Anonymous #1 11h

Voting third party fails the whole harm reduction premise. The goal should be to end harm, not just reduce it, but voting third party doesn’t even reduce it. It fails twice over. Using voting as the primary vehicle of change is exactly how we get walked all over by lobbyists who own everything.

1

Anonymous OP 11h

So installing a dictator somehow passes the “harm reduction premise?” I find that hard to believe

0

Anonymous #2 11h

Who ran things didn't matter to the people the system was built against. Federalists or Democratic-Republicans, Native nations still lost their land, enslaved people stayed enslaved, and only propertied white men voted. Washington himself enslaved people, and the Haudenosaunee called him "Town Destroyer" for burning their villages. Factions trading power inside a closed club isn't fairness. It's the costume fairness wears.

1

Anonymous #1 11h

I said third party fails. Read before you clutch your pearls.

1

Anonymous OP 11h

You also knocked voting in general. 2 party bad, 3 party bad, 4+ party bad.

0

Anonymous #1 11h

Nope. The problem is first-past-the-post voting structure and top-down hierarchies where we really need circular ones governed by consensus-based decision-making.

1

Anonymous OP 11h

If that’s your analysis, then why did things ever become more democratic?

1

Anonymous #2 11h

Because people forced it from below, not because the system gave it. Abolitionists, suffragists, labor, and civil rights organizers won every expansion. And it came unevenly: white women got the vote in 1920, but most Black women in the South waited until 1965, and some states blocked Native voters into the 1950s. Each win let a few more people in, while the harm shifted onto whoever was still outside: poorer workers, the Global South, the land.

1