Nothing was going to save Gaza. That didn’t mean we needed to continue being complicit. But at least centrists didn’t have to consider abandoning netanyahu.
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.
I was told that protest voting would save Gaza, is Gaza saved? /s
You know who could have saved gaza?
Biden, two years ago.
Scumbag
Nothing was going to save Gaza. That didn’t mean we needed to continue being complicit. But at least centrists didn’t have to consider abandoning netanyahu.
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.