this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
524 points (93.2% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2253 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Those races are also FPTP so they do risk the same spoiler effect. Maybe it would do for a deep blue area?

I'm searching around and something like CA-12 was 90% Biden. Candidates could split that like five or six ways and still not have any danger of a Repub.

I don't think there are any state level positions that would accommodate that. Even Vermont is only D+16, so the third party is a larger risk.

[–] DeadWorld@lemm.ee 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Seeing the disrepair the Republicans have left the south in, I wonder if there is room to do a grass roots campaign in more red areas with a focus of charity and community service? "We are here to help. No, we are not Dems" might work in Louisiana or Alabama

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Probably, but that would require the Greens to be competent.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

I actually think that would work. Campaign on: Charity, Community, and Clean Environment.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

There are some parts of the US where they are not first-past-the-post.

  • Alaska - uses top 4 primary + ranked choice general
  • Maine - uses ranked choice voting
  • California & Washington - use a top-two primary

The Greens could effectively run in those places, as well as races where the Democrats aren't running a candidate.

But when I see them running for local office, they're basically running to be on the ballot, not mounting a serious effort to win.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Says quite a bit that Greens aren't even doing much in California or Washington.