• young_broccoli@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    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?

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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.

      • young_broccoli@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          “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