"Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst Thälmann made in 1932. The leader of the German Communist Party, Thälmann saw mainstream liberals as his enemies, and so the center and left never joined forces against the Nazis. Thälmann famously said that ‘some Nazi trees must not be allowed to overshadow a forest’ of social democrats, whom he sneeringly called ‘social fascists.’

After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, Thälmann was arrested. He was shot on Hitler’s orders in Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944."

  • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    So people who don’t live in swing states should vote third party until there’s enough of them that the state is in danger of going to trump (or whoever)? If they’re successful at some point that’s a threat.

    How do we actually get third party candidates to win, not just “oh, Ross Perot Jr got 3% of the vote”?

    However you slice it, we’re looking at like a 20 year struggle minimum to get election reform, and it would be at least the same length to elect a third party candidate to the office of president, but that’s a one off thing. (Or more likely that third party would be the new one of two parties)

    If we’re committed to the struggle of improving things, we might as well improve a reusable process rather than have a single go at a third party presidential candidate.

    • TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      If enough people are voting third party that it’s a threat then maybe the other parties should take notice and change to support the popular policies and win back support.

      Also we can do more than 1 thing at a time. We should be pushing things like ranked choice voting while also showing our displeasure with the current parties where it makes sense to do so.

      Giving support to third parties gives them and the issues they’re promoting more visibility to the general public.

      • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        The presidential election is not the time for any of that. You have a fundamental misunderstanding about how elections work if this is the only time you care about third parties.

        • TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          It definitely isn’t the only time I care about third parties. Continued direct action in the community is the most important way to affect change. The election is just a useful event for publicity and gaining support for groups.

          There’s 0% chance my comment is going to convince enough people this election cycle that it effects a non swing states election. It’s about slowly building support for groups.

          • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’m with you. I’m all about building support. Just as long as people understand there’s a time and place for it.

            • Maeve@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              3 months ago

              People have said that for 40 years. It’s always the right time to do the right thing.

              Eta and for 40 years things have gotten worse for everyone but fat international corporate conglomerates and VERY wealthy people. The time is now.

              • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                And for 40 years voting in your local elections has changed things. That’s when you vote for change. If you think the presidential election is the time to vote differently you’re not paying attention, plain and simple.

                • Maeve@kbin.earth
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Yes, as I said elsewhere itt ,things have gotten alarmingly worse.

                  • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    No, what you said was people have been saying the same thing for 40 years, and implied it doesn’t make a difference.

                    That is false.

      • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        If enough people are voting third party that it’s a threat then maybe the other parties should take notice and change to support the popular policies and win back support.

        This does not work in a FPTP system. Every vote you peel off the Democrats just enables the Republicans and sets reform back even farther. The only way telling people to vote 3rd party is helpful is if they were going to vote for the GOP. Peeling votes away from Democrats HURTS the chances of other parties to be viable in the future.

        • TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          3 months ago

          You’re looking at things through there lens of 1 election cycle.

          If a third party that’s against the genocide Israel is carrying out gets say 5% of voters in deep blue or deep red states would that not be a signal to the democrats that they should change their stance before the next election?

          • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            In a completely uncontested race? Totally fine with voting 3rd party to send a message to the Democrats.

            That’s not what we’re talking about here. When the alternative candidate in a tight race is from a party whose goal is to abandon democracy altogether, that 5% is absolutely critical. In order to “send a message” to the Democrats, you give the GOP the ability to limit democracy even further for the next election. If there even is another election. And the Democrats can’t implement the changes you want to see even if they wanted to because they lack the power from losing the election. That’s a ridiculous trade-off.

            • TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Not funding and supplying a genocide seems to be a pretty clear and easy issue to change especially when 60%+ of democrats are in favor of it. We’re already violating our own laws by continuing to do so.

              The democrats are already moving to the right even with the left continuing to vote for them. They think they can win over some centrists republicans (even though they can’t in a meaningful number) by adopting right wing policies while not losing the left because at the moment they know votes are guaranteed because “republicans worse”.

              Having voters in areas that effectively don’t matter this cycle show there displeasure in the genocide we’re enabling is the least we can do to counter it.

              • Maeve@kbin.earth
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                They think they can win over some centrists republicans (even though they can’t in a meaningful number) by adopting right wing policies while not losing the left because at the moment they know votes are guaranteed because “republicans worse”.

                I don’t think they think that. I think we’ve swallowed that lie hook, line and sinker for 40 years and they will keep throwing the same bait as long as we keep biting while they keep moving right.

                • TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Oh I agree, but that’s was a whole other can of worms I wasn’t trying to get into at the moment since I’ve got a busy and long work day that’s still not over unfortunately lol

                • TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  I didn’t ignore what you said. My retort to

                  No. If 5% of my voting base sits out over a single issue, I’m going to lose my interest in trying to triangulate their support and move in another direction to identify a more persuadable bloc of voters. That goes more if the abandonment is repetitive, and if the issues constantly change, or if the issue is something I can’t bend on for electoral reasons. If one bloc of voters is easier to please than another, then I’m moving in their direction, even if it’s rightward. Unfortunately it’s winner-take-all, and you’re either in power or you’re not. There are no half-wins.

                  Was that if it’s a clear issue like the genocide Israel is carrying out that has a lot of strong opposition to the Democrats current position it really isn’t all that hard to triangulate what the cause is.

                  It’s been known it’s THE issue the democrats are losing support for given the coverage of the non committed movement. As for how tough it is to It’s literally not support a genocide that’s how you please that group. It’s literally following our current laws to not supply and fund a country committing a genocide.

                  the importance of Gaza

                  Literally from your own link “though some questioned whether it would push them not to vote at all.” In a thread where people are complaining about a small amount of people voting third party could lose the election for democrats in swing states I guess it is an important issue if it’s driving even some people in swing states to not vote.

                  Also when the non committed movement has more support in some states than the margin of victory in 2020 I would say it’s pretty important.

                  the “ease” of withdrawing support

                  So genocide is alright as long as they’re an enemy of Iran, that’s your argument? Israel is literally the one escalating the situation in the area, pulling their support or at least threatening to do so until the genocide is stopped would actually deescalate the situation in the region.

                  how much Democrats have moved rightward

                  I don’t disagree they’ve moved left on most social issues when looking at at that long of a time span that’s in the article you linked. I’m talking this election cycle Kamala has clearly shifted right from the policies she ran on in 2016.

                  how many centrist Republicans vote for Democrats.

                  In 1 election, that’s the sample size. That’s not a trend and it’s against Trump who is an historically awful candidate for moderates to try and stomach. They’ll be back voting R once he’s gone so it’s not a good long term strategy when you’re alienating what should be your base to the point their considering not voting or voting third party.

                  Moreover, you seem to be valuing the strongly-held opinions of voters in non-swing states (what you’re calling “deep blue states” or “areas that effectively don’t matter”) more highly than the maybe-less-strongly held opinions of voters in swing states. If 5% of Democratic voters in California want sushi, and 5% of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania want steak, I’m picking steak and telling the California voters to take a hike. Their opinion doesn’t even register on my radar thanks to the electoral consequences of pissing off the Pennsylvanians who wanted steak.

                  You completely misunderstood what my example was trying to get across. I’m not valuing non swing state voters opinions more than swing state voters.

                  I understand that the swing state voters are going to have an outsized role in what each party pushes. Tactically I would be saying the voters in swing states especially should be witholding their vote unless the democrats stop supporting Israel’s genocide since it would be more leverage but obviously trump getting elected isn’t a great alternative which is why I didn’t mention that since that’s a risk.

                  What I was saying is that given that non swing states you can safely vote third party to show your displeasure in the genocide we’re supporting and possibly shed light that it’s got a large amount of importance to voters.

                  Edit: formatting since I’m on mobile and at work.