"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."

  • TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    If you live outside the ~5 swing states that decide the election you can go ahead and ignore stuff like this saying you can’t vote third party.

    Shoutout PSL

    • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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
        1
        ·
        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
          0
          ·
          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
            1
            ·
            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
              0
              ·
              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
                1
                ·
                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
                  0
                  ·
                  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.

        • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          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
            1
            ·
            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?

              • TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                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.

    • LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Depends on how “safe” the states are. If its by just 100,000 then that’s not as safe as you think. If it’s by 600,000 then yeah that’s pretty safe. But at the same time why vote for a party that won’t win?

      Also, the PSL is not your friend. Back in 2020 they realized they weren’t gonna get the Peace and Freedom nomination in 2020, so instead of having solidarity with their fellow socialists, they threw their weight behind the joke candidate Roseanne Barr. They blatantly sabotaged their fellow socialists because they realized they weren’t going to win. They are not a party worth your investment.

      Here’s a great article about them and their shit.

      • TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        But at the same time why vote for a party that won’t win?

        Building support for change has to start somewhere, while they won’t win this election the more support they get the more visibility socialism gets as well as showing that people aren’t willing to vote for genocide. At the very least it shows the amount of people unhappy the democrats aren’t taking a harder stance on Israel.

        As for the PSL specifically, they’re the best option on the ballot in my state. Thank you for the link though I’ll take a deeper look when I have a chance.