Because what we really need right now is someone to come along and split the left vote. That'll bring change alright. Is the Green Party funded mostly through Republican dark money?
Exemplary
Because what we really need right now is someone to come along and split the left vote. That'll bring change alright.
Is the Green Party funded mostly through Republican dark money?
This is the only take I have on this. I get that the Democrats are not inherently "good" but every time I hear of breaking the two party system it's never something that will provide an 'actual...
This is the only take I have on this. I get that the Democrats are not inherently "good" but every time I hear of breaking the two party system it's never something that will provide an 'actual fiscal conservative' option to split the right or anything.
The Green Party just feels like a spoiler candidate.
That's exactly what some people want and with Jill Stein on the ticket who spent a dinner with Russians I suspect this is nothing but a spoiler "shake-up" since the Robert Kennedy didn't work out.
That's exactly what some people want and with Jill Stein on the ticket who spent a dinner with Russians I suspect this is nothing but a spoiler "shake-up" since the Robert Kennedy didn't work out.
It turns out RFK Jr., the Democrat, had half his funding coming from the GOP, so it wouldn't surprise me for these no-chance-but-splits-the-vote candidates too....
It turns out RFK Jr., the Democrat, had half his funding coming from the GOP, so it wouldn't surprise me for these no-chance-but-splits-the-vote candidates too.
Doesn't it feel like it's bullshit that this is our reality though? You're totally right that 3rd parties basically exist to split votes at this point. But the two party system benefits nobody but...
Doesn't it feel like it's bullshit that this is our reality though? You're totally right that 3rd parties basically exist to split votes at this point. But the two party system benefits nobody but the politicians. People should be able to align themselves with a party that represents their beliefs, not simply stomach one of two choices because they share a few beliefs. I'm a Democrat, but I'd jump ship in a heartbeat to a more liberal party if it existed and wasn't going to essentially hand a win to conservatives.
It's very frustrating and I seriously envy the parliamentary systems of Europe (and elsewhere, it's just I hear "parliament" and I think Europe) that allow for a multitude of parties to exist, flourish, and get a say in the political dealings of their countries.
There is no electoral system in the world where the parties can meaningfully "represent the beliefs" of every individual voter. That's just not how coordinating activity across a diverse polity...
Exemplary
But the two party system benefits nobody but the politicians. People should be able to align themselves with a party that represents their beliefs, not simply stomach one of two choices because they share a few beliefs.
There is no electoral system in the world where the parties can meaningfully "represent the beliefs" of every individual voter. That's just not how coordinating activity across a diverse polity works. People have different values and priorities. A political system exists to allow people to reconcile those different values and priorities to settle on a common, mutually agreeable path. No political party that actually governs is going to align with each and every person in it. The expectation that they should is confusing what politics is about with an exercise in personal expression through brand loyalty.
They're not meaningfully more representative in a country with multiple parties as I've outlined here. If anything, party bigwigs have more power in Westminster style, hard party systems than they do in the US where parties themselves are extremely weak and driven largely by well connected power brokers at the local level.
Frustration with the parties in American politics is 70% frustration with your fellow Americans, the parties just end up being convenient scapegoats. But if you have multiple parties that frustration doesn't go away because your fellow Americans are still determining what those other parties are.
To this I'd add that in some ways, a two party system means that the parties tend to be more adaptive and reflective of people's desires. In parliamentary systems, coalitions and parties are...
To this I'd add that in some ways, a two party system means that the parties tend to be more adaptive and reflective of people's desires. In parliamentary systems, coalitions and parties are constantly fracturing as voters move around. In a two party system, the dominant parties need to adapt in order not to lose their voters (whether to the other party or simply to non-voting disinterest.)
I'd guess that most people on tildes don't like it, but the evolution of the republican party over the last decade is a very clear example of this.
Yeah based on looking at the relative strengths of various factions in the American political sphere, I think if we broke each of the major parties' factions out into their own party what we'd...
I'd guess that most people on tildes don't like it, but the evolution of the republican party over the last decade is a very clear example of this.
Yeah based on looking at the relative strengths of various factions in the American political sphere, I think if we broke each of the major parties' factions out into their own party what we'd actually have is a strong majority (probably high 40s) that is somewhat analogous to the German CDU that houses the spectrum from Hillary Clinton to Mitt Romney. Then some 20%-30% that is the nakedly authoritarian Trump faction (split among some number of right wing parties), and a similar 20%-30% of progressives (split along some number of left wing parties). How much pull the left or right ends of the spectrum end up having will probably depend primarily on their ability to maintain a cohesive alliance instead of fracturing into ever smaller sub-parties, but seeing how progressive politics in the US operates I carry very little hope of that.
I think the 2-party system probably gives specific progressive policy programs--particularly around immigrant, LGBT+, and women's issues--way more swing than they would have otherwise. I'm less certain about the impact it would have on progressive economic issues. I suspect a CDU would be a decent bit to the right of where the Democrats are, particularly on labor power issues. But I think they'd also probably be less ideologically opposed to big government programs like universal healthcare the way conservative parties in Europe aren't.
The flip side of that is it also massively boosts the authoritarian Trump faction as well. I agree with your overall characterization of US political system vis a vis a parliamentary one, but one...
I think the 2-party system probably gives specific progressive policy programs--particularly around immigrant, LGBT+, and women's issues
The flip side of that is it also massively boosts the authoritarian Trump faction as well.
I agree with your overall characterization of US political system vis a vis a parliamentary one, but one of the benefits of having political party names on the tin instead of obscured in the sausage factory is that people generally like to know what they're eating and get upset when they're surprised. Whipped votes also make Westminster parties opaque where internal factions in US parties are involved in power broking which further muddies the waters in the eyes of voters.
This general murkiness across several features in the American political system together with an inherently adversarial division of power has, imo, a systemic effect on it's accountability in comparison to a parliamentary one. It seems very hard for voters to hold anyone accountable at all, because the causes for legislative failure/success are often complex and multi-faceted.
The adversarial division of power is a somewhat new feature that crept in since the Nixon era and really solidified in the 90s. Prior to that it was very much about personal relationships between...
The adversarial division of power is a somewhat new feature that crept in since the Nixon era and really solidified in the 90s. Prior to that it was very much about personal relationships between individual lawmakers. A lot of the adversarial dynamics actually came in when Congress began to adopt more Westminster style mechanics, specifically the norm of members of the minority party being basically relegated out of any committee seats or roles. Before that reform, seats were allocated strictly by seniority. That change plus things like the Hastert rule have completely wrecked not only bipartisan consensus, but lawmaker's competence at being able to understand the laws they're signing or striking deals at all.
It's a little interesting that this "multiparty coalition" phenomenon seen in many parliamentary states manifests in the US as congressional caucuses. The Freedom Caucus (originating with the Tea...
In parliamentary systems, coalitions and parties are constantly fracturing as voters move around.
It's a little interesting that this "multiparty coalition" phenomenon seen in many parliamentary states manifests in the US as congressional caucuses. The Freedom Caucus (originating with the Tea Party movement) is the most aggressive example, but there are others like the Blue Dogs and Black Congressional Caucus. Since these groups often vote in "blocks" getting consensus from them is pretty important inside Congress even if sort of invisible to the voters. The dark hilarity and circus of Speaker McCarthy's 15 votes for speakership is a direct consequence of this.
It's absolute bullshit, pure and uncut. That's why I believe strongly that any substantive change to our system must begin with the replacement of FPtP with a more sane electoral system. Third...
It's absolute bullshit, pure and uncut. That's why I believe strongly that any substantive change to our system must begin with the replacement of FPtP with a more sane electoral system. Third parties will be nothing but a divisive tool to enforce minority rule until that happens.
In my eyes any new left party is good as they are advocating for the modern leftist ideas, you can look at their website where the explain what they advocate for: https://www.gp.org/ten_key_values
In my eyes any new left party is good as they are advocating for the modern leftist ideas, you can look at their website where the explain what they advocate for: https://www.gp.org/ten_key_values
I am glad to see most of the comments here understand third party candidates can only be spoilers under the current US system. Articles like these are disinformation and I think there is a very...
I am glad to see most of the comments here understand third party candidates can only be spoilers under the current US system. Articles like these are disinformation and I think there is a very good chance OP knows it.
Seriously. People like Stein should spend their time advocating for reforms like ranked choice voting. Of course, that's less appealing to her ego than running a reform campaign would be.
Seriously. People like Stein should spend their time advocating for reforms like ranked choice voting. Of course, that's less appealing to her ego than running a reform campaign would be.
In a perfect world where the Republican candidates weren't fascists in new clothing, I might be persuaded to vote third party, but I'd rather have a functioning democracy with leadership that...
In a perfect world where the Republican candidates weren't fascists in new clothing, I might be persuaded to vote third party, but I'd rather have a functioning democracy with leadership that occasionally makes decisions I disagree* with than whatever you'd call a second term of Trump.
Also the Green Party has been around forever -- not sure if you meant a new left party (as in the party is new) or "new left", as in, actually leftist and not Democrat.
What a party says they represent and the effect they actually have can be widely, wildly different. I'm a staunch lefty, but I recognize that our electoral system is designed specifically to...
What a party says they represent and the effect they actually have can be widely, wildly different.
I'm a staunch lefty, but I recognize that our electoral system is designed specifically to exclude actual leftist sentiment from public discourse. Running left third party campaigns under our current system is not only futile, it's directly harmful to the health of our body politic.
If you want actual leftist politics in the US, don't bother with third parties, agitate for electoral reform. Campaign against FPtP elections and for some form of ranked choice voting. Until that happens, your third party vote will only be used to enforce minority rule. Simple as.
Until we see major US election reform like universal ranked choice voting or somehow allocating US House Reps based on percentage of vote won by a party, the only effective path to winning federal...
Until we see major US election reform like universal ranked choice voting or somehow allocating US House Reps based on percentage of vote won by a party, the only effective path to winning federal elections is by co-opting one of the two major parties. The Republican party of today is where it is at because the extreme right was able to win enough primaries to transform the party. There will never be a natural fracturing of the two major parties into smaller parties under the current system because the moment one party is split, the other one gains enormous power.
Third party candidates won’t be viable until we ditch First Past the Post elections. Sorry, that’s just the way it is. Until then these parties should be spending their resources promoting Ranked...
Exemplary
Third party candidates won’t be viable until we ditch First Past the Post elections. Sorry, that’s just the way it is. Until then these parties should be spending their resources promoting Ranked Choice voting or other alternate forms of voting that would make their party viable.
My first choice in the primaries dropped out between my mailing in my ballot and it being counted. My ballot was basically garbage. I would have loved to make a second choice, I spent a lot of...
My first choice in the primaries dropped out between my mailing in my ballot and it being counted. My ballot was basically garbage.
I would have loved to make a second choice, I spent a lot of time researching the candidates and where they stood on the issues I care about.
I personally think revamping primaries is more important. The vast majority have become toxic to the point of absurdity, doing everything they can to exclude the average voter from the process and...
I personally think revamping primaries is more important. The vast majority have become toxic to the point of absurdity, doing everything they can to exclude the average voter from the process and make sure only the extremists participate.
And how will we do that? The two established parties will never endorse a non FPTP system, because it would directly reduce the power of those parties... It would take a 3rd party leading to a...
And how will we do that? The two established parties will never endorse a non FPTP system, because it would directly reduce the power of those parties... It would take a 3rd party leading to a spoiled election, followed by the spiled parties later getting enough power to enact consitutional reforms, before attempting to change electoral systems on a federal level is even a rational choice for the parties. (Essentially, one of the main parties would only do it if they lost due to spoiling, recovered, and were afraid of it happening again, so they do non FPTP as comprimise or damage control)
The change to alternate forms of voting will start at the local level. Once enacted there people will get a taste for how well these alternate systems can work and advocate for them at higher and...
The change to alternate forms of voting will start at the local level. Once enacted there people will get a taste for how well these alternate systems can work and advocate for them at higher and higher levels of government. My city will be enacting it soon and my state legislature is considering a bill to go state wide. Other states like Alaska and Maine have already started using RCV for their congressional representatives.
Edit: because the constitution gives states the authority with regard to how they run elections my understanding is this wouldn’t require an amendment at all, not even for federal elections. Hence why some states are already using it at the federal level.
I live in a city that does ranked choice in local elections. Last year, the state tried to outlaw any city from using anything but FPTP, and only backed down because our city is like 30% of the...
I live in a city that does ranked choice in local elections. Last year, the state tried to outlaw any city from using anything but FPTP, and only backed down because our city is like 30% of the states population, and most of the city was unhappy with it. The state level is really the only safe place to enact such reform, cities are quite potentially at the states whims.
My county has enacted a ranked choice vote system for local elections, and my state (Oregon) has a 2024 ballot measure to implement it for state and federal elections. The Democratic Party is...
My county has enacted a ranked choice vote system for local elections, and my state (Oregon) has a 2024 ballot measure to implement it for state and federal elections. The Democratic Party is fortunately living up to its name here.
At this point I can only presume that the "Green" in "Green Party" refers to all the greenbacks GOP donors give Jill Stein. It's best not to think of the Democratic party as a singular party in a...
At this point I can only presume that the "Green" in "Green Party" refers to all the greenbacks GOP donors give Jill Stein.
It's best not to think of the Democratic party as a singular party in a multi-party system, but as an entire coalition in a multi-party system. There are many subgroups of the Democratic party, and clearly Joe Manchin is very different ideologically from, say, AOC.
Speaking of AOC, she's had infinitely more impact on progressive politics than any independent party has in the last half century. She represents a subparty in the Democratic coalition, and within the system she can have substantially more actual impact.
It's times like this I wish Tildes had downvoting, even if it were underemphasized. A second Trump term would be catastrophic for LGBTQ rights, American democracy, and the biosphere, and the...
It's times like this I wish Tildes had downvoting, even if it were underemphasized. A second Trump term would be catastrophic for LGBTQ rights, American democracy, and the biosphere, and the absolute nonsense that is a left-wing third-party bid in a first-past-the-post electoral college system is the single best way to make that happen, as we already saw (with 50% of the same ticket!) just a few years ago. Anybody who pushes for it without first securing the voting system needed to make that candidacy viable is either a dangerously ignorant political narcissist or shilling for fascism.
In this case, anything that gives oxygen to West, Stein, No Labels, or any other threats to split and discourage the anti-fascist vote. It's a pointless waste of time at best and actively harmful...
In this case, anything that gives oxygen to West, Stein, No Labels, or any other threats to split and discourage the anti-fascist vote. It's a pointless waste of time at best and actively harmful at worst. This reformist energy is best directed at local races, ballot initiatives, primaries, and other practical ground-up work, not suicidal vanity runs at the top of the ticket (and all the top-down damage that would result).
The topic post is just a link post, though. It’s not opining on Jill Stein. Arguably it’s more important that this topic is scene if you feel that way, as Jill Stein isn’t just going to go away if...
The topic post is just a link post, though. It’s not opining on Jill Stein. Arguably it’s more important that this topic is scene if you feel that way, as Jill Stein isn’t just going to go away if Tildes ignores her.
Educating voters on how spoilers work and the overall net negative effect she’ll have on the very causes she champions by running seems a surer bet if you want to negate her effect as much as possible.
On a meta level, even on Reddit, downvoting isn’t for when you disagree with the post, but if you think it’s low effort, off topic, or does not contribute to the subreddit it was posted for. I don’t think this would qualify regardless of what you think of Jill Stein and her spoiler run.
Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. Advocates for these spoiler movements can downvote just as well as those who oppose them can. And they tend to be much more motivated and...
Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. Advocates for these spoiler movements can downvote just as well as those who oppose them can. And they tend to be much more motivated and willing to engage in organized, coordinated action to advance their publicity goals which lets them punch above their weight as well. That's why discussing politics on reddit is such a cesspit, the most extreme, least nuanced people have the most editorial power.
I appreciate posts like this popping up though. I think it's rare for folks not to pop into the comment section after reading a linked post. This thread does a pretty good job diving into why this...
I appreciate posts like this popping up though. I think it's rare for folks not to pop into the comment section after reading a linked post. This thread does a pretty good job diving into why this is such a problematic campaign which might not occur if users came across this in their day to day life. Just my take though.
I dont disagree with anything you said untill this part. How are they supposed to secure said voting system without ever running? To quote myself from a paralel comment branch:
Anybody who pushes for it without first securing the voting system needed to make that candidacy viable is either a dangerously ignorant political narcissist or shilling for fascism.
I dont disagree with anything you said untill this part. How are they supposed to secure said voting system without ever running? To quote myself from a paralel comment branch:
The two established parties will never endorse a non FPTP system, because it would directly reduce the power of those parties... It would take a 3rd party leading to a spoiled election, followed by the spiled parties later getting enough power to enact consitutional reforms, before attempting to change electoral systems on a federal level is even a rational choice for the parties. (Essentially, one of the main parties would only do it if they lost due to spoiling, recovered, and were afraid of it happening again, so they do non FPTP as comprimise or damage control)
Voting systems are managed by state level offices. Presidential politics don't enter into it at all. If they want to run in a way that advances long-term political objectives, they'd focus their...
I dont disagree with anything you said untill this part. How are they supposed to secure said voting system without ever running? To quote myself from a paralel comment branch:
Voting systems are managed by state level offices. Presidential politics don't enter into it at all. If they want to run in a way that advances long-term political objectives, they'd focus their energy on local races where they can build a bench of seasoned political operators with experience implementing a policy program and understanding how systems work. Instead they go straight for the highest, profile and most public thing with no background in anything but talking.
You don't "shake up" things by messing with their effects. You have to affect the cause. Two-party system is a consequence of First Past the Post. If you introduce party G to D and R, it will...
You don't "shake up" things by messing with their effects. You have to affect the cause.
Two-party system is a consequence of First Past the Post. If you introduce party G to D and R, it will either get near zero vote, or eat near 100% of D's vote, eventually. And until then you'll just be giving power to party R as G doesn't appeal to R, who by the way inherently have extreme party loyalty. As long as you have a semblance of democracy and First Past the Post, you will stabilize on two parties.
Maybe turn primaries into a real first round of the election instead.
I feel the need to preface this by saying that I've never voted for Trump and I never will. Fascism of any kind is bad. Something that I rarely see pointed out is that there are a lot of quiet...
I feel the need to preface this by saying that I've never voted for Trump and I never will. Fascism of any kind is bad.
Something that I rarely see pointed out is that there are a lot of quiet republican voters that are in, to my more neutral eyes, the exact same position a lot of democratic voters are in. Aside from a bunch of out of touch boomers hooked up to the Fox News drip 24/7, I really don't know anyone that approved of Trump all that much. They don't particularly approve of Trump at all, he's just "better" than the other guy.
I work in the agriculture field and, historically speaking, it makes more financial sense for me to vote republican than it does to vote democratic just because of farm subsidies and tax benefits. By no means am I saying that I approve of the republican party's stance on....really most anything.
In my (very un-asked for opinion) there's way way WAY too much finger pointing happening between the parties and voting for candidate A because "at least he's not candidate B" whereas not enough people are pointing a finger at the people that are actually the problem - the career politicians whose job it is, on either side of the aisle, to hoover up power and hold on to it at the cost of the people.
Maybe I'm naïve, maybe I'm not as smart as I'd like to think I am. But I'd really like to see a return to a government by the people, FOR THE PEOPLE instead of this government by the career politicians for the rich and powerful.
I don't have a solution in mind. All I can do is stand here and say "shit's fucked up on all sides" and yell at clouds....
Edit: I'd just like to take a second to appreciate the Tildes community. Had I posted this on the site that shall not be named, I am beyond certain I'd get downvoted to oblivion. Instead I'm getting actual conversation where people aren't calling me a monster
Getting us to fight each other keeps us from fighting them. This has been the tactic taken by the rich and powerful here since Bacon's rebellion. It's really hard to see it when you're really...
Getting us to fight each other keeps us from fighting them. This has been the tactic taken by the rich and powerful here since Bacon's rebellion.
It's really hard to see it when you're really embroiled in an issue or ten you care a lot about. Hard to see that your side may not be doing much different besides talking down the other.
Has there been any recent pressure by Democrats to lessen agricultural subsidies and tax benefits? It's not a topic I've looked into much, but I haven't heard anyone actually take a stand against...
Has there been any recent pressure by Democrats to lessen agricultural subsidies and tax benefits? It's not a topic I've looked into much, but I haven't heard anyone actually take a stand against farms or farmers.
I for sure don't keep a tight eye on politics in general (it's just way too exhausting and infuriating) My general understanding is that rural areas generally tend to vote red and urban areas...
I for sure don't keep a tight eye on politics in general (it's just way too exhausting and infuriating)
My general understanding is that rural areas generally tend to vote red and urban areas generally tend to vote blue. Farming subsidies and tax benefits aren't at all tied to the actual necessity of lessening struggles on farmers, they're tied to "rewarding" people who vote for the correct politicians.
If you're a blue candidate and you have a finite amount of money to distribute as "reward" for your voters, why waste that reward money on people that actively don't vote for you already? It's a bit of a positive feedback loop. Blue politicians tend to do the exact same, but in urban community development programs.
But that's an abstract theory. I thought you were talking about something Democrats actually did that caused you to vote Republican. Let's talk about the latest farm bill. The Republican-dominated...
But that's an abstract theory. I thought you were talking about something Democrats actually did that caused you to vote Republican.
Really not looking to get into a political debate as to which political side is worse than the other. I don't vote red or blue because in my opinion, both sides are too messed up. I don't...
Really not looking to get into a political debate as to which political side is worse than the other.
I don't vote red or blue because in my opinion, both sides are too messed up. I don't personally believe any politician in office really cares one way or another about anything other than their own personal bank account.
The point is you're making an argument that reeks of "both sides" and use agriculture as its basis, under the premise of the idea that Red is pro agriculture and Blue is anti agriculture. The...
The point is you're making an argument that reeks of "both sides" and use agriculture as its basis, under the premise of the idea that Red is pro agriculture and Blue is anti agriculture.
The person above wants to know why you feel that way. Blue tends to be very pro agriculture and the infrastructure it relies on, while Red only pays lip service to "real america" and cuts subsidies behind closed doors.
I'm not trying to argue about which side is worse. You made a claim about why you voted how you voted and I wanted to share a reason why you might reconsider, since the claim isn't borne out by...
I'm not trying to argue about which side is worse. You made a claim about why you voted how you voted and I wanted to share a reason why you might reconsider, since the claim isn't borne out by recent history, at least on a national level. I'll stop here, but just wanted to give you something to think about.
If democrats are so threatened by a third party maybe they should act in more progressive ways‽ Liberalism is not progressive. Lesser of two evils is not an effective electoral strategy or an...
If democrats are so threatened by a third party maybe they should act in more progressive ways‽ Liberalism is not progressive. Lesser of two evils is not an effective electoral strategy or an effective strategy for actual change.
Losing abortion rights due to Trump's presidency and the huge infrastructure and clean energy investments made due to Biden's (for starters) seem like pretty massive changes to me.
Losing abortion rights due to Trump's presidency and the huge infrastructure and clean energy investments made due to Biden's (for starters) seem like pretty massive changes to me.
Yeah, I think one of the democrat's shortcomings is really conveying the magnitude of impact their policies have. The infrastructure bill was massive for a number of progressive stances but few...
Yeah, I think one of the democrat's shortcomings is really conveying the magnitude of impact their policies have. The infrastructure bill was massive for a number of progressive stances but few folks know about it.
Biden himself voted against federal funding for abortion, even including exceptions for rape and incest. Democrats are not progressive, they are capitalists that want our votes. Democrats are not...
Biden himself voted against federal funding for abortion, even including exceptions for rape and incest. Democrats are not progressive, they are capitalists that want our votes. Democrats are not going to save the world, they are complicit in creating the messes we're in.
I'm saying democrats hold their voter base hostage by relying on there only being two choices and then saying their candidate is not as bad as the other one. I'm saying that way of doing things is...
I'm saying democrats hold their voter base hostage by relying on there only being two choices and then saying their candidate is not as bad as the other one. I'm saying that way of doing things is not going to bring about the change our world is in dire need of.
If you "punish" the democratic politicians for not being progressive enough by voting third party, they don't get more progressive. The Republicans win and they get more fascist. Lesser of two...
If you "punish" the democratic politicians for not being progressive enough by voting third party, they don't get more progressive. The Republicans win and they get more fascist. Lesser of two evils is not an effective strategy for change, no, but voting for a spoiler candidate doesn't fix that.
I believe that the inverse of your suggestion of "punishing" democrats by not voting for them pushes republicans to the right is that if we "reward" democrats by voting for them we are sending the...
I believe that the inverse of your suggestion of "punishing" democrats by not voting for them pushes republicans to the right is that if we "reward" democrats by voting for them we are sending the message that their spineless, centrist, ineffectual candidates are adequate and as a result we will get more of the same.
Political power is self-reinforcing. You don't get more of it by giving it up. It would be very helpful if people came up front with what a standard for a non-spineless, non-centrist, or...
Political power is self-reinforcing. You don't get more of it by giving it up.
sending the message that their spineless, centrist, ineffectual candidates
It would be very helpful if people came up front with what a standard for a non-spineless, non-centrist, or non-ineffectual candidate actually looks like. This is another case where criticisms are never specific or constructive, just general statements of vibes that are infinitely flexible so anything they actually accomplish can be dismissed as "not progressive enough." It's like what counts as being progressive is normed against whatever the Democratic establishment happens to be doing. It's not anchored to any objective policy agenda just a vague sense that we need to be "more" of whatever.
Because if you want to stack up Joe Biden's political accomplishments against Cornell West's it becomes hard to argue that the former has been less effectual.
Even Bernie Sanders, who actually has accomplishments to his name, has gotten quite a bit less done than Biden when it comes to getting legislation with passed that advances progressive priorities. It's easy to be "brave" and say all sort of ambitious stuff when you never actually have to implement or be held to account for a word of it.
At least with the "Squad" in congress they crafted "The Green New Deal" as an actual policy program with legislative priorities and benchmarks and goals to hit that they could measure their own success by and secure commitments from people in important positions to implement. But they're all basically "on the outs" with the peanut gallery as being sell outs. You can't win for trying.
Spineless ineffectual centrists are better than fascists. You're not going to get more progressives by letting fascists take the vote. You need to change the way voting is done if you want to see...
Spineless ineffectual centrists are better than fascists. You're not going to get more progressives by letting fascists take the vote. You need to change the way voting is done if you want to see actual change.
Given that it's happening for most offices in Maine and Alaska as well as various municipalities in the US it seems like either both parties are in favor of it in some circumstances, or it's...
Given that it's happening for most offices in Maine and Alaska as well as various municipalities in the US it seems like either both parties are in favor of it in some circumstances, or it's possible to make it happen without them.
While I agree with your criticism I would like to point out that Jill Stein is, at best, another anti science lunatic and hardly progressive. She gave a voice to anti vaxxers last run and for that...
While I agree with your criticism I would like to point out that Jill Stein is, at best, another anti science lunatic and hardly progressive. She gave a voice to anti vaxxers last run and for that alone she should be considered toxic and dangerous, or at best morally vapid and untrustworthy.
I live in Minnesota and we have these "third party" political parties like "Marijuana Now Party" that supposedly exist for people who want to legalize recreational marijuana. I guess they're not...
I live in Minnesota and we have these "third party" political parties like "Marijuana Now Party" that supposedly exist for people who want to legalize recreational marijuana.
I guess they're not really relevant now that it's been legalized anyway, but a while back there was a news story about how the GOP was supporting these candidates as a way to try and siphon votes away from DFL.
The party system doesn’t exist, so it can’t be abolished. It’s not a system that is there by design, but because it’s the nash equilibrium of the voting system the US has. You can’t “abolish” it...
The party system doesn’t exist, so it can’t be abolished. It’s not a system that is there by design, but because it’s the nash equilibrium of the voting system the US has. You can’t “abolish” it unless you change the root cause. Merely not putting D or R next to a candidates name on a ballot does little when the parties will de facto exist.
Except that to even vote for candidates in some states you need to be registered with the corresponding party? There's absolutely some official level of existence of the us parties. It varies...
Except that to even vote for candidates in some states you need to be registered with the corresponding party?
There's absolutely some official level of existence of the us parties. It varies state by state but it's hardly just an abstract.
An R after someone's name tells you exactly what they stand for. There's no need to entertain any obscurational attempts that would only win fascists accidental votes. We already have a deck...
An R after someone's name tells you exactly what they stand for. There's no need to entertain any obscurational attempts that would only win fascists accidental votes. We already have a deck stacked in their favor.
It's a well known stance and one that was argued about even in the founding of the US, and long before it to. There's some interesting arguments for and against parties, but in general at this...
It's a well known stance and one that was argued about even in the founding of the US, and long before it to. There's some interesting arguments for and against parties, but in general at this point I think we're far beyond either. There's a lower level of rot that's going to be toxic to most solutions.
This won't work. If it had a chance, Gary Johnson would've at least done better in 2016. Then again, with a campaign slogan of "Feel the Johnson," maybe not. I thought it was a joke when I first...
This won't work. If it had a chance, Gary Johnson would've at least done better in 2016. Then again, with a campaign slogan of "Feel the Johnson," maybe not. I thought it was a joke when I first heard it...
Because what we really need right now is someone to come along and split the left vote. That'll bring change alright.
Is the Green Party funded mostly through Republican dark money?
This is the only take I have on this. I get that the Democrats are not inherently "good" but every time I hear of breaking the two party system it's never something that will provide an 'actual fiscal conservative' option to split the right or anything.
The Green Party just feels like a spoiler candidate.
Perhaps they will end the democratic party. Or at least generate a new fdr.
That's exactly what some people want and with Jill Stein on the ticket who spent a dinner with Russians I suspect this is nothing but a spoiler "shake-up" since the Robert Kennedy didn't work out.
It turns out RFK Jr., the Democrat, had half his funding coming from the GOP, so it wouldn't surprise me for these no-chance-but-splits-the-vote candidates too.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/robert-f-kennedy-jr-donor-b2385836.html?utm_source=reddit.com
The fact that part of one of their planks is dismantling NATO probably helps with fundraising as well.
The man has a golden name, but the moment you actually listen to him speak, the "sheen" rots away immediately. Dude's nuts.
Doesn't it feel like it's bullshit that this is our reality though? You're totally right that 3rd parties basically exist to split votes at this point. But the two party system benefits nobody but the politicians. People should be able to align themselves with a party that represents their beliefs, not simply stomach one of two choices because they share a few beliefs. I'm a Democrat, but I'd jump ship in a heartbeat to a more liberal party if it existed and wasn't going to essentially hand a win to conservatives.
It's very frustrating and I seriously envy the parliamentary systems of Europe (and elsewhere, it's just I hear "parliament" and I think Europe) that allow for a multitude of parties to exist, flourish, and get a say in the political dealings of their countries.
There is no electoral system in the world where the parties can meaningfully "represent the beliefs" of every individual voter. That's just not how coordinating activity across a diverse polity works. People have different values and priorities. A political system exists to allow people to reconcile those different values and priorities to settle on a common, mutually agreeable path. No political party that actually governs is going to align with each and every person in it. The expectation that they should is confusing what politics is about with an exercise in personal expression through brand loyalty.
They're not meaningfully more representative in a country with multiple parties as I've outlined here. If anything, party bigwigs have more power in Westminster style, hard party systems than they do in the US where parties themselves are extremely weak and driven largely by well connected power brokers at the local level.
Frustration with the parties in American politics is 70% frustration with your fellow Americans, the parties just end up being convenient scapegoats. But if you have multiple parties that frustration doesn't go away because your fellow Americans are still determining what those other parties are.
To this I'd add that in some ways, a two party system means that the parties tend to be more adaptive and reflective of people's desires. In parliamentary systems, coalitions and parties are constantly fracturing as voters move around. In a two party system, the dominant parties need to adapt in order not to lose their voters (whether to the other party or simply to non-voting disinterest.)
I'd guess that most people on tildes don't like it, but the evolution of the republican party over the last decade is a very clear example of this.
Yeah based on looking at the relative strengths of various factions in the American political sphere, I think if we broke each of the major parties' factions out into their own party what we'd actually have is a strong majority (probably high 40s) that is somewhat analogous to the German CDU that houses the spectrum from Hillary Clinton to Mitt Romney. Then some 20%-30% that is the nakedly authoritarian Trump faction (split among some number of right wing parties), and a similar 20%-30% of progressives (split along some number of left wing parties). How much pull the left or right ends of the spectrum end up having will probably depend primarily on their ability to maintain a cohesive alliance instead of fracturing into ever smaller sub-parties, but seeing how progressive politics in the US operates I carry very little hope of that.
I think the 2-party system probably gives specific progressive policy programs--particularly around immigrant, LGBT+, and women's issues--way more swing than they would have otherwise. I'm less certain about the impact it would have on progressive economic issues. I suspect a CDU would be a decent bit to the right of where the Democrats are, particularly on labor power issues. But I think they'd also probably be less ideologically opposed to big government programs like universal healthcare the way conservative parties in Europe aren't.
The flip side of that is it also massively boosts the authoritarian Trump faction as well.
I agree with your overall characterization of US political system vis a vis a parliamentary one, but one of the benefits of having political party names on the tin instead of obscured in the sausage factory is that people generally like to know what they're eating and get upset when they're surprised. Whipped votes also make Westminster parties opaque where internal factions in US parties are involved in power broking which further muddies the waters in the eyes of voters.
This general murkiness across several features in the American political system together with an inherently adversarial division of power has, imo, a systemic effect on it's accountability in comparison to a parliamentary one. It seems very hard for voters to hold anyone accountable at all, because the causes for legislative failure/success are often complex and multi-faceted.
The adversarial division of power is a somewhat new feature that crept in since the Nixon era and really solidified in the 90s. Prior to that it was very much about personal relationships between individual lawmakers. A lot of the adversarial dynamics actually came in when Congress began to adopt more Westminster style mechanics, specifically the norm of members of the minority party being basically relegated out of any committee seats or roles. Before that reform, seats were allocated strictly by seniority. That change plus things like the Hastert rule have completely wrecked not only bipartisan consensus, but lawmaker's competence at being able to understand the laws they're signing or striking deals at all.
It's a little interesting that this "multiparty coalition" phenomenon seen in many parliamentary states manifests in the US as congressional caucuses. The Freedom Caucus (originating with the Tea Party movement) is the most aggressive example, but there are others like the Blue Dogs and Black Congressional Caucus. Since these groups often vote in "blocks" getting consensus from them is pretty important inside Congress even if sort of invisible to the voters. The dark hilarity and circus of Speaker McCarthy's 15 votes for speakership is a direct consequence of this.
It's absolute bullshit, pure and uncut. That's why I believe strongly that any substantive change to our system must begin with the replacement of FPtP with a more sane electoral system. Third parties will be nothing but a divisive tool to enforce minority rule until that happens.
In my eyes any new left party is good as they are advocating for the modern leftist ideas, you can look at their website where the explain what they advocate for: https://www.gp.org/ten_key_values
I am glad to see most of the comments here understand third party candidates can only be spoilers under the current US system. Articles like these are disinformation and I think there is a very good chance OP knows it.
Seriously. People like Stein should spend their time advocating for reforms like ranked choice voting. Of course, that's less appealing to her ego than running a reform campaign would be.
Except I'm not sure Jill Stein really is trying to bring about a better left rather than be a spoiler candidate.
In a perfect world where the Republican candidates weren't fascists in new clothing, I might be persuaded to vote third party, but I'd rather have a functioning democracy with leadership that occasionally makes decisions I disagree* with than whatever you'd call a second term of Trump.
Also the Green Party has been around forever -- not sure if you meant a new left party (as in the party is new) or "new left", as in, actually leftist and not Democrat.
What a party says they represent and the effect they actually have can be widely, wildly different.
I'm a staunch lefty, but I recognize that our electoral system is designed specifically to exclude actual leftist sentiment from public discourse. Running left third party campaigns under our current system is not only futile, it's directly harmful to the health of our body politic.
If you want actual leftist politics in the US, don't bother with third parties, agitate for electoral reform. Campaign against FPtP elections and for some form of ranked choice voting. Until that happens, your third party vote will only be used to enforce minority rule. Simple as.
Until we see major US election reform like universal ranked choice voting or somehow allocating US House Reps based on percentage of vote won by a party, the only effective path to winning federal elections is by co-opting one of the two major parties. The Republican party of today is where it is at because the extreme right was able to win enough primaries to transform the party. There will never be a natural fracturing of the two major parties into smaller parties under the current system because the moment one party is split, the other one gains enormous power.
Third party candidates won’t be viable until we ditch First Past the Post elections. Sorry, that’s just the way it is. Until then these parties should be spending their resources promoting Ranked Choice voting or other alternate forms of voting that would make their party viable.
My first choice in the primaries dropped out between my mailing in my ballot and it being counted. My ballot was basically garbage.
I would have loved to make a second choice, I spent a lot of time researching the candidates and where they stood on the issues I care about.
I personally think revamping primaries is more important. The vast majority have become toxic to the point of absurdity, doing everything they can to exclude the average voter from the process and make sure only the extremists participate.
And how will we do that? The two established parties will never endorse a non FPTP system, because it would directly reduce the power of those parties... It would take a 3rd party leading to a spoiled election, followed by the spiled parties later getting enough power to enact consitutional reforms, before attempting to change electoral systems on a federal level is even a rational choice for the parties. (Essentially, one of the main parties would only do it if they lost due to spoiling, recovered, and were afraid of it happening again, so they do non FPTP as comprimise or damage control)
The change to alternate forms of voting will start at the local level. Once enacted there people will get a taste for how well these alternate systems can work and advocate for them at higher and higher levels of government. My city will be enacting it soon and my state legislature is considering a bill to go state wide. Other states like Alaska and Maine have already started using RCV for their congressional representatives.
Edit: because the constitution gives states the authority with regard to how they run elections my understanding is this wouldn’t require an amendment at all, not even for federal elections. Hence why some states are already using it at the federal level.
I live in a city that does ranked choice in local elections. Last year, the state tried to outlaw any city from using anything but FPTP, and only backed down because our city is like 30% of the states population, and most of the city was unhappy with it. The state level is really the only safe place to enact such reform, cities are quite potentially at the states whims.
My county has enacted a ranked choice vote system for local elections, and my state (Oregon) has a 2024 ballot measure to implement it for state and federal elections. The Democratic Party is fortunately living up to its name here.
Reform starts at home.
At this point I can only presume that the "Green" in "Green Party" refers to all the greenbacks GOP donors give Jill Stein.
It's best not to think of the Democratic party as a singular party in a multi-party system, but as an entire coalition in a multi-party system. There are many subgroups of the Democratic party, and clearly Joe Manchin is very different ideologically from, say, AOC.
Speaking of AOC, she's had infinitely more impact on progressive politics than any independent party has in the last half century. She represents a subparty in the Democratic coalition, and within the system she can have substantially more actual impact.
Vote in primaries, yall.
It's times like this I wish Tildes had downvoting, even if it were underemphasized. A second Trump term would be catastrophic for LGBTQ rights, American democracy, and the biosphere, and the absolute nonsense that is a left-wing third-party bid in a first-past-the-post electoral college system is the single best way to make that happen, as we already saw (with 50% of the same ticket!) just a few years ago. Anybody who pushes for it without first securing the voting system needed to make that candidacy viable is either a dangerously ignorant political narcissist or shilling for fascism.
Who would you be downvoting and why, though?
In this case, anything that gives oxygen to West, Stein, No Labels, or any other threats to split and discourage the anti-fascist vote. It's a pointless waste of time at best and actively harmful at worst. This reformist energy is best directed at local races, ballot initiatives, primaries, and other practical ground-up work, not suicidal vanity runs at the top of the ticket (and all the top-down damage that would result).
The topic post is just a link post, though. It’s not opining on Jill Stein. Arguably it’s more important that this topic is scene if you feel that way, as Jill Stein isn’t just going to go away if Tildes ignores her.
Educating voters on how spoilers work and the overall net negative effect she’ll have on the very causes she champions by running seems a surer bet if you want to negate her effect as much as possible.
On a meta level, even on Reddit, downvoting isn’t for when you disagree with the post, but if you think it’s low effort, off topic, or does not contribute to the subreddit it was posted for. I don’t think this would qualify regardless of what you think of Jill Stein and her spoiler run.
Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. Advocates for these spoiler movements can downvote just as well as those who oppose them can. And they tend to be much more motivated and willing to engage in organized, coordinated action to advance their publicity goals which lets them punch above their weight as well. That's why discussing politics on reddit is such a cesspit, the most extreme, least nuanced people have the most editorial power.
I appreciate posts like this popping up though. I think it's rare for folks not to pop into the comment section after reading a linked post. This thread does a pretty good job diving into why this is such a problematic campaign which might not occur if users came across this in their day to day life. Just my take though.
I dont disagree with anything you said untill this part. How are they supposed to secure said voting system without ever running? To quote myself from a paralel comment branch:
Voting systems are managed by state level offices. Presidential politics don't enter into it at all. If they want to run in a way that advances long-term political objectives, they'd focus their energy on local races where they can build a bench of seasoned political operators with experience implementing a policy program and understanding how systems work. Instead they go straight for the highest, profile and most public thing with no background in anything but talking.
You don't "shake up" things by messing with their effects. You have to affect the cause.
Two-party system is a consequence of First Past the Post. If you introduce party G to D and R, it will either get near zero vote, or eat near 100% of D's vote, eventually. And until then you'll just be giving power to party R as G doesn't appeal to R, who by the way inherently have extreme party loyalty. As long as you have a semblance of democracy and First Past the Post, you will stabilize on two parties.
Maybe turn primaries into a real first round of the election instead.
I feel the need to preface this by saying that I've never voted for Trump and I never will. Fascism of any kind is bad.
Something that I rarely see pointed out is that there are a lot of quiet republican voters that are in, to my more neutral eyes, the exact same position a lot of democratic voters are in. Aside from a bunch of out of touch boomers hooked up to the Fox News drip 24/7, I really don't know anyone that approved of Trump all that much. They don't particularly approve of Trump at all, he's just "better" than the other guy.
I work in the agriculture field and, historically speaking, it makes more financial sense for me to vote republican than it does to vote democratic just because of farm subsidies and tax benefits. By no means am I saying that I approve of the republican party's stance on....really most anything.
In my (very un-asked for opinion) there's way way WAY too much finger pointing happening between the parties and voting for candidate A because "at least he's not candidate B" whereas not enough people are pointing a finger at the people that are actually the problem - the career politicians whose job it is, on either side of the aisle, to hoover up power and hold on to it at the cost of the people.
Maybe I'm naïve, maybe I'm not as smart as I'd like to think I am. But I'd really like to see a return to a government by the people, FOR THE PEOPLE instead of this government by the career politicians for the rich and powerful.
I don't have a solution in mind. All I can do is stand here and say "shit's fucked up on all sides" and yell at clouds....
Edit: I'd just like to take a second to appreciate the Tildes community. Had I posted this on the site that shall not be named, I am beyond certain I'd get downvoted to oblivion. Instead I'm getting actual conversation where people aren't calling me a monster
I've found my people...
Getting us to fight each other keeps us from fighting them. This has been the tactic taken by the rich and powerful here since Bacon's rebellion.
It's really hard to see it when you're really embroiled in an issue or ten you care a lot about. Hard to see that your side may not be doing much different besides talking down the other.
Has there been any recent pressure by Democrats to lessen agricultural subsidies and tax benefits? It's not a topic I've looked into much, but I haven't heard anyone actually take a stand against farms or farmers.
I for sure don't keep a tight eye on politics in general (it's just way too exhausting and infuriating)
My general understanding is that rural areas generally tend to vote red and urban areas generally tend to vote blue. Farming subsidies and tax benefits aren't at all tied to the actual necessity of lessening struggles on farmers, they're tied to "rewarding" people who vote for the correct politicians.
If you're a blue candidate and you have a finite amount of money to distribute as "reward" for your voters, why waste that reward money on people that actively don't vote for you already? It's a bit of a positive feedback loop. Blue politicians tend to do the exact same, but in urban community development programs.
But that's an abstract theory. I thought you were talking about something Democrats actually did that caused you to vote Republican.
Let's talk about the latest farm bill. The Republican-dominated House Agricultural Committee wants to push a 30% cut to the farm bill. You say that you want to vote for the people who will give you farm subsidies and tax benefits, so perhaps you might think about who that actually is.
Really not looking to get into a political debate as to which political side is worse than the other.
I don't vote red or blue because in my opinion, both sides are too messed up. I don't personally believe any politician in office really cares one way or another about anything other than their own personal bank account.
The point is you're making an argument that reeks of "both sides" and use agriculture as its basis, under the premise of the idea that Red is pro agriculture and Blue is anti agriculture.
The person above wants to know why you feel that way. Blue tends to be very pro agriculture and the infrastructure it relies on, while Red only pays lip service to "real america" and cuts subsidies behind closed doors.
I'm not trying to argue about which side is worse. You made a claim about why you voted how you voted and I wanted to share a reason why you might reconsider, since the claim isn't borne out by recent history, at least on a national level. I'll stop here, but just wanted to give you something to think about.
If democrats are so threatened by a third party maybe they should act in more progressive ways‽ Liberalism is not progressive. Lesser of two evils is not an effective electoral strategy or an effective strategy for actual change.
Losing abortion rights due to Trump's presidency and the huge infrastructure and clean energy investments made due to Biden's (for starters) seem like pretty massive changes to me.
Yeah, I think one of the democrat's shortcomings is really conveying the magnitude of impact their policies have. The infrastructure bill was massive for a number of progressive stances but few folks know about it.
Biden himself voted against federal funding for abortion, even including exceptions for rape and incest. Democrats are not progressive, they are capitalists that want our votes. Democrats are not going to save the world, they are complicit in creating the messes we're in.
I'm saying democrats hold their voter base hostage by relying on there only being two choices and then saying their candidate is not as bad as the other one. I'm saying that way of doing things is not going to bring about the change our world is in dire need of.
If you "punish" the democratic politicians for not being progressive enough by voting third party, they don't get more progressive. The Republicans win and they get more fascist. Lesser of two evils is not an effective strategy for change, no, but voting for a spoiler candidate doesn't fix that.
I believe that the inverse of your suggestion of "punishing" democrats by not voting for them pushes republicans to the right is that if we "reward" democrats by voting for them we are sending the message that their spineless, centrist, ineffectual candidates are adequate and as a result we will get more of the same.
Political power is self-reinforcing. You don't get more of it by giving it up.
It would be very helpful if people came up front with what a standard for a non-spineless, non-centrist, or non-ineffectual candidate actually looks like. This is another case where criticisms are never specific or constructive, just general statements of vibes that are infinitely flexible so anything they actually accomplish can be dismissed as "not progressive enough." It's like what counts as being progressive is normed against whatever the Democratic establishment happens to be doing. It's not anchored to any objective policy agenda just a vague sense that we need to be "more" of whatever.
Because if you want to stack up Joe Biden's political accomplishments against Cornell West's it becomes hard to argue that the former has been less effectual.
Even Bernie Sanders, who actually has accomplishments to his name, has gotten quite a bit less done than Biden when it comes to getting legislation with passed that advances progressive priorities. It's easy to be "brave" and say all sort of ambitious stuff when you never actually have to implement or be held to account for a word of it.
At least with the "Squad" in congress they crafted "The Green New Deal" as an actual policy program with legislative priorities and benchmarks and goals to hit that they could measure their own success by and secure commitments from people in important positions to implement. But they're all basically "on the outs" with the peanut gallery as being sell outs. You can't win for trying.
Spineless ineffectual centrists are better than fascists. You're not going to get more progressives by letting fascists take the vote. You need to change the way voting is done if you want to see actual change.
I agree that ranked choice voting would be a step in the right direction. I'm not sure either entrenched party would be in favor of it.
Given that it's happening for most offices in Maine and Alaska as well as various municipalities in the US it seems like either both parties are in favor of it in some circumstances, or it's possible to make it happen without them.
While I agree with your criticism I would like to point out that Jill Stein is, at best, another anti science lunatic and hardly progressive. She gave a voice to anti vaxxers last run and for that alone she should be considered toxic and dangerous, or at best morally vapid and untrustworthy.
I live in Minnesota and we have these "third party" political parties like "Marijuana Now Party" that supposedly exist for people who want to legalize recreational marijuana.
I guess they're not really relevant now that it's been legalized anyway, but a while back there was a news story about how the GOP was supporting these candidates as a way to try and siphon votes away from DFL.
The party system doesn’t exist, so it can’t be abolished. It’s not a system that is there by design, but because it’s the nash equilibrium of the voting system the US has. You can’t “abolish” it unless you change the root cause. Merely not putting D or R next to a candidates name on a ballot does little when the parties will de facto exist.
Except that to even vote for candidates in some states you need to be registered with the corresponding party?
There's absolutely some official level of existence of the us parties. It varies state by state but it's hardly just an abstract.
In a general election this is not true. All public offices are open to being voted on by all voters. That's pretty fundamental.
An R after someone's name tells you exactly what they stand for. There's no need to entertain any obscurational attempts that would only win fascists accidental votes. We already have a deck stacked in their favor.
It's a well known stance and one that was argued about even in the founding of the US, and long before it to. There's some interesting arguments for and against parties, but in general at this point I think we're far beyond either. There's a lower level of rot that's going to be toxic to most solutions.
This won't work. If it had a chance, Gary Johnson would've at least done better in 2016. Then again, with a campaign slogan of "Feel the Johnson," maybe not. I thought it was a joke when I first heard it...
Third party candidates are only spoilers. We need to shut this shit down before we throw another republican in the white house.