I get where you’re coming from, and I respect your decision to vote for whoever you want.
But I won’t be voting for Harris or Trump.
For me, rejecting the duopoly isn’t just academically interesting—it’s a necessary step toward real change, even if it’s not the popular choice in this election.
How is voting third party going to change the two major parties or defeat the duopoly? At best one of the parties will move slightly more toward your positions, but they won’t move so far that they lose voters who support them precariously but think your positions stink.
They also have to factor in that no matter how much they bend you will vote third party anyway because they didn’t match what you’re looking for exactly.
Voting third party is about more than just influencing the two major parties; it’s about breaking free from the stranglehold they have on our democracy.
If we never support alternatives, we’re only reinforcing the status quo, ensuring that real change never has a chance to take root.
The duopoly thrives on the idea that they’re the only options—by voting third party, we challenge that narrative and lay the groundwork for a more diverse and representative political landscape.
It’s not the popularity I take issue with, it’s the viability.
To use an abstract example:
Ballot: reduce the reliance on cars for transport.
“Academic”: teleporter research.
“Pragmatic/viable”: more bus.
Sure, teleporters would be great, but in November of 2024 it’s not realistic.
Further, focusing on teleporters may allow the opposite of the goal of the ballot initiative to occur, and an increasing reliance on cars may be brought about by opponents.
To head this off because we’ve done this before:
I’m aware teleporters aren’t real. I’m aware this thread isn’t about transit. This is a hypothetical example to discuss the point using a different medium.
Edit To put a point on it: a third party vote does 0% to impact the duopoly. It is irrelevant to the situation, which is actually changed via the topics I mentioned in an earlier comment. It can only distort which of the duo parties succeed.
A presidential ballot is not the place for that though. It’s like wishing you had a different airplane, when you’re already coming in for landing. You’re already committed.
But if we don’t push for bold change now, we’ll never get off the ground in the first place. Settling for what’s already in motion only ensures that the landing strip stays the same, election after election.
The point is to make changes before takeoff, to continue the example.
Grassroots positions. Down ballot posts. Judicial reform. Be planning for elections in the 2030’s.
The effort to establish viable 3rd party candidates now, started years ago. It unfortunately failed. Those candidates did not achieve viability in 2024, and therefore don’t exist, for practical purposes. To circle back, they especially don’t exist if the goal is to keep trump out of office, which I stated was mine.
I can’t understand how others don’t share that goal, due to his wild, right wing plans that are an order of magnitude worse than harris’ positions. Especially for disenfranchised minority groups, not even starting on the basics of governmental integrity.
If 3rd party groups spent their energy deplatforming conservatives then we would all have greater harmony, and third party platforms would find more space for their voice. Instead they make primary enemies with democrats, their nearest neighbors, and then wonder why the DNC and popular democrats shun them at every opportunity.
I agree that building a viable third party should start from the ground up, focusing on grassroots positions and down-ballot posts. However, the reality is that change isn’t linear and doesn’t always follow a neat timeline. While the efforts to establish viable third-party candidates for 2024 may not have achieved widespread success, it doesn’t mean the push for alternatives should be abandoned or ridiculed.
Regarding Trump, I don’t deny the dangers his return poses, particularly to disenfranchised groups. However, this isn’t just about Trump; it’s about the systemic issues that allow figures like him to gain power in the first place.
If third-party efforts only focused on deplatforming conservatives, they would risk becoming just another arm of the duopoly, which itself has consistently failed to bring about meaningful change for working people. The real challenge is not just to oppose one party or candidate but to break the cycle that leaves voters feeling trapped between two unsatisfactory choices.
You’re deeply misrepresenting the position. We’re not desperate to keep the duopoly. We’re desperate to keep it from collapsing into a dictatorship, and you’re over there trying to kick its legs off.
If the system is so fragile that it risks collapsing into a dictatorship, then it’s already broken beyond repair. So I refuse to help the duopoly even more.
Nonsense. If you work outside of the system that exists, you won’t ever make meaningful change on that system. You’ll only ever make it harder for the people who have accepted reality and are working from within the system to change it. You can’t do that from the outside short of a full catastrophic collapse, no matter how much noise you make.
The real nonsense is believing that change can only come from within a corrupt and broken system.
History shows us that real progress has often come from those who challenged the system from the outside, refusing to accept the crumbs offered by those in power.
I’m not here to wait for “catastrophic collapse” but to push for the kind of meaningful change that the establishment fears.
If working from within has been so effective, why are we still stuck with the same old problems?
If challenging the status quo and fighting for real change makes me part of the problem, then I proudly accept that label. I’d rather be a “problem” for the establishment than blindly follow a system that perpetuates injustice.
Change for Presidential elections won’t come from who you vote for President, it comes from the down-ballot voting for the Congressional and lower positions that could do these changes. That’s where you should put more diversity into where you want your issues to change dramatically. Voting for a third party for President while the system only supports two parties is a waste of effort for the cause, especially if those votes help the one side that would crush any change from the more progressive Congress you try to get in. You have to work within the constraints your given, even if they are too tight sometimes.
The idea that change only happens down-ballot is the same old excuse that keeps the stranglehold of the two-party system unchallenged. Sure, down-ballot voting matters, but don’t be fooled into thinking that’s where our fight ends. Voting for a third-party candidate, especially at the top, is a bold declaration that we’re done being shackled by a system rigged for just two parties. If we keep playing by their rules, we’ll stay trapped in their game. This isn’t about wasting our energy; it’s about breaking the chains and demanding a political system that represents all of us, not just the interests of the powerful few.
I’m saying the election system process itself can’t be changed by the President, but by Congress. A Democrat/Progressive heavy Congress with a Republican President, especially someone who is trying to change things to be more dictatorship, won’t be able to do shit. Likewise, any President of any party who wants things to change won’t be able to do it without a functional Congress.
I want more variety in the choices too, but that mathematically won’t happen with a FPTP system. No matter how often it’s tried. Repeating things over and over expecting different results with the same mechanics is a definition of something…
I get where you’re coming from, and I respect your decision to vote for whoever you want.
But I won’t be voting for Harris or Trump.
For me, rejecting the duopoly isn’t just academically interesting—it’s a necessary step toward real change, even if it’s not the popular choice in this election.
How is voting third party going to change the two major parties or defeat the duopoly? At best one of the parties will move slightly more toward your positions, but they won’t move so far that they lose voters who support them precariously but think your positions stink.
They also have to factor in that no matter how much they bend you will vote third party anyway because they didn’t match what you’re looking for exactly.
Voting third party is about more than just influencing the two major parties; it’s about breaking free from the stranglehold they have on our democracy.
If we never support alternatives, we’re only reinforcing the status quo, ensuring that real change never has a chance to take root.
The duopoly thrives on the idea that they’re the only options—by voting third party, we challenge that narrative and lay the groundwork for a more diverse and representative political landscape.
Idealism kills.
Complacency kills more.
It’s not the popularity I take issue with, it’s the viability.
To use an abstract example:
Ballot: reduce the reliance on cars for transport.
“Academic”: teleporter research.
“Pragmatic/viable”: more bus.
Sure, teleporters would be great, but in November of 2024 it’s not realistic.
Further, focusing on teleporters may allow the opposite of the goal of the ballot initiative to occur, and an increasing reliance on cars may be brought about by opponents.
To head this off because we’ve done this before:
I’m aware teleporters aren’t real. I’m aware this thread isn’t about transit. This is a hypothetical example to discuss the point using a different medium.
Edit To put a point on it: a third party vote does 0% to impact the duopoly. It is irrelevant to the situation, which is actually changed via the topics I mentioned in an earlier comment. It can only distort which of the duo parties succeed.
If we never push for bold change, we’ll be stuck with the same tired solutions that maintain the status quo.
Completely agree.
A presidential ballot is not the place for that though. It’s like wishing you had a different airplane, when you’re already coming in for landing. You’re already committed.
But if we don’t push for bold change now, we’ll never get off the ground in the first place. Settling for what’s already in motion only ensures that the landing strip stays the same, election after election.
The point is to make changes before takeoff, to continue the example.
Grassroots positions. Down ballot posts. Judicial reform. Be planning for elections in the 2030’s.
The effort to establish viable 3rd party candidates now, started years ago. It unfortunately failed. Those candidates did not achieve viability in 2024, and therefore don’t exist, for practical purposes. To circle back, they especially don’t exist if the goal is to keep trump out of office, which I stated was mine.
I can’t understand how others don’t share that goal, due to his wild, right wing plans that are an order of magnitude worse than harris’ positions. Especially for disenfranchised minority groups, not even starting on the basics of governmental integrity.
If 3rd party groups spent their energy deplatforming conservatives then we would all have greater harmony, and third party platforms would find more space for their voice. Instead they make primary enemies with democrats, their nearest neighbors, and then wonder why the DNC and popular democrats shun them at every opportunity.
I agree that building a viable third party should start from the ground up, focusing on grassroots positions and down-ballot posts. However, the reality is that change isn’t linear and doesn’t always follow a neat timeline. While the efforts to establish viable third-party candidates for 2024 may not have achieved widespread success, it doesn’t mean the push for alternatives should be abandoned or ridiculed.
Regarding Trump, I don’t deny the dangers his return poses, particularly to disenfranchised groups. However, this isn’t just about Trump; it’s about the systemic issues that allow figures like him to gain power in the first place.
If third-party efforts only focused on deplatforming conservatives, they would risk becoming just another arm of the duopoly, which itself has consistently failed to bring about meaningful change for working people. The real challenge is not just to oppose one party or candidate but to break the cycle that leaves voters feeling trapped between two unsatisfactory choices.
This is incredibly naiive and counterproductive.
Listen to these people.
Nah, I won’t be taking advice from those who are desperate to keep the capitalist duopoly in power.
Their insistence on maintaining the status quo only proves how threatened they are by the real change we’re fighting for.
You’re deeply misrepresenting the position. We’re not desperate to keep the duopoly. We’re desperate to keep it from collapsing into a dictatorship, and you’re over there trying to kick its legs off.
If the system is so fragile that it risks collapsing into a dictatorship, then it’s already broken beyond repair. So I refuse to help the duopoly even more.
Uh huh.
Glad you agree. Thank you!
Nonsense. If you work outside of the system that exists, you won’t ever make meaningful change on that system. You’ll only ever make it harder for the people who have accepted reality and are working from within the system to change it. You can’t do that from the outside short of a full catastrophic collapse, no matter how much noise you make.
The real nonsense is believing that change can only come from within a corrupt and broken system.
History shows us that real progress has often come from those who challenged the system from the outside, refusing to accept the crumbs offered by those in power.
I’m not here to wait for “catastrophic collapse” but to push for the kind of meaningful change that the establishment fears.
If working from within has been so effective, why are we still stuck with the same old problems?
Well then, you are part of the problem. It’s a cliche, but it’s no less true in this case.
If challenging the status quo and fighting for real change makes me part of the problem, then I proudly accept that label. I’d rather be a “problem” for the establishment than blindly follow a system that perpetuates injustice.
Change for Presidential elections won’t come from who you vote for President, it comes from the down-ballot voting for the Congressional and lower positions that could do these changes. That’s where you should put more diversity into where you want your issues to change dramatically. Voting for a third party for President while the system only supports two parties is a waste of effort for the cause, especially if those votes help the one side that would crush any change from the more progressive Congress you try to get in. You have to work within the constraints your given, even if they are too tight sometimes.
The idea that change only happens down-ballot is the same old excuse that keeps the stranglehold of the two-party system unchallenged. Sure, down-ballot voting matters, but don’t be fooled into thinking that’s where our fight ends. Voting for a third-party candidate, especially at the top, is a bold declaration that we’re done being shackled by a system rigged for just two parties. If we keep playing by their rules, we’ll stay trapped in their game. This isn’t about wasting our energy; it’s about breaking the chains and demanding a political system that represents all of us, not just the interests of the powerful few.
I’m saying the election system process itself can’t be changed by the President, but by Congress. A Democrat/Progressive heavy Congress with a Republican President, especially someone who is trying to change things to be more dictatorship, won’t be able to do shit. Likewise, any President of any party who wants things to change won’t be able to do it without a functional Congress.
I want more variety in the choices too, but that mathematically won’t happen with a FPTP system. No matter how often it’s tried. Repeating things over and over expecting different results with the same mechanics is a definition of something…
We have different opinions. I’m proudly voting third party.