Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said in an interview with NBC News that he will encourage progressive voters to still back Democrats on the ticket in November even if moderates are victorious in the primaries.
Don’t worry about the party, and concentrate on the candidates. There are only two parties, like it or not, so your guy is out there somewhere, even if the logo on his umbrella sucks. Realistically, he doesn’t really have any other choice. There are plenty of Democratic candidates who aren’t taking money from AIPAC, and it’s helping them, especially with younger voters.
Being loudly proudly defiant of Israel is new territory in American politics, and it is the righteous position, but it is unexplored territory, and it’s frightening to be among the first politicians to venture into that jungle. Let’s protect those that are, and show a little grace for those who are trying to get there. There will be a lot of converts, and we have to welcome them at this early stage.
The first rule of politics is get elected. You want changes? Get the right people elected, and stop surrendering at the first label you encounter.
Like it or not those 3rd parties mathematically have no feasible path to overtaking the two parties in control without dissolving one first.
To dissolve a party you need to first start by creating a schism within the party itself. Utilize that schism to create a popularist outcry that allows the reformation of a new party. We do not have a system like proportional representation that allows for 3rd parties to grow and develop influence via coalitions.
Ignoring this is just willfully ignorant and is actually a strategy that the two parties employ to split votes from their main adversary.
a candidate that chose to be part of a party that endorse a genocide is scum.
Running under a certain party does not mean you implicitly endorse them, especially considering that a lot of the progressive candidates that have recently won their primaries lacked the endorsement of the party.
I think you just need to take a class or read a book about civics?
Like it or not those 3rd parties mathematically have no feasible path to overtaking the two parties in control without dissolving one first.
To dissolve a party you need to first start by creating a schism within the party itself.
What twisted logic are you on? Third parties can run on their own and not be affiliated with the red and blue party
Ignoring this is just willfully ignorant and is actually a strategy that the two parties employ to split votes from their main adversary.
This is propaganda the government spreads around to keep all the votes on red and blue and never lose their duopoly in power. If red and blue want to win elections they try to get the votes on themself, why would they want promote third parties that their own supporters could vote for? Trump is the most unpopular president in history, if a third party was more popular it would probably get more votes from previous red supporters than blue
Third parties can run on their own and not be affiliated with the red and blue party
But they can’t win, champ.
At this point, after going through so many of your comments, I have to assume you’re pretty young and definitely dumb. I remember being younger and dumber and idealistic. Then I grew up.
When you’re young and dumb it’s hard to grasp that someone can support a party without explicitly supporting everything they do. Don’t worry, one day when you’re less young and dumb you’ll start dabbling in nuance and this will all start making sense to you.
Until then you’re just going to keep having to help fuck everything up by making awful decisions by employing awful logic.
Like I said… You need to better educate yourself about civics and political science.
This is propaganda the government spreads around to keep all the votes on red and blue and never lose their duopoly in power.
No, it’s just political science and the result of having single member districts and first past the post voting. It has been a known quantity since the 50s.
If red and blue want to win elections they try to get the votes on themself, why would they want promote third parties that their own supporters could vote for?
Because in a close red vs blue election, if the red can create a schism in the blues party that drives some of their voters towards a different party with more progressive views, then they can win without having to gain more voters.
Like I said… You need to better educate yourself about civics and political science.
You are taking this law for granted and building another of your own on top of it. This theory looks mainly based on observation of previous elections, it’s not much different than arguing that fascists will get in power again because they have already done so plenty of times in the past. Each election a new party can show up and change the data, educate yourself on how math works if you want to school others on anything scientific.
Because in a close red vs blue election, if the red can create a schism in the blues party that drives some of their voters towards a different party with more progressive views, then they can win without having to gain more voters.
In a democratic election each party has the same changes of winning, you are assuming the world is divided into two factions that will never vote for anything that isn’t red or blue.
You are taking this law for granted and building another of your own on top of it.
Lol, how so?
This theory looks mainly based on observation of previous elections, it’s
I mean it uses previous elections as evidence to support a theory based on a logical deduction. Your claim is like saying the laws around gravity are only based on previous observations of how gravity functions. That every step you take “changes the data”.
educate yourself on how math works if you want to school others on anything scientific.
Someone has already done the Math… You don’t have to trust my opinion.
“Thomas R. Palfrey argued Duverger’s law can be proven mathematically at the limit when the number of voters approaches infinity for one single-winner district and where the probability distribution of votes is known, rational strategic voting forces a single-winner plurality system to collapse into a two-party competition.”
Meaning in this model as the number of voters approaches infinity, the vote share of any third or minor candidate shrinks toward zero in equilibrium.
In a democratic election each party has the same changes of winning
What does that even mean without context? The chances of winning are determined by the locality of the voters. A Democrat does not have the same chance of winning a seat in California as they do in Oklahoma, what are you talking about?
the world is divided into two factions that will never vote for anything that isn’t red or blue.
We’re talking about America…not the world. And yes, America is a two party system. The chances of a third party loosing isnt an absolute, but it’s as close to a guarantee as you could make in politics.
To dissolve a party you need to first start by creating a schism within the party itself.
It’s like arguing that to walk on the bottom surface of the earth you need magnetic boots, it only works if you assume that earth is flat and magnetic. You are making an argument on top of duverger’s law taking it for granted as a mathematical law, you are not supposed to do that.
I mean it uses previous elections as evidence to support a theory based on a logical deduction. Your claim is like saying the laws around gravity are only based on previous observations of how gravity functions. That every step you take “changes the data”.
Each election is different from another and has different parties running which means that each time the variables are different and unpredictable (you cannot mathematically predict what people will vote for in 5 years and which parties will run)
“Thomas R. Palfrey argued Duverger’s law can be proven mathematically at the limit when the number of voters approaches infinity for one single-winner district and where the probability distribution of votes is known, rational strategic voting forces a single-winner plurality system to collapse into a two-party competition.”
I argue that unless you can read the future you cannot prove mathematically what people are going to vote for.
One day you’re going to move out of your parent’s basement and find out the utopia you think you can achieve doesn’t exist. Then you’ll probably move back into your parent’s basement because it’s such a safe space.
Don’t worry about the party, and concentrate on the candidates. There are only two parties, like it or not, so your guy is out there somewhere, even if the logo on his umbrella sucks. Realistically, he doesn’t really have any other choice. There are plenty of Democratic candidates who aren’t taking money from AIPAC, and it’s helping them, especially with younger voters.
Being loudly proudly defiant of Israel is new territory in American politics, and it is the righteous position, but it is unexplored territory, and it’s frightening to be among the first politicians to venture into that jungle. Let’s protect those that are, and show a little grace for those who are trying to get there. There will be a lot of converts, and we have to welcome them at this early stage.
The first rule of politics is get elected. You want changes? Get the right people elected, and stop surrendering at the first label you encounter.
Like it or not there are more than two parties and a candidate that chose to be part of a party that endorse a genocide is scum.
The first rule of humanity is to try to be a good person and you do that by not lying to people to get in power and by not supporting criminals.
Like it or not those 3rd parties mathematically have no feasible path to overtaking the two parties in control without dissolving one first.
To dissolve a party you need to first start by creating a schism within the party itself. Utilize that schism to create a popularist outcry that allows the reformation of a new party. We do not have a system like proportional representation that allows for 3rd parties to grow and develop influence via coalitions.
Ignoring this is just willfully ignorant and is actually a strategy that the two parties employ to split votes from their main adversary.
Running under a certain party does not mean you implicitly endorse them, especially considering that a lot of the progressive candidates that have recently won their primaries lacked the endorsement of the party.
I think you just need to take a class or read a book about civics?
What twisted logic are you on? Third parties can run on their own and not be affiliated with the red and blue party
This is propaganda the government spreads around to keep all the votes on red and blue and never lose their duopoly in power. If red and blue want to win elections they try to get the votes on themself, why would they want promote third parties that their own supporters could vote for? Trump is the most unpopular president in history, if a third party was more popular it would probably get more votes from previous red supporters than blue
Common sense logic. You should try it.
But they can’t win, champ.
At this point, after going through so many of your comments, I have to assume you’re pretty young and definitely dumb. I remember being younger and dumber and idealistic. Then I grew up.
When you’re young and dumb it’s hard to grasp that someone can support a party without explicitly supporting everything they do. Don’t worry, one day when you’re less young and dumb you’ll start dabbling in nuance and this will all start making sense to you.
Until then you’re just going to keep having to help fuck everything up by making awful decisions by employing awful logic.
Duverger’s law
Like I said… You need to better educate yourself about civics and political science.
No, it’s just political science and the result of having single member districts and first past the post voting. It has been a known quantity since the 50s.
Because in a close red vs blue election, if the red can create a schism in the blues party that drives some of their voters towards a different party with more progressive views, then they can win without having to gain more voters.
You are taking this law for granted and building another of your own on top of it. This theory looks mainly based on observation of previous elections, it’s not much different than arguing that fascists will get in power again because they have already done so plenty of times in the past. Each election a new party can show up and change the data, educate yourself on how math works if you want to school others on anything scientific.
In a democratic election each party has the same changes of winning, you are assuming the world is divided into two factions that will never vote for anything that isn’t red or blue.
Definitively false. But if you keep saying it maybe it will come true.
Lol, how so?
I mean it uses previous elections as evidence to support a theory based on a logical deduction. Your claim is like saying the laws around gravity are only based on previous observations of how gravity functions. That every step you take “changes the data”.
Someone has already done the Math… You don’t have to trust my opinion.
“Thomas R. Palfrey argued Duverger’s law can be proven mathematically at the limit when the number of voters approaches infinity for one single-winner district and where the probability distribution of votes is known, rational strategic voting forces a single-winner plurality system to collapse into a two-party competition.”
Meaning in this model as the number of voters approaches infinity, the vote share of any third or minor candidate shrinks toward zero in equilibrium.
What does that even mean without context? The chances of winning are determined by the locality of the voters. A Democrat does not have the same chance of winning a seat in California as they do in Oklahoma, what are you talking about?
We’re talking about America…not the world. And yes, America is a two party system. The chances of a third party loosing isnt an absolute, but it’s as close to a guarantee as you could make in politics.
It’s like arguing that to walk on the bottom surface of the earth you need magnetic boots, it only works if you assume that earth is flat and magnetic. You are making an argument on top of duverger’s law taking it for granted as a mathematical law, you are not supposed to do that.
Each election is different from another and has different parties running which means that each time the variables are different and unpredictable (you cannot mathematically predict what people will vote for in 5 years and which parties will run)
I argue that unless you can read the future you cannot prove mathematically what people are going to vote for.
The variables that matter are a constant… It doesn’t matter what parties run so long as the system in which they run is the same.
This does not attempt to vision what party will win, just that one of the main two parties in a two party system will win.
One day you’re going to move out of your parent’s basement and find out the utopia you think you can achieve doesn’t exist. Then you’ll probably move back into your parent’s basement because it’s such a safe space.