• FuckyWucky [none/use name]
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    Idk. You need like half the voters voting for you to become President and there can only be one President.

    I'm not saying don't vote for a third party but it's not going to do much unless you have atleast half the country behind you.

    • loathsome dongeater@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Winning the presidency is not the only goal for third parties. They contest for a lot of other reasons. Some are grifters. Some use it as a platofrm to increase their party's reach. I think voting third party is good for signalling a lack of faith in the tired two party duopoly. Voting between the two big parties is essentially meaningless anyway. If the bourgeoisie don't like what the people elect they can let the electoral college off the leash or just do lawfare like they did with Bush/Gore in a case that is not meant to be used as a precedent for other cases for some reason.

      • Evilsandwichman [none/use name]
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Honestly making the existing two parties panic and make changes to get votes back is still a good idea, and if you get the ball rolling in earnest then I still believe we can see the rise of a third party.

    • ICBM@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Idk. You need like half the voters voting for you to become President and there can only be one President.

      And that's not even accounting for a bourgeois "democracy", in which no challenge to the ruling class interests would ever be tolerated. Loooong history on that to look at. Ask Allende about moderate social revolution through elections. Ask France about strategic electoralism. 80% of the US could vote for Claudia and she would still never take office, one way or the other.

      Revolutions against the bourgeois class are won from the end of a gun and by no other means, otherwise we're submitting to a state monopoly on violence designed to be used legally against us.