Or at least all the candidates counted with the dataset I could find
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
77 points (100.0% liked)
electoralism
21999 readers
880 users here now
Welcome to c/electoralism! politics isn't just about voting or running for office, but this community is.
Please read the Chapo Code of Conduct and remember...we're all comrades here.
Shitposting in other comms please!
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's the electoral college. There's no point in voting if you don't live in a swing state. Republicans only won the popular vote 2 times since 1992 and it doesn't mean much as far as US electoral politics is concerned. It's literally just trivia to make libs feel better whenever they eat shit.
I've always thought a better way for US third parties to approach this is to form a regional party that caters to a particular state or region. They probably still wouldn't win, but they could get to a point where they could outmuscle one of the parties. I think somewhere like Vermont could be a good place, a solid blue state that's taken for granted as a solid blue state by the DNC.
Before Sanders joined Congress, he actually was in a good spot as mayor of Burlington. Sanders should've tried building a third party or more seriously help a preexisting third party that's centered around Vermont. If done right, this party could've gone to the point where city counsel and mayors throughout Vermont are either members of that party or have to pay political tribute to that party. They probably won't be anywhere close to electing a governor or earning an electoral vote, but the Republicans don't exactly have a serious presence in Vermont either. They just need to have a larger state presence within Vermont than the Republicans.
Browsing through Wikipedia, apparently Vermont already has this party called the Vermont Progressive Party with a decent amount of positions with Vermont. And Sanders did help build the party, which makes me think he never should've gone to Congress to shill for Zionists and instead stayed in Vermont working tirelessly to continue building the party. The main issue is that it's just a socdem party and electoralism in general can only take you so far.
I think it's wiser for the various ML parties in the US to have a gentlemen's agreement where they divide the US into various zones and focus their organizing on their assigned zones only. If nothing else, it will cut down on embarrassing sectarianism like when PSL and FRSO got into a fight over Palestinian organizing in Chicago(?).
You say "it's the electoral college" but what does that functionally mean?
Here in the UK the election is done by regional representatives. IE, you vote and the winner in your district is an MP and the party with the most MPs gets their leader as the Prime Minister.
What's the difference? If I vote for a party that isn't one of the 2 main parties, my vote does not achieve anything in terms of affecting who gets power. It's a protest vote.
I don't see how there is a difference here. The only difference I see is cultural. Americans see it as utterly pointless and therefore don't bother at all, Brits on the other hand are stubborn fuckers and will go out and protest vote and those protest votes actually do achieve political consequences when they're big enough, such as UKIP's success in forcing the Tories to give a Brexit referendum "or else we'll make sure you lose".
There are fundamentally enough non-voters in this election to achieve huge things with if Americans adopted the stubbornness to actually go third party, but they're successfully convinced to not bother.