In any nation with first past the post elections, like the United States, Leftists have exactly one rational voting strategy:
Step 1. Identify the two front-runner parties, and determine which of the two is further left relative to the other.
Step 2. Vote for that party in every single election (don’t forget midterms and local elections). Encourage everyone you know to do the same.
Step 3. Once the (relative) left party has an overwhelming majority (over 2/3) and the relative right party becomes vanishingly irrelevant (under 1/3), then split the (relative) left party into its own relative left and right.
Step 4. Repeat steps 1-3 with these new front-runner parties.
Step 5. Iterate step 4 until your relative left party passes election reform such that elections are no longer susceptible to Duverger’s Law.
Certainly try to push for reform within the relative left party between elections and during primaries, but at the ballot box the above is the only rational strategy. Voting third party, or refusing to vote the lesser evil, is not a rational strategy.
What I fail to understand Is how will you split the left party (step 3).
Do citizens in the US can choose what candidates the parties push forward?
If not: Why would the left party propose leftier candidates? They know that as long as their guy is not as “bad” as the competition you will vote for them and they are “sponsored” by the same corporations which dont like leftist policies.
Theres no incentive for them to turn further left; Is it?
Voting third party splits the vote. Once over 2/3s of voters are voting for the left party, voters can comfortably vote for a more progressive party without worrying about vote splitting. For example, if Democrats consistently get 70% of the vote, progressive voters can rally behind a progressive party. It’s not that you’re actually splitting the Democratic party, you’re just splitting the voters between the Democratic and Progressive parties.
That kinda makes sense, but for the dems to consistently get 70 what needs to change is the political views of the voters, right? For that to happen they need to believe the dem party is actually the best option and for that to happen the dem party must lean way more left. But again; Why would they do that if you are already rewarding them for being “not as bad”.
I forgot to mention before that you are basing this strategy on another fallacy. “First past the post” means nothing when hillary won the popular vote in 2016 and still lost the presidency.
“First past the post” means nothing when hillary won the popular vote in 2016 and still lost the presidency.
The fact that the relevant electors are Electoral College members, and not the general population, doesn’t change FPTP.
Further, the Dems are unambiguously the better option. Them not being good enough doesn’t make than worse than Repubs. Expecting them to change is not a voting strategy. Running about it as “rewarding” them is counterproductive. What needs to change out is progressive turnout, Once we have the turnout then we can start talking about better alternatives to the Dems. Until then it’s a moot point.
Progressives refusing to settle for the lesser evil is why they don’t have 70% representation
Certainly try to push for reform within the relative left party between elections and during primaries
Democrats aren’t open to having these discussions. The moment people started criticizing Biden for opening more concentration camps, Democrats dug in their heels and became defensive, lashing out at anyone with valid criticism and calling us “Russian bots,” accusing us of secretly supporting Trump, and this behavior has continued since then, and it seems to emit from the majority of all centrist and conservative Democrats.
The idea that we can push for change is a nice thought, but it doesn’t work when they’re not open to valid criticism of a sitting president.
Even this pretty moderate post has been reported by liberals and other bad-faith actors who are not open to discussing anything to the left of Reagan.
Sure, but by focusing on that line, which was a nice afterthought ,you’re ignoring the rest of the comment, which was the functionally important part. Regardless of any other actions and considerations, it is imperative to vote in every election, and to vote for the further left of the two front-runner parties, which at the moment would be the Democrats.
Every other other action is, pragmatically, secondary to increasing Leftist voter turnout. Any action that discourages Leftist voter turnout (e.g. refusing to vote for the lesser evil on principle because it’s still evil) is counterproductive. Democrats don’t care about having discussions with progressives because progressives don’t show up to vote, and they know the ones that do know better than to split the vote.
If every progressive voted, and Democrats consistently won 70% of the vote, the Republican threat would disappear, and the Democrats would not longer be safe by virtue of Duverger’s Law. Then a Progressive party could meaningfully emerge, meaningfully threaten Democrats, and Democrats would have to actually have those discussions.
People have straight up gloated to me that something like 70% of voters support our fascist border policy and arming a genocidal state. What makes you so sure we can fix this by voting?
Also, I don’t buy the idea that right-wing liberals would listen to leftists if we vote. I vote in every election, but they still treat me like absolute trash. They love that people are suffering and that they can gloat that there’s no effective way to save them.
FFS look at the maniacal comments in this thread. And this is actually better than the norm.
If we can’t fix this by 100% voter turnout, then our ideals aren’t popular, and democracy has spoken.
What is your pragmatic alternative? What strategy is 1. Actionable and 2. Effective 3. Incompatible with the process I outlined above? Widespread change will be a function of multi-modal effort, there’s no reason not to commit to higher turnout while simultaneously pushing for change in other ways. Defeatist outlooks are what the opposition wants, don’t reward them.
If we can’t fix this by 100% voter turnout, then our ideals aren’t popular, and democracy has spoken.
And there are supposed to be failsafes to prevent tyranny of the majority. Did you forget that? Was slavery ok in the antebellum south because the majority supported it? No. You can’t just trample on human lives simply because a majority support it.
Anarchism has failsafes for this since hierarchical structures are by definition not welcome. Our system does not? Then let’s burn it to the ground.
I know the answer btw. I’m speaking rhetorically. It’s obvious that our system results in genocide. I mean, we have an active genocide against indigenous people.
Do you support trampling on human rights and committing atrocities like genocide simply because the majority support it? Please answer this, because if you think this is fine, then I’m done trying to get through to you.
Edit: And before you say “of course that’s not what I’m saying,” I’ve had a centrist liberal tell me recently that yes, these atrocities are fine as long as the majority support them, and that was told to me by PugJesus, right-winger and mod on lemmy.world
Anarchism has failsafes for this since hierarchical structures are by definition not welcome.
How does it enforce that unwelcomeness? As much as I ideologically align with anarchism in principle, I don’t see the mechanism for it to preserve what is and isn’t “allowed” under it’s principles. Especially not the ad hoc, spontaneous, nominal anarchism that would result if you burned the current system to the ground.
What stops a charismatic figurehead from rallying the portion of the population that finds authoritarianism comforting, and starting their own fascist hierarchy? The current system may not be perfect, but at least the checks and balances provide some obstacle to despotism. What do you replace that material obstacle with? “Hey! You’re not supposed to do that!”?
I am familiar with the literature. As I said, I identify with it ideologically. It presents philosophical ideals and optimistic, aspirational hypotheticals, built on microscopic examples. Speak for yourself. You tell me how a population not yet widely versed in, and committed to, stable anarcho-communism, prevents the rise of authoritarianism in the ashes of our system, recently burned.
Not a stable anarchic society, a chaotic power vacuum; the transitory state of lawlessness. Explain to me how a stable anarchy spontaneously emerges, because I can show you dozens of historic examples of how authoritarianism spontaneously emerges.
What is your pragmatic alternative? What strategy is 1. Actionable and 2. Effective 3. Incompatible with the process I outlined above? Widespread change will be a function of multi-modal effort, there’s no reason not to commit to higher turnout while simultaneously pushing for change in other ways. Defeatist outlooks are what the opposition wants, don’t reward them
So in other words, doing exactly what I’ve been suggesting this entire time? Or what do you think that I’ve been saying? I vote in every election, and I’m still not allowed to complain when my president commits genocide? Is that what you’re saying, or what exactly is your point?? What is it you’re trying to convince me of that I’m not already doing?
Any action that discourages Leftist voter turnout (e.g. refusing to vote for the lesser evil on principle because it’s still evil) is counterproductive.
In any nation with first past the post elections, like the United States, Leftists have exactly one rational voting strategy:
Step 1. Identify the two front-runner parties, and determine which of the two is further left relative to the other.
Step 2. Vote for that party in every single election (don’t forget midterms and local elections). Encourage everyone you know to do the same.
Step 3. Once the (relative) left party has an overwhelming majority (over 2/3) and the relative right party becomes vanishingly irrelevant (under 1/3), then split the (relative) left party into its own relative left and right.
Step 4. Repeat steps 1-3 with these new front-runner parties.
Step 5. Iterate step 4 until your relative left party passes election reform such that elections are no longer susceptible to Duverger’s Law.
Certainly try to push for reform within the relative left party between elections and during primaries, but at the ballot box the above is the only rational strategy. Voting third party, or refusing to vote the lesser evil, is not a rational strategy.
What I fail to understand Is how will you split the left party (step 3).
Do citizens in the US can choose what candidates the parties push forward?
If not: Why would the left party propose leftier candidates? They know that as long as their guy is not as “bad” as the competition you will vote for them and they are “sponsored” by the same corporations which dont like leftist policies.
Theres no incentive for them to turn further left; Is it?
Voting third party splits the vote. Once over 2/3s of voters are voting for the left party, voters can comfortably vote for a more progressive party without worrying about vote splitting. For example, if Democrats consistently get 70% of the vote, progressive voters can rally behind a progressive party. It’s not that you’re actually splitting the Democratic party, you’re just splitting the voters between the Democratic and Progressive parties.
That kinda makes sense, but for the dems to consistently get 70 what needs to change is the political views of the voters, right? For that to happen they need to believe the dem party is actually the best option and for that to happen the dem party must lean way more left. But again; Why would they do that if you are already rewarding them for being “not as bad”.
I forgot to mention before that you are basing this strategy on another fallacy. “First past the post” means nothing when hillary won the popular vote in 2016 and still lost the presidency.
The fact that the relevant electors are Electoral College members, and not the general population, doesn’t change FPTP.
Further, the Dems are unambiguously the better option. Them not being good enough doesn’t make than worse than Repubs. Expecting them to change is not a voting strategy. Running about it as “rewarding” them is counterproductive. What needs to change out is progressive turnout, Once we have the turnout then we can start talking about better alternatives to the Dems. Until then it’s a moot point. Progressives refusing to settle for the lesser evil is why they don’t have 70% representation
Democrats aren’t open to having these discussions. The moment people started criticizing Biden for opening more concentration camps, Democrats dug in their heels and became defensive, lashing out at anyone with valid criticism and calling us “Russian bots,” accusing us of secretly supporting Trump, and this behavior has continued since then, and it seems to emit from the majority of all centrist and conservative Democrats.
The idea that we can push for change is a nice thought, but it doesn’t work when they’re not open to valid criticism of a sitting president.
Even this pretty moderate post has been reported by liberals and other bad-faith actors who are not open to discussing anything to the left of Reagan.
Sure, but by focusing on that line, which was a nice afterthought ,you’re ignoring the rest of the comment, which was the functionally important part. Regardless of any other actions and considerations, it is imperative to vote in every election, and to vote for the further left of the two front-runner parties, which at the moment would be the Democrats.
Every other other action is, pragmatically, secondary to increasing Leftist voter turnout. Any action that discourages Leftist voter turnout (e.g. refusing to vote for the lesser evil on principle because it’s still evil) is counterproductive. Democrats don’t care about having discussions with progressives because progressives don’t show up to vote, and they know the ones that do know better than to split the vote.
If every progressive voted, and Democrats consistently won 70% of the vote, the Republican threat would disappear, and the Democrats would not longer be safe by virtue of Duverger’s Law. Then a Progressive party could meaningfully emerge, meaningfully threaten Democrats, and Democrats would have to actually have those discussions.
People have straight up gloated to me that something like 70% of voters support our fascist border policy and arming a genocidal state. What makes you so sure we can fix this by voting?
Also, I don’t buy the idea that right-wing liberals would listen to leftists if we vote. I vote in every election, but they still treat me like absolute trash. They love that people are suffering and that they can gloat that there’s no effective way to save them.
FFS look at the maniacal comments in this thread. And this is actually better than the norm.
If we can’t fix this by 100% voter turnout, then our ideals aren’t popular, and democracy has spoken.
What is your pragmatic alternative? What strategy is 1. Actionable and 2. Effective 3. Incompatible with the process I outlined above? Widespread change will be a function of multi-modal effort, there’s no reason not to commit to higher turnout while simultaneously pushing for change in other ways. Defeatist outlooks are what the opposition wants, don’t reward them.
And there are supposed to be failsafes to prevent tyranny of the majority. Did you forget that? Was slavery ok in the antebellum south because the majority supported it? No. You can’t just trample on human lives simply because a majority support it.
Anarchism has failsafes for this since hierarchical structures are by definition not welcome. Our system does not? Then let’s burn it to the ground.
I know the answer btw. I’m speaking rhetorically. It’s obvious that our system results in genocide. I mean, we have an active genocide against indigenous people.
Do you support trampling on human rights and committing atrocities like genocide simply because the majority support it? Please answer this, because if you think this is fine, then I’m done trying to get through to you.
Edit: And before you say “of course that’s not what I’m saying,” I’ve had a centrist liberal tell me recently that yes, these atrocities are fine as long as the majority support them, and that was told to me by PugJesus, right-winger and mod on lemmy.world
How does it enforce that unwelcomeness? As much as I ideologically align with anarchism in principle, I don’t see the mechanism for it to preserve what is and isn’t “allowed” under it’s principles. Especially not the ad hoc, spontaneous, nominal anarchism that would result if you burned the current system to the ground.
What stops a charismatic figurehead from rallying the portion of the population that finds authoritarianism comforting, and starting their own fascist hierarchy? The current system may not be perfect, but at least the checks and balances provide some obstacle to despotism. What do you replace that material obstacle with? “Hey! You’re not supposed to do that!”?
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
I am familiar with the literature. As I said, I identify with it ideologically. It presents philosophical ideals and optimistic, aspirational hypotheticals, built on microscopic examples. Speak for yourself. You tell me how a population not yet widely versed in, and committed to, stable anarcho-communism, prevents the rise of authoritarianism in the ashes of our system, recently burned.
Not a stable anarchic society, a chaotic power vacuum; the transitory state of lawlessness. Explain to me how a stable anarchy spontaneously emerges, because I can show you dozens of historic examples of how authoritarianism spontaneously emerges.
So in other words, doing exactly what I’ve been suggesting this entire time? Or what do you think that I’ve been saying? I vote in every election, and I’m still not allowed to complain when my president commits genocide? Is that what you’re saying, or what exactly is your point?? What is it you’re trying to convince me of that I’m not already doing?