• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    There is zero historical evidence voting third party does anything more than get the worse of two evils in office

    no such evidence is possible: you can’t prove a counterfactual. you can’t know who the worse evil would be. further it’s not clear that so-called “third party” voters actually impact elections at all unless their candidate wins.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      No, we can. 3rd parties have been around for decades and won nothing and only exacerbated the goals of said parties by undermining the only party that has tangible results.

      You prove my point.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        3rd parties have been around for decades and won nothing and only exacerbated the goals of said parties by undermining the only party that has tangible results.

        this simply isn’t true and reflects a myopic view of history. so-called third parties have been with us almost since the inception of the us, and have accomplished things inconceivable to modern politicians.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          It simply is true. Even the longest serving Independent in congressional history caucuses and ran as a Democrat.

          But do tell what any third party from Libertarians to the Green Party have accomplished, relative to Democrats for the working class.

          Have you even heard of Nader or Perot?

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Even the longest serving Independent in congressional history caucuses and ran as a Democrat.

            so? that doesn’t prove that so-called third parties are impotent. it shows that one person made some questionable decisions.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              “Questionable decisions,” said the individual who had to dig back 100 years to find an example of any tangible progress made by such a 3rd-party…?

              I think I’ll go with the party that actually has a track-record of progress this half-century.

                • lennybird@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Clear, substantive tangible records speaks nothing to the issue at hand that is discussing whether third-parties actually do anything…?

                  Huh?

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/9218081

                    you will see that the issue is the provability of whether so-called third parties can achieve anything, and whether it’s provable that voting for them has supported a “greater evil”. i have demonstrated the success of so-called third parties, and its prima facie impossible to prove a counterfactual.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Have you even heard of Nader or Perot

            yes, and i also know that their candidacy had nothing to do with who won the two elections they are (erroneously) credited with spoiling.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              They’re (accurately) credited with spoiling said elections and it is yet another example of the complete toothless value of 3rd-parties.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                any amount of research will show that, in fact, perot’s candidacy decreased clinton’s margin of victory, and gore won that election.

                • lennybird@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Any amount of research will, in fact, show that Perot did not win and 3rd-party groups routinely spoil elections without remotely advancing their own agenda they claim to care about.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    3rd-party groups routinely spoil elections

                    no, they don’t. i reject the entire narrative of “spoiling” elections, as it presupposes that one party or another is owed (or owns outright) the votes. they do not. they must earn the votes, and if i so-called third party candidate earns the votes, tehy are not spoiling anything. they are doing what politicians are supposed to do: earn votes.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    perot’s campaign had a significant impact on the politics of the 90s, transforming the democrats from a party (accused of) supporting welfare to a party of … well… the fucking clintons.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            what any third party from Libertarians to the Green Party have accomplished

            the prohibition party got a constitutional amendment passed. the republican party completely usurped the whigs.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                as i said, so-called third parties have been with us much longer and have accomplished things modern politicians could never conceive.

                • lennybird@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  “never conceive”?

                  Tell me, did a third party pass the Civil Rights Act?

                  That was pretty inconceivable for the time.

                  As was legalizing same sex marriage.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    nethier the civil rights act nor the legalization of same sex marriage is as concrete as a constitutional amendment, which is itself part of the constitution, and determines whether other laws are constitutional.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    the civil rights act was not the work of the democrats or the republicans. it was the work of dedicated activists and, yes, other parties such as the black panther party. they exerted pressure onto the parties in government, and the parties in government acquiesced.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        we can.

        it’s impossible to prove a counterfactual. you are either unfamiliar with the scientific method or you are deliberately lying.