 2y ago
  It doesn't matter. Hare/Instant Runoff voting (deceivingly marketed as "ranked-choice voting" in the US) neither empirically [0] nor theoretically [1] improves the viability of third parties. Honestly IRV is worse than plurality so there are plenty of reasons to oppose it other than a two-party domination conspiracy theory. Using IRV gives up monotonicity, possibilities for a distributed count, and some elements of a secret ballot (for even a medium-sized candidate list) for basically nothing. Monotonicity is not a theoretical concern. Alaska almost immediately ran into a degenerate case [2]. [0] https://rangevoting.org/NoIrv.html https://rangevoting.org/NoIrv.html [1] http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Alaska%27s_at-large_congressional_district_special_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Alaska%27s_at-large_congr...
  - TimorousBestie 2y ago
    I would be happy to support literally any alternative voting scheme, but the context of this thread is actually-existing American democracy.
    - pxx 2y ago
      Why? IRV will poison the well against actually usable voting schemes. It practically already has.
  - Izkata 2y ago
    > Alaska almost immediately ran into a degenerate case [2]. And probably without even trying. Once it becomes better known, gaming the system like this will happen more often.
V__ 2y ago
To make third parties viable would require to move away from "First-past-the-post", which is much more heavily opposed by the GOP then vice versa.
ramesh31 2y ago
>They are the same on boxing out third parties. Because we have a two party system. Third parties are nothing more than spoilers. If their ideas were good enough, they could gain traction with one side or the other, and build a caucus to get their candidates elected. But they don't, because that's never the actual goal.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > If their ideas were good enough, they could gain traction with one side or the other I don't see any reason to think this is accurate.
  - ramesh31 2y ago
    >I don't see any reason to think this is accurate. We are living through a successful attempt at this right now. The Tea Party completely engulfed what was once the GOP and morphed into MAGAism. Sadly the progressive wings of the Democratic party never got the memo, and wrote them off until it was too late.
    - JohnFen 2y ago
      How is that an example? That's assuming that the Tea Party has good ideas and that's why it was able to take over the Republicans. It may very well be that the Tea Party's success had nothing to do with the merit of their ideas and more to do with an expression of rage.
    - tstrimple 2y ago
      The Democratic party does its best to isolate their more "radical" voters and politicians and does whatever it can to try to appeal to whatever their consultants tell them the "median" voter is. The Republican party embraces its most crazy elements from the depths of Twitter and puts them on a national stage.
    - alabastervlog 2y ago
      > Sadly the progressive wings of the Democratic party never got the memo, and wrote them off until it was too late. Eh? They've never meaningfully had control of the party, and are surely far more willing to e.g. abandon neoliberalism to avoid that handicap vs. a MAGA-ified Republican Party that's abandoned neoliberalism, than most of the rest of the Democratic Party is. It's the 3rd-way sorts and "centrists" who've been, and remained, in charge of setting direction and who've just kept on trucking with the "we mustn't upset the status quo!" and "maybe courting traditional Republicans will suddenly start working, so we should keep trying that" strategy, no?
alabastervlog 2y ago
That's structural. Our system stabilizes at two viable parties. For one of the two to encourage a third party, without changing the system first (which would likely mean constitutional amendments, so, will never happen) would be to invite the imminent destruction of one of the two existing parties—probably their own, if they're promoting parties at-all similar to theirs.
enragedcacti 2y ago
Democrats at state and local levels have implemented ranked choice voting in dozens of municipalities despite it being beneficial for intraparty challengers and 3rd party candidates. Republicans have preemptively banned it in 11 states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
platevoltage 2y ago
Democrats are in no danger of losing to a third party. They are in danger of being spoiled by them. It makes sense to oppose them. If they don't like it, they should be pushing for ranked-choice voting.
- poulsbohemian 2y ago
  >If they don't like it, they should be pushing for ranked-choice voting. The Washington State Democrats are about to have one of our regular meetings this coming weekend, and I guarantee as is the case all all of our meetings, there will be a contingent encouraging all of us to support RCV. As a candidate, I've already been approached again this year as to whether I will support it. It's absolutely a discussion point within our party.

jeffrallen 2y ago

[flagged]

ecb_penguin 2y ago
> There is no party less democratic than the Democratic party This is such nonsense there's no reason to take you serious as a person. The two independents in Congress caucus with the Democrats. > Their preferred world is a two party system where the Republicans are losing. A private political party doesn't support other private political parties?! Definitely a first in the world.
- jeffrallen 2y ago
  The problem is that their revealed preference is "keep a two party system", when another choice would be "support coalitions in order to broaden the discourse and ensure the most democratic outcome possible".
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    And yet there's multiple areas where Democrats have introduced systems for getting better support for independent and third parties... Meanwhile Republicans have pre-emptively banned all forms of ranked choice voting at all government levels in eleven states. But do go on.
  - ecb_penguin 2y ago
    A private political party does not have to support positions it does not agree with, while simultaneously losing strength to advance their own agenda. Democrats are an organization with a specific political agenda. As are Republicans, and every other party. It doesn't help that most of our third parties are terrible choices too.
Braxton1980 2y ago
What's the preferred world for Republicans?

TimorousBestie 2y ago

They are not. Some form of non-first-past-the-post election system is necessary for any third party to become viable. Democrats pushed for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine and Alaska. Republicans have been trying to repeal both since implementation, and now have proposed a federal ban on RCV. These are not the same.

pxx 2y ago
It doesn't matter. Hare/Instant Runoff voting (deceivingly marketed as "ranked-choice voting" in the US) neither empirically [0] nor theoretically [1] improves the viability of third parties. Honestly IRV is worse than plurality so there are plenty of reasons to oppose it other than a two-party domination conspiracy theory. Using IRV gives up monotonicity, possibilities for a distributed count, and some elements of a secret ballot (for even a medium-sized candidate list) for basically nothing. Monotonicity is not a theoretical concern. Alaska almost immediately ran into a degenerate case [2]. [0] https://rangevoting.org/NoIrv.html https://rangevoting.org/NoIrv.html [1] http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Alaska%27s_at-large_congressional_district_special_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Alaska%27s_at-large_congr...
- TimorousBestie 2y ago
  I would be happy to support literally any alternative voting scheme, but the context of this thread is actually-existing American democracy.
  - pxx 2y ago
    Why? IRV will poison the well against actually usable voting schemes. It practically already has.
- Izkata 2y ago
  > Alaska almost immediately ran into a degenerate case [2]. And probably without even trying. Once it becomes better known, gaming the system like this will happen more often.

V__ 2y ago

To make third parties viable would require to move away from "First-past-the-post", which is much more heavily opposed by the GOP then vice versa.

ramesh31 2y ago

>They are the same on boxing out third parties. Because we have a two party system. Third parties are nothing more than spoilers. If their ideas were good enough, they could gain traction with one side or the other, and build a caucus to get their candidates elected. But they don't, because that's never the actual goal.

JohnFen 2y ago
> If their ideas were good enough, they could gain traction with one side or the other I don't see any reason to think this is accurate.
- ramesh31 2y ago
  >I don't see any reason to think this is accurate. We are living through a successful attempt at this right now. The Tea Party completely engulfed what was once the GOP and morphed into MAGAism. Sadly the progressive wings of the Democratic party never got the memo, and wrote them off until it was too late.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    How is that an example? That's assuming that the Tea Party has good ideas and that's why it was able to take over the Republicans. It may very well be that the Tea Party's success had nothing to do with the merit of their ideas and more to do with an expression of rage.
  - tstrimple 2y ago
    The Democratic party does its best to isolate their more "radical" voters and politicians and does whatever it can to try to appeal to whatever their consultants tell them the "median" voter is. The Republican party embraces its most crazy elements from the depths of Twitter and puts them on a national stage.
  - alabastervlog 2y ago
    > Sadly the progressive wings of the Democratic party never got the memo, and wrote them off until it was too late. Eh? They've never meaningfully had control of the party, and are surely far more willing to e.g. abandon neoliberalism to avoid that handicap vs. a MAGA-ified Republican Party that's abandoned neoliberalism, than most of the rest of the Democratic Party is. It's the 3rd-way sorts and "centrists" who've been, and remained, in charge of setting direction and who've just kept on trucking with the "we mustn't upset the status quo!" and "maybe courting traditional Republicans will suddenly start working, so we should keep trying that" strategy, no?

alabastervlog 2y ago

That's structural. Our system stabilizes at two viable parties. For one of the two to encourage a third party, without changing the system first (which would likely mean constitutional amendments, so, will never happen) would be to invite the imminent destruction of one of the two existing parties—probably their own, if they're promoting parties at-all similar to theirs.

enragedcacti 2y ago

Democrats at state and local levels have implemented ranked choice voting in dozens of municipalities despite it being beneficial for intraparty challengers and 3rd party candidates. Republicans have preemptively banned it in 11 states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

platevoltage 2y ago

Democrats are in no danger of losing to a third party. They are in danger of being spoiled by them. It makes sense to oppose them. If they don't like it, they should be pushing for ranked-choice voting.

poulsbohemian 2y ago
>If they don't like it, they should be pushing for ranked-choice voting. The Washington State Democrats are about to have one of our regular meetings this coming weekend, and I guarantee as is the case all all of our meetings, there will be a contingent encouraging all of us to support RCV. As a candidate, I've already been approached again this year as to whether I will support it. It's absolutely a discussion point within our party.