Is it a problem to assume people are or should be either Republicans or Democrats? It may be that many people believe that neither party really represents their interests, real or projected, and so use a very different logic to assess elections, including abstention.
Our system is biased to two parties regardless of where you fall. Elections for the House are mandated to be by district so no at-large proportional representation. Presidential electors are first past the poll, even in Nebraska and Maine except those have it by district as well as statewide. So you could be an independent and vote third-party, but the system still steamrolls over you.
Does it sound pretty much like that? I’d seriously question the judgement of anyone who looked at Harris and Trump and came away with, “How do I pick between these two lizards?”.
I actually agree with you here, except I’d amend it to “Good people don’t want power” and leave it at that.
I’ve always been deeply skeptical of anyone’s motives who aspires to any political office beyond maybe State or Federal representative. I mean, being a City Council-person, State, or Federal rep could be considered a form of community service, but most of the politicians I’ve heard of, or the people I’ve met have always aspired to higher offices and been rather power-hungry overachievers focused on themselves. Not to bash Hillary Clinton overly much, but that whole move to NY and become a Senator absolutely reeked of this sort of personal ambition. They never lived in New York, were not New Yorkers, yet moved there and successfully ran for Senate. Clearly not because she had this deep attachment and love for New York state or the people there, but because it was somewhere she could win. That sort of motivation is really questionable to me.
I think that most elections are the lesser of two evils, if only because we’ve first-past-the-post and as a result, parties have to cover so much ground that unless you’re an extremist, there’s always going to be some issue/political aspect that you align with the other side on in some way, and you’ve got to choose which of those you’re essentially going to abandon when voting.
That doesn’t work in a two party system. Especially one being taken over by fascists; the people who abstained were for all practical purposes voting for fascism. Their intentions were utterly irrelevant and their “different logic” meaningless. The world isn’t obligated to work the way they want.
If that’s the case, then we’ve certainly done a horrible job of it.
Then maybe the fundamental problem is the system. If you want people to actively engage in governance, they need to feel as if their vote actually had an influence on the outcome other than avoiding the worse possible out of a narrow range of bad outcomes instead of insisting that they can only vote for the candidates anointed by a cabal who manipulate the rules to avoid accountability. While it the GOP has been on a tear of gerrymandering and vote suppression nationwide, the Democratic party has had its own display of of proprietary self-interest. A lot of people were really pissed that they intentionally submarined Bernie Sanders in order to push a broadly unpopular but great-at-getting-corporate-funding booster like Hillary Clinton to the forefront, because even though Bernie “King of Amendments” Sanders doesn’t actually have the chops to be an executive and thread the needly of getting bipartisan support for anything, he was saying the things that they really wanted to hear instead of the tired, mealy-mouthed hypocritical slogans from Clinton.
I’ve increasingly come to the view that many people voted for Trump knowing exactly how awful he is, and not really agreeing with anything beyond his desire to get vengeance upon everyone who he believes has wronged him (despite being treated with kid gloves). There is just a real nihilistic undercurrent in society of an unconscious ‘accelerationist’ notion that if everything is going badly is better to help burn it down quickly rather than let it decline slowly, even though historically that often works out very badly for the public at large (witness the French Revolution or the Russian Civil War). In that view, the ‘lesser evil’ is the worst choice because it continues the system as is without really fixing anything. I don’t buy into that ‘logic’ (obviously) but if you think that Kamala Harris is going to continue business as usual in a continuing slide toward dissolution, voting for her isn’t really a ‘better’ option.
Stranger
I’m the same @bump. There are certainly some that are better than others, but it seems like it would be an absolutely miserable job. I, for one thing, could not live under a microscope.
The GOP didn’t just run a child molester, rapist, felon, dementia patient, malignant narcissist, traitor, fascist, corrupt moron. They also engaged in a decades long program of preventing millions of Democrats from being able to vote.
Elections aren’t just about choosing the lesser evil. They’re also about who is allowed to make the choice.
I’m puzzled by the suggestions that America’s political problems stem from having a two-party system.
In what sense have multi-party systems demonstrated an inherent advantage?
To the extent that no political structure is perfect and multiparty democracies can and have been taken over by populist demagogues, a two party system essentially ensures that there will be either consolidation of both parties around a broadly populist political pole and/or extreme polarization around divisive issues (often ones with little in the way of practical policy implications), both excluding effective representation of alternative views. Parliamentary systems in which multiple polities are represented by parties with different organizing principles which have to form coalitions to win effectively govern allow a broader public discussion and representation of diverse viewpoints and tend to inhibit provincialism dominating at a national or federal level.
The United States Constitution essentially ensures a two party system in presidential elections by dint of the Electoral College system, and because the President is typically viewed as the leader of their party that also flows into legislative elections. Reforming or eliminating the Electoral College might disrupt this but the notion of two ‘opposing’ parties (currently the Republican and Democratic parties) seems to be woven into the American political psyche even though it essentially stems from the divide of chattel slavery that was ended over a century and a half ago, and if anything the parties have (kind of) switched political poles in post-WWII history. Alternative parties in American politics have mostly been short-lived experiments centered around one principal leader and have not endured or significantly influenced politics in the long term.
Stranger
Whole multiparty systems certainly have some advantages, those advantages can be overblown since those multiple parties often form two main coalitions that then, for the most part, proceed to each act a lot like one party with multiple wings would end up acting.
Nor are they obligated to go along with the system just because it is the system. Blaming them for failing to take part in the fixed game isn’t helpful.
Blaming the voters for voting (or not) as they see fit isn’t really useful at all. If your party keeps losing elections, maybe you should be asking why it sucks so much that you can’t inspire the majority of voters to come out in support of it. Or, you can be like Hillary Clinton and just insist that the voters are clearly wrong and see how that goes for you.
Stranger
That’s all well and good. You’re right, if they hate the system and want to tear it down, they shouldn’t vote Democrat.
But then why in the hell should they expect Democrats to try to appeal to them?
People who hate the system and want to tear it down are my enemy, whether they’re MAGA cultists or revolutionary Socialists. I want Democrats to oppose those sorts of people with as much vigour and strength as humanly possible.
Democrats shouldn’t try to capture the “destroy the system” votes. If they did, they wouldn’t be Democrats anymore. The Democratic Party would undergo the same kind of transformation that the Republican party underwent when they were captured by MAGA.
I’ll blame them because they’re influencing the results of the system I’m stuck dealing with. Oh dear, the game is “fixed” so you stay home and I have to pay for it with sky high taxes on the goods I buy and the National Guard is set to invade Chicago, and my government is attacking universities and vaccines and immigrants and every other nation in the world.
But Harris wasn’t publicly angry enough about Israel, so I guess the Gazans are in great shape now, yeah?
Not voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us there. Parties don’t move to the right when they beat right wing opposition, they move to the right when they LOSE. The whole chomskyist argument against voting for the lesser of two evils is complete bs. If you don’t want the lesser of two evils to get more evil vote for it
And they can blame you back for continuing to support and encourage those who run the system you’re stuck dealing with. My point is more about not blaming and trying to put together alternatives that work.
Will we vote on this alternative?
Because I want you to know in advance that I will not vote for your lesser evil alternative.
The system isn’t some external thing, separate from us. The system is us. We all still have to live together in a peaceful way somehow. How we do that is the question. Talking about burning down the system is telling the rest of us that you want to end our lives as we have known them because you think something better will result from the destruction. You will never win a popular election by threatening the lives and livelihoods of those you are trying to persuade. So how do you plan on achieving this without popular support?