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.
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.
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.
Yes, it was the Democrats who both supported and are primarily responsible for its passage.
… in congress. but they would have never proposed it if the writing weren’t on the wall, if the people in the streets had not made it a matter of import. giving the democrats credit is like giving bank tellers credit for financing bank robbers’ lifestyles.
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.
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.
Historians, scholars, political-scientists all disagree. I won’t argue with the proverbial-equivalent of flat-earthers, for that’s just a denialism too far gone.
this is pigeonholing. you are trying to group me in with a (n unrelated) group of people and dismiss my valid assertions. it’s yet another mark of intellectual dishonesty
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.
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.
I have proved both of these things. Both With Nader and Perot, as well as showing the difference in actual progressive advancements between third-parties in Democrats is so great that there is little point in supporting a third-party — especially when the FPTP system mathematically goes against them.
But any time you want to make a bet a 3rd-party candidate winning versus one of the two primary parties, I’ll happily take that bet on money.
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.
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?
the prohibition party got a constitutional amendment passed. the republican party completely usurped the whigs.
Damn! You had to go back over 100 years practically to the Whigs!
as i said, so-called third parties have been with us much longer and have accomplished things modern politicians could never conceive.
“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.
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.
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.
Welcome to what parties are —coalitions of groups, including activists working under a united banner — in this case, the Democrats.
The Black Panther party wasn’t in Congress; they did not vote on it. They are not a “third party,” in a governing sense.
But to answer the question directly: Yes, it was the Democrats who both supported and are primarily responsible for its passage.
… in congress. but they would have never proposed it if the writing weren’t on the wall, if the people in the streets had not made it a matter of import. giving the democrats credit is like giving bank tellers credit for financing bank robbers’ lifestyles.
yes, and i also know that their candidacy had nothing to do with who won the two elections they are (erroneously) credited with spoiling.
They’re (accurately) credited with spoiling said elections and it is yet another example of the complete toothless value of 3rd-parties.
any amount of research will show that, in fact, perot’s candidacy decreased clinton’s margin of victory, and gore won that election.
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.
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.
Historians, scholars, political-scientists all disagree. I won’t argue with the proverbial-equivalent of flat-earthers, for that’s just a denialism too far gone.
this is pigeonholing. you are trying to group me in with a (n unrelated) group of people and dismiss my valid assertions. it’s yet another mark of intellectual dishonesty
no, they don’t
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.
Bernie had an effect on the party too, except he did it in a way that didn’t backfire for progress.
Bernie understands it’s far easier to take two steps back under Republicans versus maintaining what we’ve got, let alone making progress.
if by that, you mean progressing the party to the right, you’re correct. he hasn’t reversed the course of the democrat party at all.
so? that doesn’t prove that so-called third parties are impotent. it shows that one person made some questionable decisions.
“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.
this is all just posturing and rhetoric. none of it speaks to the issue at hand.
Clear, substantive tangible records speaks nothing to the issue at hand that is discussing whether third-parties actually do anything…?
Huh?
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.
I have proved both of these things. Both With Nader and Perot, as well as showing the difference in actual progressive advancements between third-parties in Democrats is so great that there is little point in supporting a third-party — especially when the FPTP system mathematically goes against them.
But any time you want to make a bet a 3rd-party candidate winning versus one of the two primary parties, I’ll happily take that bet on money.
this is a red herring and doesn’t address the substance of our disagreement at all
you literally cannot prove a counterfactual, so claiming you have reeks of intellectual dishonesty