General elections are also “controlled and legally manipulated” by the two parties.
Not to anywhere near the same degree. Primaries are LITERALLY the party’s contest to do what they want with. They can and will make sure that their favored candidates win, to the detriment of anyone who’s too progressive for the corporate donors they serve.
No matter what way you come at it, every obstacle to taking over a party also exists in ousting a party, only worse
Nope. That’s just not true. What you’re advocating for is to change the rules of the game by letting the opponent continue to be the corrupt referee who has control of every ruling and thus every outcome including the end result.
I’m not saying that working outside of the party to effect real systemic change won’t be extremely difficult, but your way is literally impossible.
Not to anywhere near the same degree. Primaries are LITERALLY the party’s contest to do what they want with.
And the general elections are LITERALLY whatever the two parties want them to be. Ballot access is the ballgame for third party candidates and there is LITERALLY nothing preventing them from writing access rules to make it nearly impossible to overcome.
Nope. That’s just not true.
Ah, the “that’s just like your opinion man” argument. I love that one.
What you’re advocating for is to change the rules of the game by letting the opponent continue to be the corrupt referee…
How the fuck do you not get that the rules for national elections come from government fiat ruled by the existing two parties?
I’m not saying that working outside of the party to effect real systemic change won’t be extremely difficult, but your way is literally impossible.
My way has LITERALLY had successes, including big ones like FDR and the New Deal. What successes does the third party approach have to show?
Every damn election we have to pretend like the third party approach has never been tried before. It’s been tried almost every election since forever and has a perfect record of abject failure.
But what if everyone finally just did what your telling them to do, right? If only everyone would just vote how you want them to vote, your political strategy would work perfectly! Damn, you’ve solved politics!
Not to anywhere near the same degree. Primaries are LITERALLY the party’s contest to do what they want with. They can and will make sure that their favored candidates win, to the detriment of anyone who’s too progressive for the corporate donors they serve.
Nope. That’s just not true. What you’re advocating for is to change the rules of the game by letting the opponent continue to be the corrupt referee who has control of every ruling and thus every outcome including the end result.
I’m not saying that working outside of the party to effect real systemic change won’t be extremely difficult, but your way is literally impossible.
And the general elections are LITERALLY whatever the two parties want them to be. Ballot access is the ballgame for third party candidates and there is LITERALLY nothing preventing them from writing access rules to make it nearly impossible to overcome.
Ah, the “that’s just like your opinion man” argument. I love that one.
How the fuck do you not get that the rules for national elections come from government fiat ruled by the existing two parties?
My way has LITERALLY had successes, including big ones like FDR and the New Deal. What successes does the third party approach have to show?
Every damn election we have to pretend like the third party approach has never been tried before. It’s been tried almost every election since forever and has a perfect record of abject failure.
But what if everyone finally just did what your telling them to do, right? If only everyone would just vote how you want them to vote, your political strategy would work perfectly! Damn, you’ve solved politics!