499
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by jordanlund@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

"Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst Thälmann made in 1932. The leader of the German Communist Party, Thälmann saw mainstream liberals as his enemies, and so the center and left never joined forces against the Nazis. Thälmann famously said that 'some Nazi trees must not be allowed to overshadow a forest' of social democrats, whom he sneeringly called 'social fascists.'

After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, Thälmann was arrested. He was shot on Hitler’s orders in Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 69 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

We desperately need more real third-party participation in politics, but voting for third parties in presidential elections doesn’t make that happen—the US voting system isn’t a business that adapts its products to meet consumer demand.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 38 points 2 months ago

Yup. We need ranked choice balloting first.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

in presidential elections

Or in House of Representative, or Senate. The real power is in Congress.

[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 28 points 2 months ago

Local elections is where most of the current people in power got started. Anyone voting for third party in the presidential race missed the boat.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 months ago

Vote progressives into local offices so they can get experience to work in state offices so they can get experience to work in Congress so they can get experience to be a good presidential candidate. Also to fill offices at every level with progressives.

[-] Pandantic@midwest.social 2 points 2 months ago

And it’s a hell of a lot easier to reform voting there too.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 months ago

That... is the exact opposite of what the article is arguing. If one side of the political spectrum (inevitably right-wing) unites, they immediately run over the side that is split up into different fragments that are arguing over just how much of a school lunch should be subsidized by the government.

And we have seen this in the modern day as well. A couple months back basically the entire Left/Center-Left of France had to unite to try and prevent fascists from taking power and... it is unclear if they actually succeeded.

Its fun to parrot the exact same text every single time a topic comes up. But shit like this is a lot more important than meming about Subway and it is well worth understanding what efforts do and don't address and think through those problems. Otherwise we just leave ourselves more and more vulnerable to hate.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

The point though is that ranked choice allows you all the benefits of 3rd parties without the downsides.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

One can just as easily argue that that is the point of primaries in the US and other countries. You get a wide range of left and right leaning candidates and you downselect based on who the majority wants as well as general election theory to handle moderates.

And... the end result is that people get incredibly pissy when their candidate doesn't win and disenfranchise themselves. Theoretically, a very strict ranked choice model that requires ALL candidates to be ranked could help with that but you still get into the realm of "protest votes". See: People who refused to vote for Biden because he had shit stances on genocide and who would have given trump, who is openly genocidal, the win.

The reality is that we need to actually educate people on how governments work to undo decades of "haw haw, douche or a turd sandwich" levels of narrative. But we also need the politicians to actually unite against common threats. The fascists already understand that. But the Left continues to infight at every opportunity.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

voting for third parties in presidential elections doesn’t make that happen

In a winner-take-all system, the marginal votes on the winning and losing side don't matter. Third parties are an extrapolation of this principle. But when you're voting in a state that is 60/40 for a given party, any individual vote for a given party is equally meaningful.

The only real benefit to valuing a Big Two party over a Third Party is if you're in a swing state, where the odds of your vote being the tipping point are reasonably high. And even then, the powers invested in the partisan state secretary and county election's commissioner offices render that decision relatively meaningless.

People losing their shit at Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan in 2000 seem to have completely overlooked the impact of the mass voter disenfranchisement under Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, the Butterfly Ballot design that confused voters into voting Buchanan over Gore, as well as the transformative impact of the Brooks Brother's Riot and the subsequent SCOTUS decision to halt the vote count in Dem leaning districts.

At some level, Americans must stop treating their elections process as free and fair, and then deflecting blame of defeat onto anyone who doesn't vote for your favorite candidate.

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 2 months ago

Tbf, it very much appears similar to battered partner syndrome. It's going to be painful either way, but if I stay blah blah blah.

[-] index@sh.itjust.works -4 points 2 months ago

Don't feed up on the propaganda all it takes is a bunch of celebrities endorsing third parties and then they become popular enough to make a change. The moment the red and blue start to lose votes and their grip on power they have to go in damage control mode and change their politics to please people and get votes back.

this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
499 points (85.4% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2825 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS