However, if the Republicans were wiped off the electoral map, people could still vote third party, form a progressive opposition and attempt to wrest control of tne Democrats thay way, while a one-party state wouldn’t even have that option.

So in your mind, the thing that makes our system more democratic than a one party state is what would happen if the Republican party disappeared one day, but also, it's also impossible to change from the current party system?

Your response to the Trolley Problem wouldn’t be “I divert it to save lives” or “I refrain because I can’t condemn one person to death”, just “What does it matter? People die either anyway.”

I have absolutely no idea how you got there, other than trying to read my position in the least charitable way possible. Humor me, why did you conclude it would be that rather than "I refrain because I can't condemn one person to death?" My reasoning for not voting for Harris is that I refuse to enable one population to be genocided.

If you want to understand my moral framework, I'm a rule utilitarian. In fact, while I consider either position defensible, I would pull the lever in the trolley problem. However, that's only because of the constraints of the hypothetical, constraints which make it not applicable to most real world situations, and particularly not this one.

This "trolley problem" situation did not come about accidentally. Democrats are partially responsible for upholding the system that forces us into this situation. What's more, they have also funded far-right candidates (including Trump himself) because they believe they will be easier to beat - that they can essentially use them to force people to vote for them even if they offer nothing (the infamous "pied piper" strategy). This engineered, coercive element, and the element of rewarding the people who engineered the situation, and the element of the problem being repeated, none of those are present in the trolley problem, and they fundamentally change the question.

When Putin sent troops into Ukraine, the quickest path to peace, to minimize bloodshed, would have been to negotiate an agreement even if it meant territorial concessions. All the people who are constantly talking about voting for the lesser evil seem remarkably willing to accept an outcome where more people die. Why? Because, they argue, if we don't fight him here, he'll just keep pushing further and further. Because we have to make sure that he is punished, or at least not rewarded for engineering such a situation. Instead of just looking at "which option directly minimizes the loss of life," you also look at what precedent you're setting on a broader scope. Everyone has a hill they'll die on.

Or if you'd prefer, there's a relevant Star Trek episode that examines that sort of question.

I am simply applying the same framework domestically. If you try to force me into a situation where I have no choice but to support you and give you power, then I'm going to tell you to fuck off even if it means accepting a worse outcome in the short term. If they learn that they can get away with all this stuff, funding far-right candidates, maintaining an undemocratic system, literal genocide, and I'll still fall in line, then what incentive would they ever have to refrain from such tactics? It is precisely because the left has historically been willing to accept lesser evil candidates that they thought they could push this far in the first place.

Because then I will agree with those who think your ideology is stupid, not for its motives but for its short-sightedness.

What an incredibly backwards criticism. My perspective is looking much more at the long term than yours is. You're looking solely at the immediate outcome of the election, I'm looking at how to either force the Democrats to adopt better positions or how to build a new party capable of posing a realistic threat. I didn't expect either of those effects to happen last election, I don't really expect them next election either. But I'm in it for the long haul, I will keep voting third party unless and until they cave to my core demands (and if "no genocide" is not a reasonable core demand, then nothing is). They need our votes as much as we need them and I'm not going to be the one to flinch first in this game of chicken. Not when the stakes include genocide.

If it is more important to you that you have a pristine conscience

Are you not making a moral argument right now? Talking about "more important to have a pristine conscience" is meaningless then. If I didn't care about having a clear conscience, then why would I vote democrat even if I accepted that that was the moral position? You vote democrat because it's what you believe is right, what gives you a "pristine" conscience. Unless you're going to start arguing based on nihilism or something, you can leave that nonsense at the door.

Then what do you call inaction?

I don't support inaction.

Or are you hoping it gets so bad people start revolting, but not so bad they can no longer revolt?

Please stop putting stances into my mouth that have nothing whatsoever to do with anything I've actually said. I am not an accelerationist, accelerationism is stupid and wrong. If I were an accelerationist, wouldn't I be arguing for voting for the worst candidate instead of third party?

I think that at the very first hint of fuckery, everyone should vote in the green party's primaries and write in the progressive candidate that the party is exerting influence to block. Democrats don't deserve voters ever again if they're not going to listen to them.

We can just walk in and take over the green party. They're tiny and have tiny primaries.

Yes, well. As I said, I suspect I share almost all the same opinions as you about this, except I don't go around literally lashing out at everyone in earshot as "you fuckers" or "you genociders" before they have even opened their mouth. It's a bit ridiculous and 95% of people are going to immediately believe write you off as a troll.

I will go ahead and type out your response to the above for you to save you some time: You: "What's a bit ridiculous is that you genociders got exactly what you wanted all along...genocide!"

The US voting system is fucked. I'm sad that leftists there had no ethical choice in the last decade other than to grit their teeth and vote Dems, but that's the truth.

That or starting a revolution before 2024, but that didn't happen.

except I don’t go around literally lashing out at everyone in earshot as “you fuckers” or “you genociders” before they have even opened their mouth.

Nope, you go around assuming that anyone who has a problem with genocide must be a nonvoter instead. And you're in abundant company on this thread.

That assumption is convenient for people who would like to silence all opposition to genocide, as it lumps the entire anti-genocide left into one group and blames them for the loss they warned you about.

It’s a bit ridiculous and 95% of people are going to immediately believe write you off as a troll.

Any opposition to genocide is preemptively written off, as you did.

That doesn't alter the fact that the entire electoral system in the US is Mathematically rigged to make it pretty much impossible to succeed in a candidate from a 3rd party being elected as president - the level of difficulty is that of getting over 100 million people to switch their vote in a single election (you can try it over multiple election cycles, but what happens is that after years of trying and failing, most people give up, so it has to happen quickly or it won't work).

As I see it, for a 3rd party to grow in the US it has to start by winning local elections since the number of people who need to change their vote to it is much less and then build on such victories to win seats in Congress, then build on that for the Senate, and only then for the President.

Anyways, my original post was about what can be done and how things should looked at "in the context of how the election system is in the US" (as fucked up as it is) and what it is realistically possible in it, rather than what it should be.

That doesn’t alter the fact that the entire electoral system in the US is Mathematically rigged to make it pretty much impossible to succeed in a candidate from a 3rd party being elected as president

If democrats aren't going to be a second party, we should select a different party to be our second party.

I’m sad that leftists there had no ethical choice in the last decade other than to grit their teeth and vote Dems

I don't believe that you are.

I think both are true, liberals might prefer to lose over admitting they're wrong but it also seems like the vast majority of them genuinely can't wrap their head around how they're losing. The idea that killing innocent people in other countries could possibly be enough to turn people against them is beyond comprehension.

I think both are true, liberals might prefer to lose over admitting they’re wrong but it also seems like the vast majority of them genuinely can’t wrap their head around how they’re losing. The idea that killing innocent people in other countries could possibly be enough to turn people against them is beyond comprehension.

Once they supported genocide, they forfeited the benefit of the doubt and lost all trust. Caution in the face of the genocidal requires that pleas of incompetence be regarded as apologia for malice. They know why they lost. They know they're wrong. They don't care. As long as genocide had unconditional support in the immediate term, that's the only thing that mattered to centrists. They walked into this clear eyed and delighted to murder as many Palestinians as they could, consequences for the whole world be damned.

They're evil and stupid

Perhaps. But they can never be trusted again.

And that means all actions must be regarded as calculated malice. And centrists earned this.

Agreed

Agree.

Just pointing out that the entire system is designed to make that almost impossible.

So how can this nightmare cycle be broken?

Vote blue no matter who hasn't worked. Even when a democrat wins, it's some genocidal shitlib like biden. And when democrats lose, they blame the left they refuse to listen to and move to the right because they want to and pretend that they're chasing the votes of republicans, even though they know that's not going to happen and even though they know no one's actually buying the pretense.

You havent advocated for anything but voter apathy and disengagent. Your arguments herr are exactly why this is all happening.

Not an American, but as I see it, the only chance for a big change is to build things from the ground up block by block starting at the local elections level.

Another option is to bypass traditional politics as much as possible by using the power of civil society groups which are independent of political parties, such as Unions and politically independent single subject groups (for example, groups of people formed to combat setting up a data center in a specific region) - as shown in Europe a couple of General Strikes tend to focus politicians back into actually working for the interests of voters, at least temporarilly.

Yet another option, though weaker and much more indirect, is to consider that the vote in one electoral cycle affects which candidates are fielded in the next cycle, which is my main counterpoint to the OP's point of view since such a perspective justifies not voting for the lesser evil to send a message to Democrats that they need to field better candidates.

That said, personally I think Americans are seriously fucked and I doubt any change will happen before things properly break in terms of quality of life (I'm thinking proper dystopia with widespread starvation and homelessness) and people rebel and even then the reaction of the powerful will probably be to turn the place into and overt Autocracy rather than the current Oligarchy with some Theatre of Democracy.

which is my main counterpoint to the OP’s point of view since such a perspective justifies not voting for the lesser evil to send a message to Democrats that they need to field better candidates.

I don't think this is effective. I consider the centrist messaging that progressives stayed home to "teach democrats a lesson" to be how centrists frame their unwillingness to appeal to an electorate they want to rule instead of serve.

You havent advocated for anything but voter apathy and disengagent.

I get that you think that since you can't imagine a politician moving away from your only policy.

I'm a non-American anarchist, why should I give a fuck about some fucked up party complicit in most crimes the US has committed in the last centuries?

I want people to be able to have real choice. And barring that, at least a less shitty system than one forcing them to vote for a lesser evil that is this … evil.

The same thing that would happen if Harris won: more death. I imagine Hamas also knows they were not going to win a military victory. The victory to be had for them is, I imagine, a moral one: exposing the moral vacuum at the heart of the American Empire (so Israel included). And in that, they have achieved a massive victory without a doubt.

It's disgusting that any Palestinian was killed regardless of administration, but that's the pragmatic reality until Israel ceases to exist. So the question has to be how to achieve that, and I think they've made massive strides towards it. And as for America, it's dying all on its own.

Capitalists are not vulnerable to political pressure from the left because capitalism is inherently contrary to the demands of real leftists. So, my answer to your second question is: neither. And you don't even have to take my word for it: my evidence is Biden refusing to end political aid to Israel and Harris pleading "no change" from that genocidal policy. I mean for fucks sake, Trump even pretended to reschedule cannabis before Biden did!

Why would progressives stay home to “teach democrats a lesson”?

I mean, people don't just do things for no reason at all, unless they're crazy.

The most logical explanation is that they did it ultimately because centrists (i.e. the DNC) were unwilling to appeal to an electorate they want to ruie instead of serve.

A simple logical analysis shows that framing from "centrists" (I added quotes because they're not in the political center, but rather are hard-right) as actually being an indirect admission of their own guilt - they did not do what politicians are supposed to do, which is appeal to the electorate, hence the electorate did not vote for them.

In Democracy the blame for politicians not being appealing to voters and hence failing to get their votes lies not with the voters, it lies with the politicians.

Sure, "centrists" and their useful idiots loudly cry that people have an obligation to vote for them, but that's not a mindset of Democracy it's a mindset of Autocracy.

I mean, the conservatives and republicans sure did accomplish a lot of stuff in the last 40 years. You'd think the leftists in this country would have someting to actually point to, beyond just standing around waving cardboard signs and complaining about comedians and stuff.

Look, if you truly can't tell the difference in policy between Republicans and Democrats, then yes maybe you shouldn't vote. One can only bring the horse to water.
I'm just sick of people giving me shit for attempting to stop fascism from taking over my country, when they themselves refuse to lift a finger to do it, people like this mouthbreather telling me "I'm glad you're suffering" when in real life we're all suffering. Like somehow all these people think the suffering the fascists cause is going to be confined to only those of us who voted democrat. So fucking frustrating, I have zero pateince for this shit, especially because the reason this shit is happening is because the left in this country refuses to fucking vote.
I'm serious. Why did Biden support the genocide? Because leftists refused to vote. Why did Trump send thugs to kidnapp people in the street? Because leftists refuse to vote. Why did Trump cut USID and thereby starve millions of children to death worldwide? Because leftists refused to vote. Why is did Trump invade Iran and start WWIII? Because leftists refuse to vote.
I just want to see leftists in this country fucking do something instead of standing around acting superior to everyone else.

it's also impossible to change from the current party system

It's possible to shift political balance, but not starting from the top.

Humor me, why did you conclude it would be that rather than "I refrain because I can't condemn one person to death?"

"I don't believe in a lesser evil", to me, implies equalising all kinds of evil.

If we twist the dilemma to apply it to the question of US presidency, the single person would be tied up before the switch, and so would be condemned either way; the choice of switching would be whether to let it run over five more people.

In that context, my understanding is that you feel pulling the switch would make you culpable for engaging with a system that kills a person. My argument then is that pulling it wouldn't be enabling a genocide, because that first person is beyond your power to save. It's all the other people you'd pull it for.

But my frustrated assumption that it's just about washing your hands in innocence stands corrected. Sorry about that. I also didn't previously realise that you do vote, just third-party. That is a difference from the apathic "why bother voting" rhetoric I see in that context.

I'm looking at how to either force the Democrats to adopt better positions or how to build a new party capable of posing a realistic threat.

My worry with that approach is that this plan may be too long-term. That, in the attempt to save democracy, you'd let a regime seize power that proceeds to dismantle democracy. When Trump's campaign includes the promise that you'll never ("have to") vote again, attempting to use votes as leverage is gambling whether they will have any value as leverage when the next election comes around.

if "no genocide" is not a reasonable core demand, then nothing is

It absolutely is. My argument was that it shouldn't be the only one.

vote democrat because it's what you believe is right, what gives you a "pristine" conscience

Advocating for compromise forms a knot in my stomach. It's a strategic concession that the situation they have engineered puts them in a position where I feel like it's dangerous to refuse their demands. When they're essentially holding democracy hostage, I do negotiate with terrorists and hope to keep the hostage safe until a proper rescue operation is underway. My conscience is about as pristine as having waded into a sewage pit to try and save something worth more than cleanliness.

The "Pristine Conscience" option would be to advocate for general strike, civil disobedience, protests so encompassing that not even the "peaceful protests don't work" fraction can deny the destructive power of "fuck you, I won't do what you tell me". Imagine grocery store employees collectively handing out food for free, Utilities' employees refusing to turn off utilities for people that don't pay their bills, truckers blocking police stations...

That option becomes untenable the second you remember toilet paper or see rules on how much gas you're allowed to hoard.

Either way, I'll gladly be a cynic in error. If your approach turns out fruitful, we'll all be better off for it. I just hope we live to see that long run.

My worry with that approach is that this plan may be too long-term. That, in the attempt to save democracy, you’d let a regime seize power that proceeds to dismantle democracy. When Trump’s campaign includes the promise that you’ll never (“have to”) vote again, attempting to use votes as leverage is gambling whether they will have any value as leverage when the next election comes around.

In my view, Trumpism is not a spontaneous thing that came out of nowhere and might disappear just as easily, but rather something that emerged as a natural result of declining material conditions. You can't hope to just weather the storm, because it's not just Trump as an individual, and when Trump is gone whoever the right turns to will be just as bad, if not worse. Furthermore, as things stand, they will continue to gain power over time and will become an inevitability. This inevitability is caused by two things.

The first is the tendency of the rate of profit to decline. In regular language, what that means is that as an economy gets more developed, the number of untapped, productive ventures shrinks, it becomes harder and harder to make profits through the development or expansion of productive industries. That's why we get things like the enshittification of the internet, because companies have to find ways to increase their profits and if there's no more room to grow, all you can do is squeeze customers more. This is the general, overarching cause of economic decline.

The second part of the inevitability of the far-right is that they are the only ones who are positioning themselves as an alternative to the existing status quo. Liberals are very much wed to the existing system, and they do their best to shut down any leftist voices calling for change.

Now, what happens when you have an economy that is declining because of fundamental structural reasons, and the options are sticking with that forever, or... the Mystery Box? People are going to chose the Mystery Box. And as it stands, the only Mystery Box out there is fascism. Now, we could offer our own Mystery Box, but any time we endorse a status quo candidate, we discredit ourselves as actually being distinct from the status quo. We are telling people, "This is acceptable, this is good enough" even when we know that's not true, and as a result, when they fail they drag us down with them and discredit our messaging.

Because I see defeat as a near-certainty in the long term, I am willing to accept risks of the whole thing blowing up in the short term in an effort to avert that. There is no gamble if we were doomed anyway. If it is a political impossibility to actually address the structural problems, then we at least have to provide alternative explanations and an alternative vision. We have to hold a candle in the darkness, even if all we accomplish is guiding a few lost, confused souls towards the truth and away from the enemy.

The ship is sinking, and I'm saying, "We have to plug these holes," and the liberals respond, "It's actually really antisemitic for you to say the holes exist, and if you try to fix them we'll break your legs." And so, what can I do except rip planks off so I at least have something to cling to when it all goes down?

The ship is sinking, and I'm saying, "We have to plug these holes," and the liberals respond, "It's actually really antisemitic for you to say the holes exist, and if you try to fix them we'll break your legs." And so, what can I do except rip planks off so I at least have something to cling to when it all goes down?

Holy shit, I love that analogy.

All in all, I mostly agree with your comment. I also advocate for third-party voting, like I said before, to signal what you do want. I don't believe that defeat is inevitable, and I agree that structural change is necessary, whether by propping up the progressive wing within the Democratic Party or by propping progressive movements outside of it.

Our disagreement on methods is effectively just about the federal level in swing states, where I believe that the risk for a Spoiler Effect and stakes for loss are too high to justify the signalling value, particularly since the Dem leadership seems to habitually (or intentionally) "misunderstand" any close call and run away in the wrong direction instead of figuring out how to win votes.

Hence my suggestion to build the foundation for that change from the bottom up: You won't topple the tip while its base stands firm, but if that base starts shaking or shifting, the top will have to follow.

This is where my grudge lies primarily with the (voluntary) non-voters, as well as those who advocate for not voting at all, which is also why my understanding of your position fundamentally pivoted when I realised that that's not actually your stance. To vote third party and send a signal is far more valuable than to not vote at all. It is a form of protest, rather than indifference.

Our disagreement is a nuance, but in the end, we want the same thing, and I respect your stance and integrity all the same.

Democrats are center-right, halfwit. The only leftists in the US worth mentioning are on watch lists and have been for a lot longer than 40 years, if you're looking for something to thank them for you can start with weekends lol . For further info may I suggest reading a fucking book for once in your life?

Thank you, I'm glad we could reach an understanding.

My view on that is that voting in a presidential election (especially if you're not in a swing state) is primarily performative and an expression of loyalty, rather than actually influencing the outcome. The presidential race is, unfortunately, the only thing anybody cares about. I voted for democratic candidates in downballot races, where my vote is far more likely to matter, but nobody I talk to cares about that, at all.

The fact that this is the way that everyone engages with politics and forms their political identities makes me see it as all the more important to make a point of voting third party in presidential elections, as part of defining myself and my positions as distinct from the democrats. I sometimes feel that people use the talking point of third parties starting small in local races as a way to shove them into something they don't give two shits about so they can stop thinking about them entirely. Because presidential races are such a spectacle, the primary way in which people engage in politics, I view it as necessary to engage with them on that front.

If someone makes a big deal out of my third party vote (particularly in a safe state, like most Americans), that's a clear sign to me that their perspective is all out of whack. And conveniently, they tend to come at me for it, which gives me a perfect window to criticize their views.

My view on that is that voting in a presidential election (especially if you're not in a swing state) is primarily performative and an expression of loyalty, rather than actually influencing the outcome.

This "team loyalty" shit beyond all nuance and reason is a blight anyway. If it wasn't stupid enough in sports or fandoms, it definitely would be in politics.

I wish third parties had received more visibility and significance long before this crap got so out of hand. I also wish FPTP would become an important part of the history of democracy, as a case study how enfranchisement alone doesn't make a fair democracy, with the emphasis being history as in "no longer present".

The presidential race is, unfortunately, the only thing anybody cares about.

I sometimes feel that people use the talking point of third parties starting small in local races as a way to shove them into something they don't give two shits about so they can stop thinking about them entirely.

I feel like caring about elections at every level is a civic responsibility, and it saddens me to see that many people are so apathetic about it.

What? I did vote. For Jill Stein.

Voting for democrats categorically is not "attempting to stop fascism" any more than supporting the Weimar Republic was "attempting to stop Nazism". They're weak, corrupt, feckless, and ineffectual. Their corporate-owned neoliberal politics and suppression of leftwing populism paves the way for fascism's inevitable rise through rightwing populism.

Didn't read the rest of whatever you said there. I'm not really interested in addressing your Blue MAGA meltdown or reading about how you're sad that people give you shit for supporting an avowed genocidaire.

You may view Dems as being an obviously-better option than Republicans. I do not, so if you do not convince me otherwise, I literally could not care less if your party continues losing.

Run better candidates if you want to win. That’s how democracies work, right?

Notice how almost none of the majour dems have really condemned the war in Iran, even though it would have been massively electorally advantageous for them?

in the recent election for MJTs seat, the D candidate lost. One of the reasons given for WHY was because he actively opposed the war, the winning R was all Fir the war.

looking at that, when offered a chance voters sided with the pro war ideologue. They don't have to vote D next time but they could have this time.

Fundamentally a politician wants to win. As a voter, I get people being despondent when there's no real choice but here voters had a choice. Democrat politicians would be stupid not to pay attention.

I know people who felt that both sides at least tacitly supporting the genocide was so depressing that for their mental health they basically checked out of politics.

to do that in a democracy is beyond shameful.

You don't have to be invested at the grass roots or debating magats but you can still turn up at a polling station on election day, or do a fucking postal vote

For further info may I suggest reading a fucking book for once in your life?

Maybe the reason why you people never accomplish anything is because you're sitting around reading books about theory written by men who died 200 years ago and not putting any of that theory into practice.
I mean, that would actually require getting up off your ass and doing something, so I understand.

The only leftists in the US worth mentioning are on watch lists and have been for a lot longer than 40 years

Which only reinforces my point about how useless and innefectual the left is in this country.
The reason why the left is useless and ineffectual, by the way, is because they don't vote.

Democrats are center-right, halfwit.

This is only true because, once again, leftists don't vote.

I did vote. For Jill Stein.

Which is why Trump is now president. Good job bro.

Didn’t read the rest of whatever you said there.

Yeah I'm not suprised. Heaven forbid a leftist acknowledge criticism or some shit. I mean you've read every book on theory that exists so obviously you must be right about everything.

Or maybe it's because of the US actively suppressing leftist movements domestically and internationally for over a century? Again, go read a fucking book.

This is boring, we already did this

thank god you voted third party. Thanks to your very smart move, there is no genocide ongoing right now and you have an extremely competent leader.

I was right and you were wrong then also.

Strong point, Blue MAGA

You think just like a conservative.

So it's the government's fault that leftists in this country have effectively done nothing within my entire lifetime? You know cointelpro was like back in the 70s, right? I mean it's been 50 years since then.
Tell me, what's the one thing leftist movements can actually do to stop the government targeting them?
Come on, put 2 and 2 together please.

Lol you can go read that book now kiddo

That's an odd way to admit you're less cool than a conservative.

You literally care more about your virtue signaling that you were against genocide that you allowed a fascist to take power who turned around and completely wiped the Gaza strip off the map. Which part of "resisting genocide" was allowing Trump to send over 2000 lb MK-84 bombs to Israel?
Which book exactly should I read that justifies that bullshit?

And yes, I said virtue signaling, because that's what you're doing. So Fucking disgusting.

Look son, you lost. I know it's hard to hear, but you're a loser. What you're doing now is just trying to get the last word is so you don't feel so pathetic.
Really, you need to come to terms with this about yourself, because if you keep spouting this stupid shit you're going to lose a lot more arguements in the future.
Blocking you now. Bye bye.

P.S. I do this because I know it pisses you off.

Lol pure projection, you're fine with genocide when blue team is doing it because you're a morally bankrupt hypocritical coward

ok son

See the things is, you tell me you won't vote against fascists because they support genocide, but then you don't actually do anything yourself to combat genocide.

You don't agree? Tell me, where the hell is the anti-war movement? Where are the protests? Where are you people? You're not even doing the one thing that leftists ever actually do - protest. Where are they?

You know, 20 years ago before the Iraq war started there were millions upon millions of people in the street, around the entire damn world. Now we have a president who not only wiped out the Palestinians (good job in stopping that btw,) but also started a war in Iran. Where the hell are you people? You would think if you really cared about the people in the middle east you'd maybe get up off your ass and DO SOMETHING.

But you can't even do that. You know why? Becuase it's all bullshit virtue signaling. You' and your movement are useless. I would actually like things like universal healthcare and UBI to happen in my lifetime. If I rely on you morons it'll never happen.

You can go away now.

I didn't say anything about not voting, and you don't actually care who I vote for or whether or not I vote. You just want an easy excuse to ignore valid criticism of you morally bankrupt bullshit.