They can worry about the spoiler effect… Or they can worry about the massive amount of people who don’t vote because they feel it’s pointless or barely muster enough care to do it.
The fact that these experienced politicians whose judgment you appear to trust, have both decided to work within the existing system should probably sway your opinion of what the optimal strategy is at least a bit more.
There are usually two parties because the game-theoretic dynamic of this electoral system has a significant channelizing effect on the likeliest outcomes. Once you’ve accepted that reality, the (admittedly unsatisfying) optimal strategy becomes apparent.
I say this all with zero rancor - I do not like these arguments either, but the logic of it is difficult to see past. I would prefer the system be overthrown entirely but, and this is key, you go into the revolution with the populace that exists - and they’re going to have their own ideas for what comes next. I’m not so sure I’d like what they bring to the table.
If they follow that logic they’ll never win, because the number of people who will unconditionally vote Dem is demonstrably not enough to win an election.
The spoiler effect will work in the short term, but if a progressive party can oust the DNC in even a few states Congress should look a lot different to how it is now. A bit of pain is worth it to escape the slow death promised by the DNC.
AOC should abandon the Democratic party. She should join Bernie as an god-damned Independent.
She and Bernie should start a progressive party.
I’m tired of Democrats bowing to oligarchs.
Look up the spoiler effect to learn why they don’t.
They can worry about the spoiler effect… Or they can worry about the massive amount of people who don’t vote because they feel it’s pointless or barely muster enough care to do it.
The fact that these experienced politicians whose judgment you appear to trust, have both decided to work within the existing system should probably sway your opinion of what the optimal strategy is at least a bit more.
There are usually two parties because the game-theoretic dynamic of this electoral system has a significant channelizing effect on the likeliest outcomes. Once you’ve accepted that reality, the (admittedly unsatisfying) optimal strategy becomes apparent.
I say this all with zero rancor - I do not like these arguments either, but the logic of it is difficult to see past. I would prefer the system be overthrown entirely but, and this is key, you go into the revolution with the populace that exists - and they’re going to have their own ideas for what comes next. I’m not so sure I’d like what they bring to the table.
Nobody needs to worry about people who don’t vote.
“You don’t vote” is what Democrats say to anyone they don’t want to listen to, regardless of whether they actually vote.
Democrats need to listen to people who vote.
But the person I replied to said they also need to worry about nonvoters. They don’t. Nonvoters don’t matter.
If they follow that logic they’ll never win, because the number of people who will unconditionally vote Dem is demonstrably not enough to win an election.
They don’t care about winning if it means lowering themselves to the level of trying to court voters.
When it’s time to decide on policy, they don’t. When assigning blame, they’re the only thing that matters.
But they are always conveniently whoever the party doesn’t want to listen to.
We’re already spoiled due to a fucking useless DNC. A complete replacement is warranted at this point.
The spoiler effect will work in the short term, but if a progressive party can oust the DNC in even a few states Congress should look a lot different to how it is now. A bit of pain is worth it to escape the slow death promised by the DNC.
Worth a try since the Democrats are worthless spineless losers anyway.