Do you think this “signing up for a party” nonsense is why Americans can’t see past allegiances and pick based on the plans and theme a party puts forth in a given election cycle?
My voting has been consistent between three parties, but only because the platform varied and one edged the other out. I can’t imagine deciding based on identity instead.
Functionally there are only 2, and I say that as someone way further to the left than democrats.
You’ve got a few issues at play. First, making a party is easy enough, but getting recognized by each state is a huge hurdle - namely ballot access.
To be named as the party and on the ballot, you may need to:
Have received more than 10% of the vote in the prior election
Get signatures equal to a percent of the voting population, but specifically at least 10% of those must come from the least populous counties
Some states require those signatures only include voters who were both registered and eligible to vote in the previous election.
There’s more, but I think a good enough sample of the initial “fun”.
Because thats just to get on the ballot as a member of the party. After that, you still must get at least a specific percentage to have that party remain eligible for the ballot outside of an annual set of petitions, you may have to have a candidate for every election cycle, you may need to get a certain percentage (10%-20%) in the previous election to be considered a major party rather than a minor party, which changes eligibility for funds for the election among other benefits.
There’s so much more, but I think that’d enough of the pain there.
Its not about “picking a team” so much as “not being a member of a major party limits access so substantially that a minor party may as well not exist, so you may as well join a major party so you can at least vote in meaningful primaries”.
Its a manufactured issue that would take gaining power to change. So your choice becomes “party of center-right but pretends to be the left” or “go-go-gadget christofascist regime”.
Outside of local, its hard to get third parties further up the chain. Really hard. By design of the two parties that have been in control one way or another for about 175 years. There have also been swaps of stances over that time, but Democrats have been further to the left than Republicans since around the 1930s.
In short - “shits all fucked up”, but you only effectively get two parties at any scale.
Yes and no, there are stark differences between the parties still. That doesnt make the democrats good, but more like a hand grenade isnt as destructive as an ICBM.
Do they all serve moneyed interests? Yes. But that doesnt make them equal though by any stretch.
Oh, I agree. The GOP’s public policy is entirely based on grievance politics focusing on in group-out group dynamics. “Your life sucks? Make these OTHER people suffer.” Dems branding is more focused on inclusivity, so there’s a whole lot less of “fuck you, that’s why.” I end up voting for who will cause the least damage, not systemic change.
I end up voting for who will cause the least damage, not systemic change.
100% accurate, 1000% depressing.
At least for the big elections, locally I do what I can with whatever 3rd party is up for joining in (sometimes they work with the local dems because half the time they dont even run anyone which is even more depressing)
Do you think this “signing up for a party” nonsense is why Americans can’t see past allegiances and pick based on the plans and theme a party puts forth in a given election cycle?
My voting has been consistent between three parties, but only because the platform varied and one edged the other out. I can’t imagine deciding based on identity instead.
Functionally there are only 2, and I say that as someone way further to the left than democrats.
You’ve got a few issues at play. First, making a party is easy enough, but getting recognized by each state is a huge hurdle - namely ballot access.
To be named as the party and on the ballot, you may need to:
There’s more, but I think a good enough sample of the initial “fun”.
Because thats just to get on the ballot as a member of the party. After that, you still must get at least a specific percentage to have that party remain eligible for the ballot outside of an annual set of petitions, you may have to have a candidate for every election cycle, you may need to get a certain percentage (10%-20%) in the previous election to be considered a major party rather than a minor party, which changes eligibility for funds for the election among other benefits.
There’s so much more, but I think that’d enough of the pain there.
Its not about “picking a team” so much as “not being a member of a major party limits access so substantially that a minor party may as well not exist, so you may as well join a major party so you can at least vote in meaningful primaries”.
Its a manufactured issue that would take gaining power to change. So your choice becomes “party of center-right but pretends to be the left” or “go-go-gadget christofascist regime”.
Outside of local, its hard to get third parties further up the chain. Really hard. By design of the two parties that have been in control one way or another for about 175 years. There have also been swaps of stances over that time, but Democrats have been further to the left than Republicans since around the 1930s.
In short - “shits all fucked up”, but you only effectively get two parties at any scale.
100% It’s all creating the illusion of choice. Money still funnels up. Imperialism grinds on.
Yes and no, there are stark differences between the parties still. That doesnt make the democrats good, but more like a hand grenade isnt as destructive as an ICBM.
Do they all serve moneyed interests? Yes. But that doesnt make them equal though by any stretch.
Oh, I agree. The GOP’s public policy is entirely based on grievance politics focusing on in group-out group dynamics. “Your life sucks? Make these OTHER people suffer.” Dems branding is more focused on inclusivity, so there’s a whole lot less of “fuck you, that’s why.” I end up voting for who will cause the least damage, not systemic change.
100% accurate, 1000% depressing.
At least for the big elections, locally I do what I can with whatever 3rd party is up for joining in (sometimes they work with the local dems because half the time they dont even run anyone which is even more depressing)