Support NeoGAF

[sphagnum]

Bernie's socialism isn't really socialist, at least that I've seen. He's not really interested in fundamentally shaking up the relationship between labor and capital (other than as a side effect of health care reform, which is more a result of how fucked employment derived healthcare is as a system)

Which has never really bugged me personally, actual socialism is the sort of thing that either requires a real grassroots revolution or some kind of catastrophe. People referring to it as socialism is annoying though.

I'm not really sure why he calls himself a socialist when he'd do much better if he called himself a social democrat. I was pretty much supporting him this election solely because he called himself one though since I want to see the stigma behind the world evaporate. For me he was the compromise candidate since I'm already much further to the left than the electorate in general.

I don't see Hillary doing anything that will ameliorate the continued destruction of the working class by globalization through.

Spoiler

Here's where I say "neoliberal" and everyone complains about it

. If she would have supported something like basic income I'd be more comfortable with her since I'm going to end up supporting a capitalist one way or the other in the end, but I have yet to see anything substantial on that front.

 

[Suikoguy]

Quoting so its not lost on the last page

Very rarely do people create good posts helping to explain why globalization is not evil incarnate.

The post even included automation that is going to cause even more upheaval in the job markets in the upcoming decades.

There is no method of reducing taxes, minimum wage, and regulations that will feasibly combat automation. So we need to continually talk about things like basic income, and position the economy in such a way to give some of the fruits of automation to everyone.

 

[Maxim726X]

The only way manufacturing would ever return is if we either lower our standard of living to that of other countries or they raise their standard of living up to ours. Take your pick.

Neither are going to happen by the time automation occurs anyway.

I still don't understand why people (Trump included) focus their economic plan around bringing back a field that is going to be completely dead in 20 years, maybe even less.

We should all be thankful that this is a service based economy now... If we were still based in manufacturing, we'd all be shitting our pants waiting for the inevitable.

 

[sphagnum]

There is no method of reducing taxes, minimum wage, and regulations that will feasibly combat automation. So we need to continually talk about things like basic income, and position the economy in such a way to give some of the fruits of automation to everyone.

The problem with globalization isn't the globalization itself, it's the fact that it's controlled by private interests who do not give a shit if you lose your job and have no interest or incentive to provide you with some sort of alternative job or alternative system to let you live a good and fulfilling life.

We shouldn't just implement basic income, which is an amelioration of the problem if it's not striking at the problem itself, which is the private control of the economy. Basic income is a band aid, like welfare. A very nice bandaid, but one that doesn't go as far as it needs to go.

 

[Fenderputty]

The problem with globalization isn't the globalization itself, it's the fact that it's controlled by private interests who do not give a shit if you lose your job and have no interest or incentive to provide you with some sort of alternative job or alternative system to let you live a good and fulfilling life.

We shouldn't just implement basic income, which is an amelioration of the problem if it's not striking at the problem itself, which is the private control of the economy. Basic income is a band aid, like welfare. A very nice bandaid, but one that doesn't go as far as it needs to go.

Ughghghghg no. Nobody is interested in a centrally planned economy. The band-aid isn't even likely. The government can play a roll in supplementing jobs lost without getting so involved. I"m not a giant fan of Capitalism, but it is definitely the more efficient way to asses and allocate demand and labor for consumer goods.

 

[JesseEwiak]

My problem with free trade agreements isn't the global trade, it's that they have wide chasms that make it so multinationals have absolutely no responsibility for the horrors that happen to make their product because they don't own the factories - some subcontractor of a shell company of a foreign company does.

Most recently, by Nike no longer allowing the Worker Rights Consortium to inspect their plants in Vietnam. Here are some of the highlights -

In spite of Nike’s refusal to assist the WRC, the organization has obtained initial findings through interviews with Hansae employees. These findings, described in further detail in the new report, are, frankly, quite damning. The labor rights violations—all violations of university codes of conduct—identified at the factory include:

Reckless management practices that endanger workers’ health, including extremely high production quotas, forced overtime, and insufficient rest breaks

Excessive heat on factory floors, which has led to many workers fainting from exhaustion at their work stations

Verbal harassment of workers, including yelling, swearing, and profane insults

Degrading restrictions on workers’ use of the factory’s toilets

Denial of legally-guaranteed sick leave

Firing of pregnant workers

Draconian and abusive restrictions such as forbidding workers from yawning

This isn't paying people low wages because of a comparative advantage, this is just treating people like trash. If we can force our patent and trademark laws on the world through trade treaties, then we should be able to pass on our labor protections, too.

 

[sphagnum]

Ughghghghg no. Nobody is interested in a centrally planned economy. The band-aid isn't even likely.

If basic income isn't likely, how do you propose that we tackle massive unemployment that follows automation as it continues to expand? It's not likely now but something is going to have to give.

Also I'm open to many forms of socialism/communism, not just central planning, although I think that some form of central planning would be significantly easier to do with automation and advanced AI/computers compared to the shitshow that was going on in the USSR.

 

[Fenderputty]

If basic income isn't likely, how do you propose that we tackle massive unemployment that follows automation as it continues to expand? It's not likely now[/] but something is going to have to give.

Also I'm open to many forms of socialism/communism, not just central planning, although I think that some form of central planning would be significantly easier to do with automation and advanced AI/computers compared to the shitshow that was going on in the USSR.

I think people will change their tunes on UBI and concepts like negative income tax when automation really start rearing it's head.

Free markets are the more efficient way to allocate resources until automation so ubiquitous we have to go to a full on socialism.

 

[Maxim726X]

If basic income isn't likely, how do you propose that we tackle massive unemployment that follows automation as it continues to expand? It's not likely now but something is going to have to give.

Also I'm open to many forms of socialism/communism, not just central planning, although I think that some form of central planning would be significantly easier to do with automation and advanced AI/computers compared to the shitshow that was going on in the USSR.

If basic income were to ever be implemented in this country, it would be in lieu of social services... So the capitalistic underpinnings that support the economy would still be intact. Centralization has failed spectacularly before, so I have little faith that making such a system viable would be any easier than just modifying the current model here.

Follow your passions and try to make a career and some extra money... Or don't. I think that's a fair compromise.

 

[sphagnum]

I think people will change their tunes on UBI and concepts like negative income tax when automation really start rearing it's head.

Free markets are the more efficient way to allocate resources until it's so ubiquitous we have to go to a full on socialism.

Why not have market socialism rather than private control of the means of production then? I don't think market socialism addresses the problem significantly enough because you're really just democratizing exploitation instead of eradicating it, but it would always be preferable to have more democratic businesses than the private fiefdoms that we call businesses that we have now.

You can still have free trade in the context of market socialism. The problem isn't the trade in and of itself, it's the control.

If basic income were to ever be implemented in this country, it would be in lieu of social services... So the capitalistic underpinnings that support the economy would still be intact. Centralization has failed spectacularly before, so I have little faith that making such a system viable would be any easier than just modifying the current model here.

This is just preserving the control of a specific class of people over the economy though and ameliorating the disaster that otherwise would happen. If we have automation, where human labor (which is being proved marginal and unnecessary) is no longer needed to a great extent, why are we allowing certain people be in control of that to make themselves richer instead of spreading that around to benefit everyone? Why would we need to be even selling certain things at all? Doesn't that seem rather absurd? I don't think we'll ever hit true "post-scarcity" due to resource depletion, but certainly things could be divvied up in a much more egalitarian manner. Basic income is a step part of the way there but since the relationship between labor (or "non-bourgeois humans" as I guess it's going to become) and capital still won't be different, there will still be class antagonisms.

Follow your passions and try to make a career and some extra money... Or don't. I think that's a fair compromise.

Pure ideology. That is a path that is unavailable for a great many people under capitalism since they have no control over the productive forces. Should automation be used for the public benefit rather than private interests, then people will be able to follow their passions.

 

[Wag]

Slow news day?

 

[Balphon]

Slow news day?

They're all slow news days when you have to fill 24 hours of airtime.

It's why Trump gets so much free press.

 

[uncelestial]

Sorry, but this is bullshit.

Voting for a candidate that has no chance to win anything is akin to not voting at all. You may not like that reality, but it doesn't change the fact that it exists. Nader absolutely lost the election for Gore which had real world consequences, so much so that I find it hard to believe that anyone would defend voting third party ever again.

We don't live in a country in which someone like Nader has a realistic chance. So if you are someone that cares at all for the following: LGBT rights, women's reproductive rights, gender equality, reforming the criminal justice system, voting in at least 2 supreme court justices, keeping/reworking the ACA, and keeping Dodd-Frank.... Then vote for that candidate. If the only thing you care about is finding a candidate that shares 100% of your political ideology, than don't vote I guess. Just remember all of the people you're fucking over if you don't.

A) You should read things about 2000. Al Gore lost the election. Nobody cares whether you know this or not.

B) Nobody cares about your thoughts on the utility of voting third party. People are going to vote their conscience, as they should.

C) Claiming that a vote for third party liberal candidates is a vote against vulnerable groups is what is bullshit. It's very likely the outcome of my state, CA (and most people's States) is a foregone conclusion. I'm voting for who matches my ideals. You mock this idea, even though it's the basic premise behind a representative democracy. But, see: B.

 

[Valhelm]

I'm not really sure why he calls himself a socialist when he'd do much better if he called himself a social democrat. I was pretty much supporting him this election solely because he called himself one though since I want to see the stigma behind the world evaporate. For me he was the compromise candidate since I'm already much further to the left than the electorate in general.

I don't see Hillary doing anything that will ameliorate the continued destruction of the working class by globalization through.

Spoiler

Here's where I say "neoliberal" and everyone complains about it

. If she would have supported something like basic income I'd be more comfortable with her since I'm going to end up supporting a capitalist one way or the other in the end, but I have yet to see anything substantial on that front.

While none of Bernie's positions are actually anti-capitalist, I think he's definitely a socialist. He avoids talking about revolution or using the word "bourgeoisie" because he knows that will scare people, but he's made enough references to expropriation and class struggle throughout his career that he clearly opposes capitalism. It's obviously very difficult to promote socialism through the framework of American politics, especially if many of your constituents are less anti-capitalist than you are.

Bernie Sanders as a candidate is just another social democrat. Bernie Sanders, as an individual, is almost certainly a socialist. Liz Warren, for instance, doesn't quote Debs in her speeches.

 

[B-Dubs]

While none of Bernie's positions are actually anti-capitalist, I think he's definitely a socialist. He avoids talking about revolution or using the word "bourgeoisie" because he knows that will scare people, but he's made enough references to expropriation and class struggle throughout his career that he clearly opposes capitalism. It's obviously very difficult to promote socialism through the framework of American politics, especially if many of your constituents are less anti-capitalist than you are.

Bernie Sanders as a candidate is just another social democrat. Bernie Sanders, as an individual, is almost certainly a socialist. Liz Warren, for instance, doesn't quote Debs in her speeches.

When does he avoid talking about revolution? He's always on about that!

 

[pigeon]

Why not have market socialism rather than private control of the means of production then? I don't think market socialism addresses the problem significantly enough because you're really just democratizing exploitation instead of eradicating it, but it would always be preferable to have more democratic businesses than the private fiefdoms that we call businesses that we have now.

You can still have free trade in the context of market socialism. The problem isn't the trade in and of itself, it's the control.

So I'm not necessarily opposed to market socialism, but how do you solve the capital allocation problem?

 

[Fenderputty]

Why not have market socialism .

I'm not really opposed to this. Tough sell though.

 

[Maxim726X]

A) You should read things about 2000. Al Gore lost the election. Nobody cares whether you know this or not.

'Read things about 2000.' Incredible retort.

So basically, you aren't worth my time. Appreciate the warning.

 

[googleplex]

This is the precursor to the Sanders blaming narrative*. I'm telling you, you just need to let these things marinate a bit.

*

Spoiler

unless Clinton wins, in which case, we go back to the Sanders had no chance/he was never that popular/lolRonPaul2.0 narrative.

People also need to remember that Nader's entire reason for running was to torpedo the Democratic party. He KNEW he had no chance of winning but he felt betrayed by the Democratics and wanted to punish them.

Well... Congratulations Ralph. Congratulations to all the voters who thought Gore was too "stiff" and "intellectual". Congratulations to all the Democratics and Progressives that stayed home due to blow jobs in the white house. Most of all congratulations to the stupid, and lazy American electorate. We got exactly the kind of government we deserved the next 8 years and I'll never forgive us for it.

 

[sphagnum]

While none of Bernie's positions are actually anti-capitalist, I think he's definitely a socialist. He avoids talking about revolution or using the word "bourgeoisie" because he knows that will scare people, but he's made enough references to expropriation and class struggle throughout his career that he clearly opposes capitalism. It's obviously very difficult to promote socialism through the framework of American politics, especially if many of your constituents are less anti-capitalist than you are.

Bernie Sanders as a candidate is just another social democrat. Bernie Sanders, as an individual, is almost certainly a socialist. Liz Warren, for instance, doesn't quote Debs in her speeches.

I think he was once a socialist but has probably softened into a social democrat. I mean he flat out said some years ago (IIRC) that he doesn't think the means of production should be handed over to the working class. That's not a socialist position. So if he's secretly a socialist but only openly supporting social democratic policies, why keep calling yourself a socialist, which only leads to people accusing you of wanting to democratize the means of production?

I'm not really opposed to this. Tough sell though.

Someone's going to have to do it. If not, I expect fascists to make gains as the anti-globalization faction, which we can see the seeds of already. It's better to adopt a socialized globalization than to continue down the pure neoliberal path.

So I'm not necessarily opposed to market socialism, but how do you solve the capital allocation problem?

Elect someone smarter than me to figure it out.

I know there can be multiple definitions of market socialism, but I am thinking in particular of the complete co-op model, where it's still capitalist in function, just lacking the entrenched private control since the workers collectively own it. In that scenario I don't see why that would be any different than the problems that currently existing co-ops face with capital allocation. In time, however, I would expect that market functions would be rendered obsolete by advanced AI.

 

[Valhelm]

When does he avoid talking about revolution? He's always on about that!

His "political revolution" is totally identical to Obama's use of the word "change". Bernie has never called on his supporters to forcibly take control of their industries or violently resist exploitation.

 

[Maxim726X]

Elect someone smarter than me to figure it out.

I know there can be multiple definitions of market socialism, but I am thinking in particular of the complete co-op model, where it's still capitalist in function, just lacking the entrenched private control since the workers collectively own it. In that scenario I don't see why that would be any different than the problems that currently existing co-ops face with capital allocation. In time, however, I would expect that market functions would be rendered obsolete by advanced AI.

But this is the crux of your argument- You can't simply say 'someone else can figure this out' when challenged on this point.

 

[sphagnum]

But this is the crux of your argument- You can't simply say 'someone else can figure this out' when challenged on this point.

It was a joke.

 

[kirblar]

The problem with "co-op" groups is that in many cases, you do not want collective control. It gets bogged down in corporate bureaucracy with people covering their own ass.

If you have a visionary leader, you want them to be able to lead.

 

[sphagnum]

The problem with "co-op" groups is that in many cases, you do not want collective control. It gets bogged down in corporate bureaucracy with people covering their own ass.

If you have a visionary leader, you want them to be able to lead.

Hm a visionary leader.

Hmm.

My side has had plenty of visionary leaders before and it seems to me like this often doesn't result in what is best for the public?

I would rather have a visionary leader who is elected by the workers to run the company.

 

[Nipo]

The problem with "co-op" groups is that in many cases, you do not want collective control. It gets bogged down in corporate bureaucracy with people covering their own ass.

If you have a visionary leader, you want them to be able to lead.

A visionary leader can be given permission by the collective to lead as they see fit. That is literally what happens with publicly traded companies like Steve job's apple or musks tesla.

 

[sphagnum]

A visionary leader can be given permission by the collective to lead as they see fit. That is literally what happens with publicly traded companies like Steve job's apple or musks tesla.

Visionary leaders are totally incompatible with democracy. Reinstitute the King of England immediately.

 

[Maxim726X]

A visionary leader can be given permission by the collective to lead as they see fit. That is literally what happens with publicly traded companies like Steve job's apple or musks tesla.

Right... Which begs the question, how much different would this actually play out in practice over the current model?

 

[Suikoguy]

C) Claiming that a vote for third party liberal candidates is a vote against vulnerable groups is what is bullshit. It's very likely the outcome of my state, CA (and most people's States) is a foregone conclusion. I'm voting for who matches my ideals. You mock this idea, even though it's the basic premise behind a representative democracy. But, see: B.

In states like California, voting 3rd party probably won't change the outcome (59 to 38% in 2012 would have taken a considerable number of people thinking as you do, and not many people think like that). But in some states it can mathematically change the outcome depending on the number of crazies that do it. Florida was .8% in Florida during the 2012 election close enough that voting 3rd party could very well make a difference.

You can't argue against math.

The system as it was framed by the founders is not conducive to more than 2 parties. It was probably by design and it's why any 3rd parties that actually become viable don't last more than a couple of elections. ESPECIALLY at the presidential level.

If you still don't believe me, watch this explanation on why it always results in 2 parties:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

 

[uncelestial]

'Read things about 2000.' Incredible retort.

So basically, you aren't worth my time. Appreciate the warning.

I've posted LMGTFY links regarding election 2000, but after awhile it gets tiresome. If you don't think knowing things is worth your time, I'm not going out of my way to convince you.

 

[Fenderputty]

The problem with "co-op" groups is that in many cases, you do not want collective control. It gets bogged down in corporate bureaucracy with people covering their own ass.

If you have a visionary leader, you want them to be able to lead.

I work for a fully employee owned company. Full ESOP. It's not a 1:1 comparison to a co-op, but we elect our CEO and leader yearly.

 

[Maxim726X]

In states like California, voting 3rd party probably won't change the outcome (59 to 38% in 2012 would have taken a considerable number of people thinking as you do, and not many people think like that). But in some states it can mathematically change the outcome depending on the number of crazies that do it. Florida was .8% in Florida during the 2012 election close enough that voting 3rd party could very well make a difference.

You can't argue against math.

The system as it was framed by the founders is not conducive to more than 2 parties. It was probably by design and it's why any 3rd parties that actually become viable don't last more than a couple of elections. ESPECIALLY at the presidential level.

If you still don't believe me, watch this explanation on why it always results in 2 parties:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Apparently, people can and do argue about the math- Even though the post-mortem on the 2000 elections prove exactly this point.

But whatever. Can only lead a horse to water, etc.

 

[sphagnum]

Right... Which begs the question, how much different would this actually play out in practice over the current model?

Well, a little bit, since it would be the workers controlling the place instead of shareholders, which means they have greater control over internal company policies and are looking out for themselves rather than just the profits. And since they'd be in control they could more easily reduce hours, control wages, etc. as automation takes over. Until we reach a point where we have to switch to another form of socialism or to actual communism.

It's not an ideal scenario but I think democratizing the means of production is better than not.

 

[Nipo]

Right... Which begs the question, how much different would this actually play out in practice over the current model?

I think the main things that would change are where wealth accumulates and people would work more than they do now. I also think it will never happen in my life time since people currently with money would lose billions of future earnings.

 

[uncelestial]

In states like California, voting 3rd party probably won't change the outcome (59 to 38% in 2012 would have taken a considerable number of people thinking as you do, and not many people think like that). But in some states it can mathematically change the outcome depending on the number of crazies that do it. Florida was .8% in Florida during the 2012 election close enough that voting 3rd party could very well make a difference.

You can't argue against math.

The system as it was framed by the founders is not conducive to more than 2 parties. It was probably by design and it's why any 3rd parties that actually become viable don't last more than a couple of elections. ESPECIALLY at the presidential level.

If you still don't believe me, watch this explanation on why it always results in 2 parties:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

I have no problem with people voting pragmatically. It only makes sense in States where it's a close call, but fine. But that isn't true for most people, who by the way aren't "crazies," to use your term. They simply don't vote based on pragmatism.

 

[uncelestial]

Apparently, people can and do argue about the math- Even though the post-mortem on the 2000 elections prove exactly this point.

But whatever. Can only lead a horse to water, etc.

Pick like, two of these articles to read. There are dozens of them. But just pick two or three. https://www.google.com/search?q=ral...ndroid-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

I very much relate to the horse-to-water analogy.

 

[Balphon]

I've posted LMGTFY links regarding election 2000, but after awhile it gets tiresome. If you don't think knowing things is worth your time, I'm not going out of my way to convince you.

If 500 or so of the 100,000 Nader voters in Florida had voted for Gore the election would have had a different result.

Voting on principle is fine and an easy choice to make when it's likely to be one without consequence. But you need to at least accept the reality of the fact that the nature of politics is compromise, and that voting for someone who shares most of your ideals is not somehow anathema to liberty.

 

[DataStream]

A) You should read things about 2000. Al Gore lost the election. Nobody cares whether you know this or not.

B) Nobody cares about your thoughts on the utility of voting third party. People are going to vote their conscience, as they should.

C) Claiming that a vote for third party liberal candidates is a vote against vulnerable groups is what is bullshit. It's very likely the outcome of my state, CA (and most people's States) is a foregone conclusion. I'm voting for who matches my ideals. You mock this idea, even though it's the basic premise behind a representative democracy. But, see: B.

Actually its not bullshit at all, it's an inherent artifact of first past the post voting systems.

 

[uncelestial]

If 500 or so of the 100,000 Nader voters in Florida had voted for Gore the election would have had a different result.

Voting on principle is fine and an easy choice to make when it's likely to be one without consequence. But you need to at least accept the reality of the fact that the nature of politics is compromise, and that voting for someone who shares most of your ideals is not somehow anathema to liberty.

And if Gore had won all the states Clinton did, he would've won. And if Gore hadn't picked Lieberman and kept Clinton on the bench, he would've won. And if Bush/Harris weren't in power in FL, he would have won. And if he had done better in the debates he would've won. And if he was more personally charismatic he would've won. And if Bush was a weaker candidate, Gore would've won. But no, the weird, cherry-picked/half-recounted tally of a third party candidate in one state, whose supporters were not "Gore would've-beens" anyway, were the problem

Actually its not bullshit at all, it's an inherent artifact of first past the post voting systems.

Do you honestly think anyone in this thread is unaware of how the electoral college works?

 

[kirblar]

Visionary leaders are totally incompatible with democracy. Reinstitute the King of England immediately.

Democracy is not a good thing in many cases. Letting people sink or swim with their decisions is a good thing.

 

[sphagnum]

Democracy is not a good thing in many cases.

Neither is capitalism.

 

[Maxim726X]

Neither is capitalism.

Neither is socialism.

We could do this all day.

Well, a little bit, since it would be the workers controlling the place instead of shareholders, which means they have greater control over internal company policies and are looking out for themselves rather than just the profits. And since they'd be in control they could more easily reduce hours, control wages, etc. as automation takes over. Until we reach a point where we have to switch to another form of socialism or to actual communism.

It's not an ideal scenario but I think democratizing the means of production is better than not.

Ultimately, it depends on how much power those who would be on the board wield. Even if they are electable, you're going to inevitably run into the same issues that we have with money's corrupting influence on politics... There's a history of people who have led revolutions in the name of a more just government and society, only to take control and rule it as a dictator.

If a democracy works the way it should, capitalism would work perfectly as a balance between the worker and the employer. We should work on fixing that relationship first.

 

[sphagnum]

Neither is socialism.

We could do this all day.

I know. That's why "democracy isn't a good thing in many cases" is a pointless thing to mention and deserves to be mocked with something equally ridiculous.

Kirblar doesn't like democracy in his economics. I would like to have more of it. This is one of those intractable points that we're never going to agree on and we've argued about it before.

 

[kirblar]

I know. That's why "democracy isn't a good thing in many cases" is a pointless thing to mention and deserves to be mocked with something equally ridiculous.

Kirblar doesn't like democracy in his economics. I would like to have more of it. This is one of those intractable points that we're never going to agree on and we've argued about it before.

Because collective responsibility leads to no one being responsible. It's the tragedy of the commons.

 

[sphagnum]

Because collective responsibility leads to no one being responsible. It's the tragedy of the commons.

This is the exact same sort of argument you can use in government and which we as a people have rejected.

You have have leadership that is elected by the people. That is the point of representative democracy.

 

[Valhelm]

Because collective responsibility leads to no one being responsible. It's the tragedy of the commons.

But defining responsibility through profit rather than ethics means that both failure and success will generally happen at the expense of the powerless. In a capitalist system, the welfare of the proletarians is basically an afterthought.

 

[Balphon]

And if Gore had won all the states Clinton did, he would've won. And if Gore hadn't picked Lieberman and kept Clinton on the bench, he would've won. And if Bush/Harris weren't in power in FL, he would have won. And if he had done better in the debates he would've won. And if he was more personally charismatic he would've won. And if Bush was a weaker candidate, Gore would've won. But no, the weird, cherry-picked/half-recounted tally of a third party candidate in one state, whose supporters were not "Gore would've-beens" anyway, were the problem.

Sure, but none of that changes the fact that the result in Florida in 2000 shows that voting for a third party candidate over a major party candidate can be counterproductive in advancing the issues you care about, even if you are less ideologically aligned with the latter. It's a simple reality of the US electoral system specifically and politics more generally.

Put another way, what was the net benefit of voting for Nader in Florida (or New Hampshire, or wherever) in 2000?

 

[Fenderputty]

This thread is much more cordial right now. Completely off topic but cordial.

 

[kirblar]

But defining responsibility through profit rather than ethics means that both failure and success will generally happen at the expense of the powerless. In a capitalist system, the welfare of the proletarians is basically an afterthought.

And that's why our government isn't set up as a business.

This is the exact same sort of argument you can use in government and which we as a people have rejected.

You have have leadership that is elected by the people. That is the point of representative democracy.

And that same structure that works for one is horrific for the other. Context matters.

 

[B4s5C]

Well... Congratulations Ralph. Congratulations to all the voters who thought Gore was too "stiff" and "intellectual". Congratulations to all the Democratics and Progressives that stayed home due to blow jobs in the white house. Most of all congratulations to the stupid, and lazy American electorate. We got exactly the kind of government we deserved the next 8 years and I'll never forgive us for it.

Congratulations to the Democratic party for not making electoral reform a main staple of their platform after that happened. Instead, its digging their heels in and making efforts to make sure 3rd party candidates don't gain any traction.