How do we get 155 million people to stop voting for the ‘duopoly’ / ‘uniparty’?

[rampart]

We’ve heard it here a thousand times…..”stop voting for the duopoly”….“the parties are one and the same”….”there is no difference between the two parties”….etc etc
(Most don’t agree with that at all, most see at least one major difference between the parties.)
I’m sane enough to know that if I stop voting for the dupoly the duopoly will still win….That said, how can I be assured that my effort of ‘not voting’ will eventually pay off as others join in on the Don’t Vote coalition to prevent the duopoly from winning?
I don’t see any number of sane people ever being willing to take the chance. The only way this would work is if all 155 million stopped voting for the duopoly at the exact same time… How do we make that happen….are we just fantasizing?

a third party, and i favor greens, needs to put convincing candidates onto city councils and state legislatures who do their jobs and do not overindulge in corruption. prove you have good ideas and implement them competently.

rules favoring major parties, such as petition requirements applying only to third parties need to be repealed.

 

[martybegan]

The deck is stacked
That's what the thread is about

The system is the system. Our system rewards a two party setup, despite the intent of the founders.

To fix the system requires use of the amendment process.

It also requires those screeching about the duopoly to stop being such self important, condescending twats.

 

[Dadoalex]

It's not a question of rights. It's just dumb. Do you really think that if adopted this policy that voters wouldn't know that Trump is a Republican and Biden is a Democrat?

Do try to follow the conversation.
Youir MAGAT buddy claimed non-partisan elections violate his rights to have Rep next to his name.
Now for you?

biden?
trump?

Without looking can you tell me the party affiliation of Stan Thomas?
How about Susan Placensia?

No?

OK then.

 

[dblack]

a third party, and i favor greens, needs to put convincing candidates onto city councils and state legislatures who do their jobs and do not overindulge in corruption. prove you have good ideas and implement them competently.

Good ideas are irrelevant while the spoiler effect is in play.

rules favoring major parties, such as petition requirements applying only to third parties need to be repealed.

Agreed. But the primary thing blocking third parties, and discouraging good candidates from running on a third party ticket, is the lesser-of-two-evils fear mongering.

I was involved with the Libertarian Party in the nineties, and over and over again we'd get poll data showing, even on conservative estimates, that 10-20% of voters would prefer to vote Libertarian. And then every election, those voters would cave to the Lo2e crap, fall in line and vote D or R. We'd be lucky to get 1 or 2% of the actual vote.

Good candidates don't want to waste their time when voters are going to be such cowards at the polls. Short of voters suddenly waking up from their stupor, the only thing I see breaking that stranglehold is Ranked Choice Voting.

 

[dblack]

The system is the system. Our system rewards a two party setup, despite the intent of the founders.

To fix the system requires use of the amendment process.

Not necessarily. State and local government can implement RCV. It's already happening. Once it's in place across the nation, updating the federal voting process should be relatively easy.

It also requires those screeching about the duopoly to stop being such self important, condescending twats.

Why's that? Just cause it hurts your feelies when we point out how stupid you're being?

 

[dblack]

Do try to follow the conversation.
Youir MAGAT buddy claimed non-partisan elections violate his rights to have Rep next to his name.
Now for you?

biden?
trump?

Without looking can you tell me the party affiliation of Stan Thomas?
How about Susan Placensia?

No?

OK then.

OK. You're not making any sense, but that's been a pattern, so I'll just let it lay.

 

[Foxfyre]

We’ve heard it here a thousand times…..”stop voting for the duopoly”….“the parties are one and the same”….”there is no difference between the two parties”….etc etc
(Most don’t agree with that at all, most see at least one major difference between the parties.)
I’m sane enough to know that if I stop voting for the dupoly the duopoly will still win….That said, how can I be assured that my effort of ‘not voting’ will eventually pay off as others join in on the Don’t Vote coalition to prevent the duopoly from winning?
I don’t see any number of sane people ever being willing to take the chance. The only way this would work is if all 155 million stopped voting for the duopoly at the exact same time… How do we make that happen….are we just fantasizing?

The GOP has been a weak, spineless, wishy washy entity far too much of the time, but for the most part it has its priorities straight.
It is NOT for open borders or allowing much less encouraging an invasion of multi-millions of illegals.
It is NOT for throwing trillions of dollars into the system with pretty much zilch to show for all that money that keeps driving up inflation.
It is NOT for lowered standards and diminished quality and excellence in the name of DEI.
It does NOT condone abortion at any stage for any reason with no limits or restrictions or regulation of any kind and most disapprove of the few that have gone overboard with unreasonable restrictions and regulation.
It is NOT supportive of Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and other supporters and instigators of international terrorism.
It is NOT supportive of sexually explicit or sex/gender/pronoun focused curriculum, literature, or entertainment for young children.
It is NOT supportive of encouraging people to be irresponsible or unlawful via throwing money at problems or leniency with criminals.
It does NOT support suppressing the people's right to honest information.
It does NOT support draconian measures to fight climate change or achieve some NWO that will cripple American prosperity and advancement into the foreseeable future.
It does NOT hate Israel and Jews and accuse them of ridiculous crimes while funneling money and other support to their enemies who intend to destroy them.
It does not participate in weaponization of government agencies against American citizens most especially for political purposes.


The Democrats overtly or covertly condone, approve, promote all of that.

To say the two parties are exactly the same is to have blinders on.

I write this as an Independent in philosophy though I register GOP so I can vote in our state's primary elections. This year the Democrats have been so destructive and dangerous to the America I have known and love that I will vote straight GOP ticket no matter WHO is on that ticket.

Any other choice is a vote for a continued march straight into Marxist totalitarianism.

 

[martybegan]

Not necessarily. State and local government can implement RCV. It's already happening. Once it's in place across the nation, updating the federal voting process should be relatively easy.

Why's that? Just cause it hurts your feelies when we point out how stupid you're being?

And would lead to legislative gridlock unless the option for early elections is added to the mix.

Actually it's advice to someone who wants to actually see what they are proposing, as opposed to getting off on smug unearned self importance.

 

[dblack]

To say the two parties are exactly the same is to have blinders on.

This is strawman. That's not what most of us are saying. What we're saying is both candidates suck. Hard. And we're not voting for either. If Ds and Rs want my vote, they'll have to try a little lot harder.

Any other choice is a vote for a continued march straight into Marxist totalitarianism.

Nope. You can take your hysterical fear mongering elsewhere. I'm still not voting for a shitty candidate on purpose. That's straight up stupid.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is strawman. That's not what most of us are saying. What we're saying is both candidates suck. Hard. And we're not voting for either. If Ds and Rs want my vote, they'll have to try a little harder.

Nope. You can take your hysterical fear mongering elsewhere. I'm still not voting for a shitty candidate on purpose. That's straight up stupid.

Speaking of blinders. . .

 

[dblack]

And would lead to legislative gridlock unless the option for early elections is added to the mix.

What??

 

[dblack]

Speaking of blinders. . .

Speak away - what do you think I'm blind to?

 

[martybegan]

What??

Multiple parties, no clear majority, in houses designed to only function with a speaker or equivalent from the majority to set rules, committees, and schedules.

The reason parliamentary systems can handle coalition forming and multiple parties is they all have an "out" to call for early elections if a stable government can't be formed.

Here you would have an executive, but a useless legislature, for the time period between elections.

 

[Foxfyre]

Speak away - what do you think I'm blind to?

You are obviously blind to what the Biden Administration has been doing and intends to do. Or you don't care. Or you support that. At any rate a vote for anyone other than Trump will be a vote for them to continue doing it.

 

[dblack]

Multiple parties, no clear majority, in houses designed to only function with a speaker or equivalent from the majority to set rules, committees, and schedules.

That would less gridlock, not more. Without entrenched parties opposing each other for purely partisan reason, we'd have real political discussion, real ideas

Here you would have an executive, but a useless legislature, for the time period between elections.

I don't see that. It would just change the way Congress operates. For the better.

Also - you seem to be presuming that RCV would usher in a lot third party candidates. That's actually NOT likely. And it's not the point of RCV. The point of RCV is to get rid of the spoiler effect, and the hysterical fear mongering that each party feeds on. The point is to change the tone of our elections and get candidates that everyone can get behind, rather than a slim partisan majority.

 

[martybegan]

That would less gridlock, not more. Without entrenched parties opposing each other for purely partisan reason, we'd have real political discussion, real ideas

I don't see that. It would just change the way Congress operates. For the better.

Also - you seem to be presuming that RCV would usher in a lot third party candidates. That's actually NOT likely. And it's not the point of RCV. The point of RCV is to get rid of the spoiler effect, and the hysterical fear mongering that each party feeds on. The point is to change the tone of our elections and get candidates that everyone can get behind, rather than a slim partisan majority.

I doubt it.

The point and the outcome are two different things. You castigate the existing system without fully understanding it.

 

[Dadoalex]

OK. You're not making any sense, but that's been a pattern, so I'll just let it lay.

Of course I don't make sense.
You'd have to understand the topic first and to MAGADUMIA any topic related to actual fair elections is like breathing ammonia.

 

[dblack]

The point and the outcome are two different things. You castigate the existing system without fully understanding it.

I've been dealing with the existing system for forty years. I think I understand it pretty well. But, castigating a system without understand it is what pretty much every partisan is doing to RCV, just because their party leaders told them it's bad.

 

[Lastamender]

I've been dealing with the existing system for forty years. I think I understand it pretty well. But, castigating a system without understand it is what pretty much every partisan is doing to RCV, just because their party leaders told them it's bad.

We understand how they cheat and that is part of the system now and most likely for the last 40 years too.

 

[martybegan]

I've been dealing with the existing system for forty years. I think I understand it pretty well. But, castigating a system without understand it is what pretty much every partisan is doing to RCV, just because their party leaders told them it's bad.

And I'm saying it will make the existing situation worse not out of partisanship but simple mechanics of the system.