Is voting useless in the US?

[San Lumen]

Doesn’t mean you can’t vote for them. Third parties have won before. Teddy Roosevelt won several states in 1912.

Saying corporate support or lack of money Is such a dismissive answer. The new 33 year old senator from Georgia didn’t have corporate backing and neither did the other.

Nobody is saying you're not allowed to vote for them, but rather those votes don't matter. The fact you have to go back over one hundred years to give a single example is rather funny.

1948 as well but the candidate was a racist.

It would matter if more people voted for them.

[-Ra-]

Were yesterday's events judicious or well-coordinated? I understand sometimes reading a whole post is hard, but it was one sentence.

You referred to yesterday's events as judicious or well-coordinated, else you wouldn't have drawn the comparison.

[Senkaku]

Were yesterday's events judicious or well-coordinated? I understand sometimes reading a whole post is hard, but it was one sentence.

You referred to yesterday's events as judicious or well-coordinated, else you wouldn't have drawn the comparison.

I literally didn't lmao not sure if we need to re-read the post or review our grammar

[-Ra-]

You referred to yesterday's events as judicious or well-coordinated, else you wouldn't have drawn the comparison.

I literally didn't lmao not sure if we need to re-read the post or review our grammar

It just seems like you enjoy arguing in bad faith. What you were insinuating was clear to everyone. You're not fooling anyone. Typical leftists honestly.

[United Dependencies]

It might also help if the other parties would put in the groundwork necessary to win at the local level and build a base of support rather than trying to go all in on the presidency.

Either way, the political parties thing strikes me as a case of "the grass is always greener..." Look at a country like Germany where there is PR and multiple parties with seats in the Bundestag and what do you find?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag ... by_session

The Christian Democrats have largely been in control of the government (either alone or in coalition with SPD or FPD). When they haven't been in control it's been the SPD (usually in coalition with FPD).

If we busted up our political parties here in the US, the end result would be ruling coalitions that look largely like the current makeup of the GOP and the Democrats.

ASB has a good quote on this:

There's no doubt in my mind that if the US Populace was both Intelligent, Non-Complacent, and Informed there wouldn't just be an end to gridlock, but an end to the two party system.

Right. Because intelligent, well-educated people couldn't POSSIBLY believe that a two-party system was adequate for the Nation's needs.

<eyeroll>

Listen, when I was young (i.e., college age) in the mid-to-late-70's and the GOP had not yet gone insane, I studied political science at the university level. Back then, political scientists recognized — as others, including myself have stated in this thread — that coalition building occurs within the American political system just as it does under European parliamentary systems; it just comes at a different point in the political process.

In European parliamentary systems, voters choose a program or agenda by voting for their favorite Party; once representatives are awarded based on Party popularity, the various Parties scramble to organize themselves into two broad coalitions: The government and the opposition. It is at THAT level where compromise enters into the political system, unless one Party so dominates at the ballot box as to be able to form a government without having to accept any outside partners.

In America, coalition building comes BEFORE the election, during the Party platform-building process. The rival coalitions then present themselves to the voters as multi-faction Parties, and the voters choose the coalitional Party they want to see empowered. Same basic results, but through a different process.

Either system can fail if society becomes too politically fragmented; either system can fail if a single large Party (even a Party that cannot command a majority) refuses to compromise and demands absolute power without dealmaking (an example of this under a parliamentary government can be seen in the rise to power of the NSDAP in Weimar Germany, which — in spite of being able to win only 30-35% of the popular vote through thr late 1920's and early 1930's — was able to prevent any ruling coalition from forming in which it was not a member, and unwilling to enter into any coalition unless it was given the Chancellory. There's nothing magical about multiparty politics, and it is not a given that intelligent people will prefer such a system; there's more than one way to skin a cat.

I, personally, would simply like a greater diversity in my options to vote for.

But you're still going to end up with the same results. You'll no doubt feel good and pure and holy voting for the Green Stoplight Feminist Gunowners Party, whose platform appeals EXACTLY to your idea of how things ought to be done; but unless a majority of the voters share your opinion, you're going to end up seeing your Party make a deal with several other Parties to amass the votes they need to organize a government, and then that government is going to be as much of an amorphous "big tent" as our present American Parties.

Worse, under the American system, you can generally see what you're getting in the way of a deal BEFORE the election, based on what each Party writes into its platform and the themes it sounds on the campaign trail; in contrast, under the system YOU propose, you have NO idea what deal your Party will end up having to make in order to win a place at the table. It's very much a case of, "Vote Now and See What Happens", which — as I stated in the previous paragraph, allows you to feel nicely sanctimonious because YOU didn't have to compromise YOUR ideals, but still ends up producing some kind of Rube Goldberg ruling arrangement in the end anyway.

Me, I'm enough of a big boy to be willing to make my OWN compromises. I don't end up feeling like I've betrayed my beliefs if I end up having to vote for someone who believes that the death penalty is acceptable as the price of making sure that the poor get fed; choosing my own poison doesn't make me feel cheap. Indeed, I see making such choices as the price I pay for being a citizen with the right to vote.

Interestingly enough, multiple-party systems seem to work fairly well in Europe.

... And there've been long periods of time during which the two-party system worked quite well in America as well — especially during the Rayburn Era (1940-1961), as well as for several decades thereafter (specifically, from 1962-1994). Indeed, as Mann and Ornstein have argued, the biggest problem with the two-party system isn't so much the lack of choice (because there's always some basis on which to choose between the two Parties) as the increasing degree of difference between the two Parties.

IOW, as long as there was overlap between Republicans and Democrats, such that there were things both were interested in doing (and people on both sides interested in doing those things), Washington worked. It was only when the two Parties found themselves too far apart to cooperate that the system suddenly ground to a halt.

[Senkaku]

I literally didn't lmao not sure if we need to re-read the post or review our grammar

It just seems like you enjoy arguing in bad faith.

No, I just didn't think I had to spell out my entire argument even more explicitly than I did.

What you were insinuating was clear to everyone.

Evidently not, that's sort of the problem here. I always forget some people need things explained using as many words as possible.

You're not fooling anyone. Typical leftists honestly.

Is this a difficult time?

[-Ra-]

No, I just didn't think I had to spell out my entire argument even more explicitly than I did.

You have no argument. Just nitpicks about semantics. Thank you for backing up my point lmao.

Evidently not, that's sort of the problem here. I always forget some people need things explained using as many words as possible.

Some people on this form evidently don't have the capacity to explain their points at all, so I guess you've found a good home.

Is this a difficult time?

No hbu luv?

[Fahran]

Yesterday's events should demonstrate that while voting may not be useless, judicious and well-coordinated use of force is certainly much more effective.

Is it? Did they manage to overturn the elections? Or will they be dispersed by police and potentially arrested in the coming days?

And this is a single sentence. It's not really impossible to interpret as an argument that yesterday was a judicious and well-coordinated use of force.

[Cordel One]

Nobody is saying you're not allowed to vote for them, but rather those votes don't matter. The fact you have to go back over one hundred years to give a single example is rather funny.

1948 as well but the candidate was a racist.

It would matter if more people voted for them.

But more people didn't vote for them, because again they don't have the money or corporate support to advertise their candiates like the Democrats and Republicans.

[Sanghyeok]

Yesterday's events should demonstrate that while voting may not be useless, judicious and well-coordinated use of force is certainly much more effective.

Is it? Did they manage to overturn the elections? Or will they be dispersed by police and potentially arrested in the coming days?

This is such a stupid take I feel so sorry that you posted it. The rioters failed in every single one of their aims. Joe Biden has officially been certified as the president-elect. All they succeeded in doing is mobilising more of the country against Trump and possibly leading to his forced removal from office.

If anything this demonstrates that violent action does not work.

You think yesterday’s events helped Trump?

Were yesterday's events judicious or well-coordinated? I understand sometimes reading a whole post is hard, but it was one sentence.

[-Ra-]

1948 as well but the candidate was a racist.

It would matter if more people voted for them.

But more people didn't vote for them, because again they don't have the money or corporate support to advertise their candiates like the Democrats and Republicans.

No, they didn't vote for him because they didn't like him. That's how democracy work.

Reality 101 with these people damn.

[Fahran]

Is it? Did they manage to overturn the elections? Or will they be dispersed by police and potentially arrested in the coming days?

Were yesterday's events judicious or well-coordinated? I understand sometimes reading a whole post is hard, but it was one sentence.

I already saw.

Why mention it as an additional clause when it's irrelevant to the point and doesn't support it at all?

[Northwest Slobovia]

It might also help if the other parties would put in the groundwork necessary to win at the local level and build a base of support rather than trying to go all in on the presidency.

This is, I think, one of the largest failings of American minor parties. FPTP doesn't help, of course, but I rarely see them doing the legwork to justify people voting for them in the first place.

If we busted up our political parties here in the US, the end result would be ruling coalitions that look largely like the current makeup of the GOP and the Democrats.

This is less than clear. There's a lot of ways of rearranging the pieces and groups that make up American parties, so it's possibly we'd get entirely different alignments if, for example, social issues were less coupled to fiscal ones.

[United Dependencies]

If we busted up our political parties here in the US, the end result would be ruling coalitions that look largely like the current makeup of the GOP and the Democrats.

This is less than clear. There's a lot of ways of rearranging the pieces and groups that make up American parties, so it's possibly we'd get entirely different alignments if, for example, social issues were less coupled to fiscal ones.

Any specific examples you can think of?

I don't see social conservatives joining a coalition for more welfare spending considering that many of those same conservatives traditionally have opposed seeing their tax dollars going to "welfare queens".

Maybe down the road. Although, I think the larger point still stands. Which is that policy will still be made by a couple of big tents parties/coalitions that are made up of many viewpoints.

[Adamede]

But they don't have money or corporate support, meaning they aren't able to advertise their candiates like the Democrats and Republicans.

Doesn’t mean you can’t vote for them. Third parties have won before. Teddy Roosevelt won several states in 1912.

Saying corporate support or lack of money Is such a dismissive answer. The new 33 year old senator from Georgia didn’t have corporate backing and neither did the other.

And I’m doing so he showed exactly why under the current election system there will never be a third, or fourth, or xth party.

[San Lumen]

Doesn’t mean you can’t vote for them. Third parties have won before. Teddy Roosevelt won several states in 1912.

Saying corporate support or lack of money Is such a dismissive answer. The new 33 year old senator from Georgia didn’t have corporate backing and neither did the other.

And I’m doing so he showed exactly why under the current election system there will never be a third, or fourth, or xth party.

Not at all what it showed. It’s quite possible he could have won.

[Adamede]

And I’m doing so he showed exactly why under the current election system there will never be a third, or fourth, or xth party.

Not at all what it showed. It’s quite possible he could have won.

And he didn’t, and he splitter the Republican vote allowing the Democrats to be elected.

If a third party gets popular enough to consistently win election it ends up replacing one of the other 2 parties.

[San Lumen]

Not at all what it showed. It’s quite possible he could have won.

And he didn’t, and he splitter the Republican vote allowing the Democrats to be elected.

If a third party gets popular enough to consistently win election it ends up replacing one of the other 2 parties.

The Whig party says hello

[The Reformed American Republic]

And he didn’t, and he splitter the Republican vote allowing the Democrats to be elected.

If a third party gets popular enough to consistently win election it ends up replacing one of the other 2 parties.

The Whig party says hello

Can we have a new wig party? That would be nice.

[Fahran]

Can we have a new wig party? That would be nice.

We already had one. Nobody supported them, causing them to rebrand in 2020.

Source
Source

We do have a number of compelling third-parties at the moment as well.

American Solidarity Party
Libertarian Party
Green Party
Veterans Party (kinda dead)

[San Lumen]

Can we have a new wig party? That would be nice.

We already had one. Nobody supported them, causing them to rebrand in 2020.

Source
Source

We do have a number of compelling third-parties at the moment as well.

American Solidarity Party
Libertarian Party
Green Party
Veterans Party (kinda dead)

The Whigs elected two presidents. William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor. Three if counting Millard Fillmore who took office after Taylor died in office.

The liberatarians won a state legislative seat in Wyoming.

[Fahran]

Saying corporate support or lack of money Is such a dismissive answer. The new 33 year old senator from Georgia didn’t have corporate backing and neither did the other.

It depends on what you mean by corporate support. Almost every successful candidate is supported by broader interest groups, with these often taking the corporate form.

[Sanghyeok]

I already saw.

Why mention it as an additional clause when it's irrelevant to the point and doesn't support it at all?

I apologise if I seemed too harsh. I just didn't want Senkaku to have to post another reply again.

[Fahran]

I apologise if I seemed too harsh. I just didn't want Senkaku to have to post another reply again.

Fair. I thought Sen's point was a bit bad, but I didn't mean to dogpile either.

[Fahran]

The Whigs elected two presidents. William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor. Three if counting Millard Fillmore who took office after Taylor died in office.

The Modern Whig Party had a distinct platform from the Whig Party and existed over a hundred years later.

The liberatarians won a state legislative seat in Wyoming.

Focusing on more local elections would serve third parties well in the short-term. They can build a base of support from there.