669
American workers are tired of waiting.
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 May 2026
669 points (84.3% liked)
Work Reform
16415 readers
59 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Americans need to organize themselves out of 2 party system. It's the only way and funnily enough - it would be a much more of an american system because US is all about competition, right?
Maybe get rid of parties altogether? They already have one representative per state, why not go with that and elect one of them a president?
If a group of people start collaborating together to elect people aligned with their socio-economic interests, what is your plan to stop them?
you've gotta start way lower than that first. how can we elect a president when we can't elect a mayor
The framers of the Constitution had objections to parties and left them out. Completely refused to even acknowledge them. Within five years, a party duopoly formed. Even nominally one party states have hidden internal factions. It is better to acknowledge human nature and compensate than to work against it only to cause harm in failure.
Americans need a second party.
What is the point of a multi-party system when we believe all the other parties are ontologically evil?
Who believes this? I mean other than Republicans I guess.
In a proper multi-party system, you can get several non-ontologically evil parties at once. Both "non-ontologically" evil and non-"ontologically evil".
You can try. More often than not, it seems you get a bunch of reactionaries wearing different hats and hoping you don't notice that the "Wake Up!" Party, the "New Radical Center" Party, and the "United Federationalists" party are bankrolled out of the same plutocrat's pocket.
Nobody said it would be easy, we're fighting against a significant and powerful force. But in places that isn't America it's pretty normal to have a party with good ideas that can win seats and inform policies. If the voting system is robust enough, and people participate in it, just throwing money doesn't work.
That's, actually, why there is so much anti-democratic sentiment going on, the same plutocrats spend billions on spreading the idea that democracy is pointless and voting doesn't work so people shouldn't bother.
That's part of the problem. I see plenty of people insisting "It would be easy if you'd just do it my way!" without considering why people aren't naturally Pareto Optimal in their behaviors.
Where? Seriously, what country are you referring to?
The presumption that American liberal governance is a democracy fuels that sentiment. When you interrogate why so many unpopular people end up in high office, you quickly pick up on anti-democratic trends in the electoral system. Candidates like Henry Cuellar, John Whitmire, and Janet Mills hold their offices through a combination of corruption and dirty tricks, poisoning the party brand for more well-meaning campaigners as a result.
One area in which Republicans seem to be ahead of their Democrat peers is in their willingness to toss incumbents out at the primary level. Say what you will about the average GOP voter, but they were willing to toss Eric Cantor out on his ass and snub Jeb Bush from the general election during some hotly contested election cycles. The "Vote Blue No Matter Who" line doesn't seem to work the same on conservative voters. As a result, they have much more agency within their local, state, and national organizations.
You don't need a brand new party to fix the problem of anti-democratic governance. But you do need organizers and activists willing to cut across the DC party line. Maybe we're beginning to see this, what with Mamdani winning in NYC and Platner upsetting the race in Maine. Idk. But the idea that a third option on the ballot makes the first two less entrenched hasn't born out the way I was promised, over 30 years ago, when Libertarians, Reforms, and Greens were selling it.
It's like a wheel - the more sides there is the smoother it rolls.
Why the hell do you want government to roll? Damn thing is going to roll right over you.
There are systemic barriers to a 3rd (or 4th etc) party. No amount of campaigning or organizing will make them viable without systemic change. Attempting to push 3rd parties at the ballot box will, hilariously (in a sad way), benefit the party you least align with.
They absolutely do. But that's not happening in the next election. Or the one after that. Or the one after that. Or the one after that.
It happens when a 3rd party actually gets serious about getting their message out and when Americans across the nation start voting for members of that 3rd party in local/state elections and start putting members from that party in Congress. It's going to take YEARS AND YEARS.
Until then, it would be nice if people could suck it up and make the best decision in the situation we find ourselves in when it comes to control of our federal government.