441
‘We have to blow it up’: can never-Trumpers retake the Republican party?
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
441 points (98.5% liked)
News
23305 readers
3527 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's more fundamental than that. First-past-the-post voting systems inevitably turn into two-party rule. It's built into the foundations of how the American government is voted for.
You see the same two-party rule in Canada even tho we have other viable, well-established parties.
Fptp is the problem, but neither of our (or your) major parties want to change the rules because it works for their benefit 50% of the time.
Im actually on the opinion that FPTP is not the main problem, it's flawed but the actual problem is the amount of power the president has, you could still have FPTP in a parliamentary system that allows for smaller parties to have power in alliances and stuff like that.
For federal level, I can agree that the lack of ranked-choice hurts third party chances. Voters see too much risk in not voting for a major party.
That being said, well-coordinated local and state-level can definitely get a higher rate of success and show that there's more to those parties besides political posturing. I've seen more campaigning for a primary for my local sheriff's office this year than I had ever seen for any third party candidate ever at a local level. If the third parties focused on the down ballot, they would have more opportunity to show that they can put forward competent candidates to build trust for higher elected positions.
Most of them are too busy grifting. They're stirring up local funding collecting all the people they can and then getting a bigger payday when the 4-year elections roll around.
You should watch the video I linked, it's only 6 minutes long. The problem is that if you did manage to get more success for a third-party candidate that would be a bad thing. It would mean that the resulting government will be less likely to reflect your positions and ideals than it would if there had been no third-party candidate you supported.
In a first-past-the-post voting system trying to figure out how to make third-party candidates viable is a self-defeating goal. Unless you're focusing on trying to make third-party candidates who appeal to your opponent's voting group more viable, that is. Which is why you keep seeing sneaky donations from right-wing PACs to the Green party and such. The Republicans would love to see the Green party become a more prominent and viable option for left-leaning voters. And likewise, a lot of Democrats are cheering for RFK Jr. to be on the ballot because he draws more support from the right than from the left.