Unsupporting the red and blue party is the correct thing to do and what will ultimately lead to a positive change. The duopoly party narrative is holding on a really thin line because everyone is unsatisfied on both sides, in europe third parties win plenty of times.
If you throw your trash out of the window that isn’t going to change world pollution but you don’t do that because we live in a society and everyone is supposed to do his part.
Most US elections, in particular the Presidential one, are first past the post and winner take all. There’s no coalitions or anything. Only one party can win. If the Democrats, for example, split into a Moderates and a Progressives party, the election landscape will go from this:
Democrats ~50%
Republicans ~50%
To this:
Moderates ~30%
Progressives ~20%
Republicans ~50%
And Republicans are guaranteed a win. The Republicans don’t win 50% of the government, they get the whole government. Progressives and Moderates get nothing. The only possible way to defeat the Republicans is by combining the Progressives and Moderates into a single party.
The third party. And if the Democrats and Republicans ever want to be viable again, they’ll have to join with each other or with the 3rd party, depending on which is closer ideologically. So we’re back to 2 parties.
And by the way, support for any 3rd parties in the US is currently at less than 5%, nowhere close to the >50‰ required to make this scenario plausible. It has happened before, though not in the last 150 years, usually with the total collapse of one of the two parties. Andrew Jackson personally caused the collapse of the existing parties by basically turning them into pro-Jackson and anti-Jackson parties. And then a few decades later the anti-Jackson party itself completely split over the question of slavery, and then the Civil War created the two parties we have today, Democrats and Republicans. The two parties almost completely swapped supporters and positions in the 1960s due to Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, but the two ideological groups of voters have been the same since the mid-1800s even though they’ve changed names.
What a strawman of an argument you’ve created. That was never an argument being made, it was that genocide wouldn’t be any worse because genocide is genocide.
And how is this at all different from any of the strikes Biden agreed on that resulted in mass deaths?
Oh and the cake you’re laughing about? Those are children’s lives. Get some perspective and stop reveling in misery.
Bullshit. It was absolutely an argument being made. “We kNoW BiDeN sUpPoRtS gEnOcIde; MaYbE tRuMp WiLl Be BeTtEr” (paraphrased) is very much the sort of dumbass rhetoric that was being tossed around and don’t you dare try to gaslight me otherwise!
…yet i was told that the biden genocide was somehow worse…cake and eat it shit…
I was told that protest voting would save Gaza, is Gaza saved? /s
Unsupporting the red and blue party is the correct thing to do and what will ultimately lead to a positive change. The duopoly party narrative is holding on a really thin line because everyone is unsatisfied on both sides, in europe third parties win plenty of times.
If you throw your trash out of the window that isn’t going to change world pollution but you don’t do that because we live in a society and everyone is supposed to do his part.
The way US elections work it’s mathematically impossible to have a viable 3rd party. We can’t just do it like Europe.
how is it mathematically impossible?
Most US elections, in particular the Presidential one, are first past the post and winner take all. There’s no coalitions or anything. Only one party can win. If the Democrats, for example, split into a Moderates and a Progressives party, the election landscape will go from this:
Democrats ~50%
Republicans ~50%
To this:
Moderates ~30%
Progressives ~20%
Republicans ~50%
And Republicans are guaranteed a win. The Republicans don’t win 50% of the government, they get the whole government. Progressives and Moderates get nothing. The only possible way to defeat the Republicans is by combining the Progressives and Moderates into a single party.
Who wins in this scenario?
The third party. And if the Democrats and Republicans ever want to be viable again, they’ll have to join with each other or with the 3rd party, depending on which is closer ideologically. So we’re back to 2 parties.
And by the way, support for any 3rd parties in the US is currently at less than 5%, nowhere close to the >50‰ required to make this scenario plausible. It has happened before, though not in the last 150 years, usually with the total collapse of one of the two parties. Andrew Jackson personally caused the collapse of the existing parties by basically turning them into pro-Jackson and anti-Jackson parties. And then a few decades later the anti-Jackson party itself completely split over the question of slavery, and then the Civil War created the two parties we have today, Democrats and Republicans. The two parties almost completely swapped supporters and positions in the 1960s due to Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, but the two ideological groups of voters have been the same since the mid-1800s even though they’ve changed names.
Then it’s not mathematically impossible that a third party wins you are making up bullshit. In europe brand new parties win elections all the time
What a strawman of an argument you’ve created. That was never an argument being made, it was that genocide wouldn’t be any worse because genocide is genocide.
And how is this at all different from any of the strikes Biden agreed on that resulted in mass deaths?
Oh and the cake you’re laughing about? Those are children’s lives. Get some perspective and stop reveling in misery.
That’s dumb. Killing more people is worse than killing fewer.
It’s more dumb to think killing everyone is any different to killing everyone.
Genocide brings about the death of the whole cultural group.
There is no little or big genocide, it is all genocide.
Ok, then by your definition there hasn’t BEEN any genocide because they’re not literally all dead yet, so why are you complaining at all,
This is the dumbest take in this thread so far.
That’s my fucking point, dumbass. It’s a stupid-ass way of thinking.
Bullshit. It was absolutely an argument being made. “We kNoW BiDeN sUpPoRtS gEnOcIde; MaYbE tRuMp WiLl Be BeTtEr” (paraphrased) is very much the sort of dumbass rhetoric that was being tossed around and don’t you dare try to gaslight me otherwise!