politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I think this is a losing issue for Democrats to be putting effort into.... while third party candidates may be spoilers in our current system the solution is not to try and disenfranchise those parties - it's terrible optics and, if you want to capture green voters there are so much easier tactics.
That 3% that third-party candidates typically earn makes a big difference when polls are showing 49% to 48%. It’s fair to question a Republican’s motive to support a candidate with opposing views to their own party.
I think it’s really important for people to know that fringe parties are being propped up to divide the left.
Might make voters realize a pragmatic choice will result in an outcome more aligned with their goals.
The Democrats can retaliate with Libertarians.
Sure, but retaliation like that shouldn't be possible. It's a mark of a terrible, failed democracy.
If a corporation can fund 2 parties, why can't anyone else?
I don't think corporations should fund parties either.
So if an American gives $200 to the Democrats wt:thon couldn't give $100 to a Green Party candidate and $100 to a Libertarian Party candidate?
No. Nobody should be donating to political parties because it inevitably leads to the rich having too much influence, and wasting billions of dollars on a pointless advertisement arms race to nowhere.
So how do parties get their money? From the government based on past votes?
If 80 million Biden voters each contributed $125 to his campaign, that'd be $10 billion. What corporation would match that?
Any of the following:
Campaigns are each given X million for their campaign as public funding if they qualify for the ballot. Say with three qualifying candidates, the DNC, RNC, and the greens each get 10m, use it wisely.
Campaigns work based on a shared pool of funds. If candidate A raises X funding, all candidates then recieve X/num candidates funding that they are permitted to spend.
No funding is allowed to be spent at all, for any candidate. Candidates can only ever explain their policy on information cards presented at the ballot, on public posts on the internet, press interviews, at debates, etc.
I'm sure there are other ways. But the point is, no candidate should have a monetary advantage over the other. In an actual democracy, all ideas and therefore candidates should be given equal thought, and therefore funding. Whether it be $0 or $100 billion, all campaigns should be equally funded/defunded.
Yep, and the reason they rely on non-Democratic operatives for this stuff is because the DCCC will blacklist you if you help a third party/independent campaign.
If you need the expertise to get on the ballot, your best chance is to hire someone that worked for one of the big parties before.
Instead of handwringing about spoilers, maybe democrats should run on some of the policies that are overwhelmingly popular instead so there's no room on the left for someone to run.
But voters and politicians aren't one and the same. Voters have every right to call out spoilers. Politicians, I don't see doing it all that often, but even still you have a point there. They could listen more to what people actually want rather than being afraid of alienating centrists.
The spoiler effect is the result of geometric distance between candidates, not the strength of policy positions. You don't know what you're talking about.