Bit of an understatement there, don’t you think? That convincing 80 million people to switch their vote to an inexperienced and unproven spoiler candidate with questionable motives and vague policy proposals, with 2 weeks before the election, might be less convenient than convincing a rounding error of voters to vote strategically according to their own stated goals? It would be fair then to say that planets might be a bit bigger than protons, and WWII may have been a bit of a kerfuffle.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been known to indulge, recreationally, in impossibly improbable fantasies. I think we all do from time to time. I’m no lover of the status quo, I yearn unironically for fully automated luxury gay space communism. It’s certainly titillating to imagine the people collectively gaining class consciousness and walking to the polls arm in arm to vote “The Proletariat” for President in a landslide. Buuut…
I’ve worked various customer service roles, I believe anyone who has can corroborate the surprising prevalence of, shall I say, simpletons in the general population. As valid as your policy positions may be, the average American has the attention span of a TV ad and the political depth of a celebrity tweet.
Do you have an actionable plan to spontaneously educate and persuade 80 million people in under 2 weeks? If so, why have you waited until now to suggest it? We could’ve had the revolution years ago.
As fun as the fantasies are, there are lives at stake. In serious circumstances, I prefer not to gamble on historically unsuccessful schemes. Identify the options available to you and their consequences. What levers of power do you hold, how long are they and where is their fulcrum?
It’s not enough to just try stuff that sounds good and hope it works, well-intended actions have unintended consequences. What evidence suggests converting half the voting population in 2 weeks is remotely conceivable?
In two weeks, no, it’s not conceivable. But in the long term, there are only three possibilities: the democrats move left to meet us, or, people move to a new party, or, the system decays into fascism. The democrats will never move to meet us if we support them unconditionally, so the way I see it, voting third party works towards both of those aims at once.
The country is in decline and has been for quite some time. The policies that I advocate for are necessary to stop that decline. As long as Democrats both paint themselves as defenders of the status quo and refuse to do what’s necessary for the status quo to actually work for people, it’s a losing proposition, and one that will only get worse over time. And that’s a problem, because the biggest faction that positions itself as critical of the status quo, and is therefore posed to take advantage of deteriorating conditions, is a right-wing one. Therefore, to accept merely clinging to the status quo as the only option is the same as accepting defeat - it isn’t a viable approach. Building a third party is unlikely to win this particular election, but at least it is part of a strategy that could theoretically work to stop fascism.
In any case, I will not be moved from my position by any amount of words. Either the Dems can give the concessions necessary to move me, or the 80 million can join me over here, or they can win or lose without me. Am I being obstinate? Yes. But I am being obstinate for a reason, because my positions have to happen, or we’ll all be fucked regardless.
there are only three possibilities: the democrats move left to meet us, or, people move to a new party, or, the system decays into fascism.
Correct! Now let’s consider these possibilities, from the perspective of a person who wants to accomplish a goal with their actions:
A new party is the best option, but it will take time to build. That’s gonna look like several election cycles of local and state elections.
I’m the meantime, there is the immediate threat of the system decaying into fascism. If that happens, the new party is doomed anyway, so we need to delay the fascism as much as possible while we get members of the new party elected to lower offices so they can build the experience, skills, and connections necessary to implement their superior policies.
Naturally, we come again to the only rational strategy for a disgruntled leftist: vote Dem every election to buy time until the new party is viable. Jill Stein is not a serious candidate and very possibly an deliberate spoiler bankrolled by Russia. West is not a serious candidate. De la Cruz seems sincere, but she lacks the experience to be a serious candidate; try Governor or Congress first before applying for President.
The democrats will never move to meet us if we support them unconditionally, so the way I see it, voting third party works towards both of those aims at once.
I didn’t see it the way you see it, in fact I think you might have something in your eye because there is no evidence that voting third party accomplished any stated goal, and in fact makes the problems worse.
The country is in decline and has been for quite some time. The policies that I advocate for are necessary to stop that decline.
I sympathize, but your strategy does not implement your policies faster, it in fact pushes them further away. You’re right that we need a new party, but it’s too late this cycle, and the fascists winning may mean it never happens. A vote for Harris is a vote for 4 more years of status quo while we do the real work locally.
In any case, I will not be moved from my position by any amount of words. Either the Dems can give the concessions necessary to move me, or the 80 million can join me over here, or they can win or lose without me. Am I being obstinate? Yes. But I am being obstinate for a reason
Yikes. I’m glad your life is stable enough to gamble with fascism to appease your own obstinance, but however noble your reasons, this strategy is counterproductive. People will suffer so you can say you were stubborn in the face of overwhelming evidence against your strategy.
Time is not on our side. In four years, no matter who wins, the rich will be richer, the poor will be poorer, the climate crisis will be worse, and more and more money will be funneled into the military. “Buying time” is not a valid goal, especially not when it comes at the expense of efforts to actually build an alternative. In four years, anyone looking to build an alternative is going to face the exact same criticisms you’re using now, it will again be “the most important election of our lives” and there’s a good chance that the republican candidate will be worse than Trump, and more people will have turned to the right out of dissatisfaction with deteriorating conditions. Why on earth should we put off building an alternative when future conditions will just make it worse and harder without removing any of the issues that make you say that right now is “an inconvenient time?” When will it be the right time to start building a third party?
I didn’t see it the way you see it, in fact I think you might have something in your eye because there is no evidence that voting third party accomplished any stated goal, and in fact makes the problems worse.
Of course not, because they haven’t been built yet. That’s like saying that there’s no evidence that liberalism could ever work when monarchy was all people knew. What we do know is that the people in power are fundamentally unwilling or unable to address the problems that are leading to the rise of fascism, and therefore must be replaced.
Yikes. I’m glad your life is stable enough to gamble with fascism to appease your own obstinance
Stable enough to gamble with fascism? No, it’s the opposite. It’s precarious enough that I insist on taking a strategy that has a nonzero chance of actually stopping fascism rather than accepting it as an inevitability.
Time is not on our side. In four years, no matter who wins, the rich will be richer, the poor will be poorer, the climate crisis will be worse, and more and more money will be funneled into the military.
Correct!
“Buying time” is not a valid goal, especially not when it comes at the expense of efforts to actually build an alternative.
That logic does not follow. Buying time is an imperative intermediate goal.
In four years, anyone looking to build an alternative is going to face the exact same criticisms you’re using now, it will again be “the most important election of our lives” and there’s a good chance that the republican candidate will be worse than Trump, and more people will have turned to the right out of dissatisfaction with deteriorating conditions.
Yes, that’s the meme. The time to be talking about third parties is not 2 weeks before the election, it’s the day after the election, and consistently for the next 3 years. Anyone trying to build an alternative in 4 years deserves the criticism they get. Build the alternative the whole time.
Why on earth should we put off building an alternative when future conditions will just make it worse and harder without removing any of the issues that make you say that right now is “an inconvenient time?” When will it be the right time to start building a third party?
No one said to put off building alternatives. The current alternatives aren’t viable, and voting for them not only doesn’t help, it hurts. Again, as per the meme, the right time is any time except right before an election without any viable third parties. Buy time in 2024, build in 2025-2027, buy time in 2028, build in 2029-2031, repeat until we have a candidate with Governor/Senator experience and enough of Congress to get past gridlock.
It’s precarious enough that I insist on taking a strategy that has a nonzero chance of actually stopping fascism rather than accepting it as an inevitability.
Incorrect unfortunately, your strategy’s chance of stopping fascism is much closer to zero than mine. In fact, the strategy you insist on taking actually has a much higher chance of enabling fascism than stopping it.
Yes, that’s the meme. The time to be talking about third parties is not 2 weeks before the election, it’s the day after the election, and consistently for the next 3 years. Anyone trying to build an alternative in 4 years deserves the criticism they get. Build the alternative the whole time.
I didn’t start supporting a third party candidate 2 weeks before the election. If you spend the next three years building a third party and then ditch them at the last minute, then what was the point? That makes absolutely zero sense, it’s even less coherent than just unconditionally and uncritically supporting the democrats forever. Why would I tell other people to vote for a third party for three years and then suddenly change my messaging and vote for the democrats and then switch back to telling people to vote third party right after? If you actually think through that at all, what you’re saying is incoherent.
Incorrect unfortunately, your strategy’s chance of stopping fascism is much closer to zero than mine. In fact, the strategy you insist on taking actually has a much higher chance of enabling fascism than stopping it.
Incorrect, my strategy has a low, but nonzero chance of stopping fascism, while yours is zero.
If you spend the next three years building a third party and then ditch them at the last minute, then what was the point?
To get a candidate 3 years closer to being viable, you know you don’t have to start over every 4 years. It’s going to take several election cycles before we have a qualified third party candidate.
Why would I tell other people to vote for a third party for three years and then suddenly change my messaging and vote for the democrats and then switch back to telling people to vote third party right after?
That’s a silly thing to do, and not something I recommended. Don’t do that. Do promote third parties in local races they can actually win, as well as state elections in solid states where they can actually win. Once you have enough of those to have presidential candidates with actual experience, then, with sufficiently positive polling data, start pushing for a popular third party candidate.
That’s going to be at least 3 election cycles though, and if you fool around like this every 4 years it may well be a moot point. What good is a third party if the fascists end elections? Any other strategy is incoherent. Unless of course your goal is to split the vote for the benefit of the fascists, then promoting a spoiler candidate is exactly aligned with your goal.
Incorrect, my strategy has a low, but nonzero chance of stopping fascism, while yours is zero.
My strategy is to buy time while we build a functional and electable third party that has the means to change the status quo. Your strategy is to throw away votes on a non-functional candidate, and in the process accelerate the fascist takeover.
I’m not gonna nuh-uh-yuh-huh with someone who doesn’t understand elections, or the trolley problem.
Voting isn’t analogous to the trolley problem. That’s a thought experiment with a huge number of unrealistic simplifying assumptions that makes it only rarely at all applicable to the real world. To make the trolley problem actually reflect the situation of voting, you’d have to add in so many variables that it wouldn’t actually help explain anything.
First off, the comparison isn’t valid because it treats the parties as unflinching machines that have no agency. In reality, the electoral process is a negotiation in which the parties attempt to build coalitions, and in a negotiation, accepting the other side’s position as ironclad and unmovable is a choice and often a bad one. If the other party is committed to being reasonable, then you can offer them a terrible deal that is only slightly better than what they would get otherwise - it is a position of weakness.
You, as well as the democratic party, want to put people like me into that position of weakness where our decisions are the ones that are most scrutinized and up for critique, but it ought to be the opposite. Democracy is about the will of the voters being exercised on the political process, not the will of a party being pushed onto the voters. If you wanted the trolley problem to reflect this, then you’d have to put someone in the problem who is standing by the alternate track who put the person there on the tracks and is fully able to release them at any time, but chooses not to, while also trying to persuade you to switch tracks, which would also put them in a position of power. Negotiating with that person and demanding they release their victim is a reasonable thing to do which complicates the problem.
The hypothetical also isn’t valid because it ignores any alternatives. The reality is that there’s more than two tracks that the lever can switch to, and some of them don’t have any people on them at all. However, there’s not just your lever, but 300 million levers involved. And also, it’s not just one trolley problem, but repeated ones over and over, and the results of one trolley problem are used to inform the next one. As I said, when you add in all the meaningful differences between the hypothetical and reality, it becomes just as complicated as reality and fails to be useful.
As for just focusing on local elections - the fact of the matter is that local elections don’t get nearly the same level of attention as presidential elections. Promoting third parties in the presidential race is conducive to helping them win local elections because it helps publicize them, and it makes up the vast majority of what people actually talk about. Ignoring the presidential race would mean sitting on the sidelines and ignoring virtually every political conversation, which is not an effective means of advancing a political cause.
Tbh, I’m very skeptical that you actually want anything like the same things that I want. There’s this pervasive trend among the democratic party and their surrogates to simply accept whatever values or goals a constituent wants, and to simply focus on how voting democrat will help accomplish that goal - to be everything to everyone, in other words. In this case, what I want is for the democratic party to be unseated and replaced, and you’re going along with that while trying to argue that the most effective means of accomplishing that is to vote democrat. I find that pretty absurd. No, the most effective way of advancing the goal of a third party replacing them is to vote for that third party, and that should be extremely obvious to anyone.
After reading that, I still can’t think of a more concise or accurate response:
I’m not gonna nuh-uh-yuh-huh with someone who doesn’t understand elections, or the trolley problem.
You don’t understand the purpose of the trolley problem, and you don’t understand how elections functionally work. To add to that, you also don’t seem to understand how communication works either.
the most effective way of advancing the goal of a third party replacing them is to vote for that third party, and that should be extremely obvious to anyone.
Just because something is obvious to a simpleton does not mean it is correct. Science is overflowing with examples of this, where the conclusion that’s “obvious to anyone” for centuries was actually very wrong, often times so wrong that the solutions it generated actually made things worse. It’s obvious to anyone that water puts out fire, until they throw water on a grease fire. “Voting third party in a FPTP post elections helps third parties win” is one of those conclusions. It’s like water on the grease fire of encroaching fascism.
I can’t possibly know what your political goals are. You could either be a sincere but woefully misguided leftist whose end goals are indeed roughly aligned with my own, or you could be a competent fascist sowing confusion among the leftists to help fascism win; your arguments are equally well explained by either.
I generally like to be charitable with my assumptions of the intelligence of others, but on the off chance that you really are just a bumbling leftist unwittingly holding the rest of us back, I’ll leave you with one example:
Ralph Nader, 2000. I’m sure he meant well (can’t say the same for Jill Stein) but polling shows, definitively, that had he sat out the race we would’ve had Gore instead of Bush. Instead of comprehensive responses to climate change, a balanced budget, and expanded funding for education and healthcare, we got another perpetual war in the middle east, the Patriot Act, tax cuts for the rich, Roberts and Alito, and the 2008 financial crisis. And oh yeah, support for the Green Party has gone down since Nader, so the inefficacy of building support for third parties this way is obvious.
I know when you’re young, simple straightforward solutions seem obvious. But once you actually interact with people and situations in the world with some frequency, you’ll learn that this is rarely the case outside of trivially simple problems. This is not a trivially simple problem, and the trivially simple solution has not been working at all for the past 40 years. The trivially simple solution helped give us GWB and Trump.
I have nothing but support for those Green candidates who have been elected Mayor, City Council, etc. The sooner we see those City Councilors become Mayors in big numbers, and see those Mayors become Governors and Senators and House Reps, the closer we’ll be to a seasoned representative who can convince the voting population that they’re capable of the job of President. Right now, you’re trying to elect a candy striper as Head of Surgery.
what I want is for the democratic party to be unseated and replaced
You can technically get that, if the opposition party with a record and stated goals of obstructing, overturning, and straight up bypassing elections beats the Democratic party this year and follows their stated game plan. We’ll have one glorious, unquestionable MAGA party, Democrats will be excised from office, and you may never have to worry about who to vote for again.
Now, if your goal is to unseat both sides of the duopoly and replace them with representatives to the left of the current mainstream political spectrum, then voting for inexperienced third party candidates for not achieve that goal, and In fact jeopardizes that goal. The Dems won’t be unseated by some inexperienced possible Russian asset. It might cost them the presidential election, but history shows they’ll run to the center to find voters.
The duopoly will be unseated by a popular, multi-term third party Governor or Senator, and to actually accomplish anything they’ll need a Congress full of third party Senators and Representatives. Without those conditions, voting for a third party President is pointless: they won’t win, and even if they did they wouldn’t get anything past Congress, and those failures will help discourage voters from choosing third parties in the future. These small minded goals do not change anything for the people in any meaningful way.
By far the best strategy for long term, lasting, effective change is to destroy the GOP first, making room for a leftist party. This is accomplished by 66+% victories by the neo-lib party. As long as the races are close, rational voters will vote strategically against the greater evil. Once the greater evil is insignificant, we can focus on splitting off from the lesser evil. Then, once the Green Party has overwhelming majority support, we can split off from them to form an even better party. So on and so forth.
I know it can be complicated to think about, but the world is complex. If you insist on simple solutions to complex problems, you’re throwing water on a grease fire and endangering everyone. If you want change, you have to understand how change implementation works. It’s not enough to want something and do the first most obvious thing you can think of to get it. You have to actually understand how the system in question actually operates, and how to use the operational mechanics of that system to accomplish your goals.
Or, you can keep throwing water on a grease for and hope things turn out differently this time, while the rest of us scream at you for setting the house on fire.
Bit of an understatement there, don’t you think? That convincing 80 million people to switch their vote to an inexperienced and unproven spoiler candidate with questionable motives and vague policy proposals, with 2 weeks before the election, might be less convenient than convincing a rounding error of voters to vote strategically according to their own stated goals? It would be fair then to say that planets might be a bit bigger than protons, and WWII may have been a bit of a kerfuffle.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been known to indulge, recreationally, in impossibly improbable fantasies. I think we all do from time to time. I’m no lover of the status quo, I yearn unironically for fully automated luxury gay space communism. It’s certainly titillating to imagine the people collectively gaining class consciousness and walking to the polls arm in arm to vote “The Proletariat” for President in a landslide. Buuut…
I’ve worked various customer service roles, I believe anyone who has can corroborate the surprising prevalence of, shall I say, simpletons in the general population. As valid as your policy positions may be, the average American has the attention span of a TV ad and the political depth of a celebrity tweet.
Do you have an actionable plan to spontaneously educate and persuade 80 million people in under 2 weeks? If so, why have you waited until now to suggest it? We could’ve had the revolution years ago.
As fun as the fantasies are, there are lives at stake. In serious circumstances, I prefer not to gamble on historically unsuccessful schemes. Identify the options available to you and their consequences. What levers of power do you hold, how long are they and where is their fulcrum?
It’s not enough to just try stuff that sounds good and hope it works, well-intended actions have unintended consequences. What evidence suggests converting half the voting population in 2 weeks is remotely conceivable?
In two weeks, no, it’s not conceivable. But in the long term, there are only three possibilities: the democrats move left to meet us, or, people move to a new party, or, the system decays into fascism. The democrats will never move to meet us if we support them unconditionally, so the way I see it, voting third party works towards both of those aims at once.
The country is in decline and has been for quite some time. The policies that I advocate for are necessary to stop that decline. As long as Democrats both paint themselves as defenders of the status quo and refuse to do what’s necessary for the status quo to actually work for people, it’s a losing proposition, and one that will only get worse over time. And that’s a problem, because the biggest faction that positions itself as critical of the status quo, and is therefore posed to take advantage of deteriorating conditions, is a right-wing one. Therefore, to accept merely clinging to the status quo as the only option is the same as accepting defeat - it isn’t a viable approach. Building a third party is unlikely to win this particular election, but at least it is part of a strategy that could theoretically work to stop fascism.
In any case, I will not be moved from my position by any amount of words. Either the Dems can give the concessions necessary to move me, or the 80 million can join me over here, or they can win or lose without me. Am I being obstinate? Yes. But I am being obstinate for a reason, because my positions have to happen, or we’ll all be fucked regardless.
Correct! Now let’s consider these possibilities, from the perspective of a person who wants to accomplish a goal with their actions:
A new party is the best option, but it will take time to build. That’s gonna look like several election cycles of local and state elections.
I’m the meantime, there is the immediate threat of the system decaying into fascism. If that happens, the new party is doomed anyway, so we need to delay the fascism as much as possible while we get members of the new party elected to lower offices so they can build the experience, skills, and connections necessary to implement their superior policies.
Naturally, we come again to the only rational strategy for a disgruntled leftist: vote Dem every election to buy time until the new party is viable. Jill Stein is not a serious candidate and very possibly an deliberate spoiler bankrolled by Russia. West is not a serious candidate. De la Cruz seems sincere, but she lacks the experience to be a serious candidate; try Governor or Congress first before applying for President.
I didn’t see it the way you see it, in fact I think you might have something in your eye because there is no evidence that voting third party accomplished any stated goal, and in fact makes the problems worse.
I sympathize, but your strategy does not implement your policies faster, it in fact pushes them further away. You’re right that we need a new party, but it’s too late this cycle, and the fascists winning may mean it never happens. A vote for Harris is a vote for 4 more years of status quo while we do the real work locally.
Yikes. I’m glad your life is stable enough to gamble with fascism to appease your own obstinance, but however noble your reasons, this strategy is counterproductive. People will suffer so you can say you were stubborn in the face of overwhelming evidence against your strategy.
Time is not on our side. In four years, no matter who wins, the rich will be richer, the poor will be poorer, the climate crisis will be worse, and more and more money will be funneled into the military. “Buying time” is not a valid goal, especially not when it comes at the expense of efforts to actually build an alternative. In four years, anyone looking to build an alternative is going to face the exact same criticisms you’re using now, it will again be “the most important election of our lives” and there’s a good chance that the republican candidate will be worse than Trump, and more people will have turned to the right out of dissatisfaction with deteriorating conditions. Why on earth should we put off building an alternative when future conditions will just make it worse and harder without removing any of the issues that make you say that right now is “an inconvenient time?” When will it be the right time to start building a third party?
Of course not, because they haven’t been built yet. That’s like saying that there’s no evidence that liberalism could ever work when monarchy was all people knew. What we do know is that the people in power are fundamentally unwilling or unable to address the problems that are leading to the rise of fascism, and therefore must be replaced.
Stable enough to gamble with fascism? No, it’s the opposite. It’s precarious enough that I insist on taking a strategy that has a nonzero chance of actually stopping fascism rather than accepting it as an inevitability.
Correct!
That logic does not follow. Buying time is an imperative intermediate goal.
Yes, that’s the meme. The time to be talking about third parties is not 2 weeks before the election, it’s the day after the election, and consistently for the next 3 years. Anyone trying to build an alternative in 4 years deserves the criticism they get. Build the alternative the whole time.
No one said to put off building alternatives. The current alternatives aren’t viable, and voting for them not only doesn’t help, it hurts. Again, as per the meme, the right time is any time except right before an election without any viable third parties. Buy time in 2024, build in 2025-2027, buy time in 2028, build in 2029-2031, repeat until we have a candidate with Governor/Senator experience and enough of Congress to get past gridlock.
Incorrect unfortunately, your strategy’s chance of stopping fascism is much closer to zero than mine. In fact, the strategy you insist on taking actually has a much higher chance of enabling fascism than stopping it.
I didn’t start supporting a third party candidate 2 weeks before the election. If you spend the next three years building a third party and then ditch them at the last minute, then what was the point? That makes absolutely zero sense, it’s even less coherent than just unconditionally and uncritically supporting the democrats forever. Why would I tell other people to vote for a third party for three years and then suddenly change my messaging and vote for the democrats and then switch back to telling people to vote third party right after? If you actually think through that at all, what you’re saying is incoherent.
Incorrect, my strategy has a low, but nonzero chance of stopping fascism, while yours is zero.
To get a candidate 3 years closer to being viable, you know you don’t have to start over every 4 years. It’s going to take several election cycles before we have a qualified third party candidate.
That’s a silly thing to do, and not something I recommended. Don’t do that. Do promote third parties in local races they can actually win, as well as state elections in solid states where they can actually win. Once you have enough of those to have presidential candidates with actual experience, then, with sufficiently positive polling data, start pushing for a popular third party candidate.
That’s going to be at least 3 election cycles though, and if you fool around like this every 4 years it may well be a moot point. What good is a third party if the fascists end elections? Any other strategy is incoherent. Unless of course your goal is to split the vote for the benefit of the fascists, then promoting a spoiler candidate is exactly aligned with your goal.
My strategy is to buy time while we build a functional and electable third party that has the means to change the status quo. Your strategy is to throw away votes on a non-functional candidate, and in the process accelerate the fascist takeover.
I’m not gonna nuh-uh-yuh-huh with someone who doesn’t understand elections, or the trolley problem.
Voting isn’t analogous to the trolley problem. That’s a thought experiment with a huge number of unrealistic simplifying assumptions that makes it only rarely at all applicable to the real world. To make the trolley problem actually reflect the situation of voting, you’d have to add in so many variables that it wouldn’t actually help explain anything.
First off, the comparison isn’t valid because it treats the parties as unflinching machines that have no agency. In reality, the electoral process is a negotiation in which the parties attempt to build coalitions, and in a negotiation, accepting the other side’s position as ironclad and unmovable is a choice and often a bad one. If the other party is committed to being reasonable, then you can offer them a terrible deal that is only slightly better than what they would get otherwise - it is a position of weakness.
You, as well as the democratic party, want to put people like me into that position of weakness where our decisions are the ones that are most scrutinized and up for critique, but it ought to be the opposite. Democracy is about the will of the voters being exercised on the political process, not the will of a party being pushed onto the voters. If you wanted the trolley problem to reflect this, then you’d have to put someone in the problem who is standing by the alternate track who put the person there on the tracks and is fully able to release them at any time, but chooses not to, while also trying to persuade you to switch tracks, which would also put them in a position of power. Negotiating with that person and demanding they release their victim is a reasonable thing to do which complicates the problem.
The hypothetical also isn’t valid because it ignores any alternatives. The reality is that there’s more than two tracks that the lever can switch to, and some of them don’t have any people on them at all. However, there’s not just your lever, but 300 million levers involved. And also, it’s not just one trolley problem, but repeated ones over and over, and the results of one trolley problem are used to inform the next one. As I said, when you add in all the meaningful differences between the hypothetical and reality, it becomes just as complicated as reality and fails to be useful.
As for just focusing on local elections - the fact of the matter is that local elections don’t get nearly the same level of attention as presidential elections. Promoting third parties in the presidential race is conducive to helping them win local elections because it helps publicize them, and it makes up the vast majority of what people actually talk about. Ignoring the presidential race would mean sitting on the sidelines and ignoring virtually every political conversation, which is not an effective means of advancing a political cause.
Tbh, I’m very skeptical that you actually want anything like the same things that I want. There’s this pervasive trend among the democratic party and their surrogates to simply accept whatever values or goals a constituent wants, and to simply focus on how voting democrat will help accomplish that goal - to be everything to everyone, in other words. In this case, what I want is for the democratic party to be unseated and replaced, and you’re going along with that while trying to argue that the most effective means of accomplishing that is to vote democrat. I find that pretty absurd. No, the most effective way of advancing the goal of a third party replacing them is to vote for that third party, and that should be extremely obvious to anyone.
After reading that, I still can’t think of a more concise or accurate response:
You don’t understand the purpose of the trolley problem, and you don’t understand how elections functionally work. To add to that, you also don’t seem to understand how communication works either.
Just because something is obvious to a simpleton does not mean it is correct. Science is overflowing with examples of this, where the conclusion that’s “obvious to anyone” for centuries was actually very wrong, often times so wrong that the solutions it generated actually made things worse. It’s obvious to anyone that water puts out fire, until they throw water on a grease fire. “Voting third party in a FPTP post elections helps third parties win” is one of those conclusions. It’s like water on the grease fire of encroaching fascism.
I can’t possibly know what your political goals are. You could either be a sincere but woefully misguided leftist whose end goals are indeed roughly aligned with my own, or you could be a competent fascist sowing confusion among the leftists to help fascism win; your arguments are equally well explained by either.
I generally like to be charitable with my assumptions of the intelligence of others, but on the off chance that you really are just a bumbling leftist unwittingly holding the rest of us back, I’ll leave you with one example:
Ralph Nader, 2000. I’m sure he meant well (can’t say the same for Jill Stein) but polling shows, definitively, that had he sat out the race we would’ve had Gore instead of Bush. Instead of comprehensive responses to climate change, a balanced budget, and expanded funding for education and healthcare, we got another perpetual war in the middle east, the Patriot Act, tax cuts for the rich, Roberts and Alito, and the 2008 financial crisis. And oh yeah, support for the Green Party has gone down since Nader, so the inefficacy of building support for third parties this way is obvious.
I know when you’re young, simple straightforward solutions seem obvious. But once you actually interact with people and situations in the world with some frequency, you’ll learn that this is rarely the case outside of trivially simple problems. This is not a trivially simple problem, and the trivially simple solution has not been working at all for the past 40 years. The trivially simple solution helped give us GWB and Trump.
I have nothing but support for those Green candidates who have been elected Mayor, City Council, etc. The sooner we see those City Councilors become Mayors in big numbers, and see those Mayors become Governors and Senators and House Reps, the closer we’ll be to a seasoned representative who can convince the voting population that they’re capable of the job of President. Right now, you’re trying to elect a candy striper as Head of Surgery.
You can technically get that, if the opposition party with a record and stated goals of obstructing, overturning, and straight up bypassing elections beats the Democratic party this year and follows their stated game plan. We’ll have one glorious, unquestionable MAGA party, Democrats will be excised from office, and you may never have to worry about who to vote for again.
Now, if your goal is to unseat both sides of the duopoly and replace them with representatives to the left of the current mainstream political spectrum, then voting for inexperienced third party candidates for not achieve that goal, and In fact jeopardizes that goal. The Dems won’t be unseated by some inexperienced possible Russian asset. It might cost them the presidential election, but history shows they’ll run to the center to find voters.
The duopoly will be unseated by a popular, multi-term third party Governor or Senator, and to actually accomplish anything they’ll need a Congress full of third party Senators and Representatives. Without those conditions, voting for a third party President is pointless: they won’t win, and even if they did they wouldn’t get anything past Congress, and those failures will help discourage voters from choosing third parties in the future. These small minded goals do not change anything for the people in any meaningful way.
By far the best strategy for long term, lasting, effective change is to destroy the GOP first, making room for a leftist party. This is accomplished by 66+% victories by the neo-lib party. As long as the races are close, rational voters will vote strategically against the greater evil. Once the greater evil is insignificant, we can focus on splitting off from the lesser evil. Then, once the Green Party has overwhelming majority support, we can split off from them to form an even better party. So on and so forth.
I know it can be complicated to think about, but the world is complex. If you insist on simple solutions to complex problems, you’re throwing water on a grease fire and endangering everyone. If you want change, you have to understand how change implementation works. It’s not enough to want something and do the first most obvious thing you can think of to get it. You have to actually understand how the system in question actually operates, and how to use the operational mechanics of that system to accomplish your goals.
Or, you can keep throwing water on a grease for and hope things turn out differently this time, while the rest of us scream at you for setting the house on fire.