• Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Sure you conveniently haven’t, but I’ve seen it floated on these boards and the post in the chain above us we’re replying to is aligned with antidemocratic messaging - it by no means rejects anyone who wants to ban 3rd parties.

    But lets make an even easier comparison making it hard for 3rd parties to exist is not wholly different than banning them. This is in fact how republicans approached abortion before the supreme court’s catholic wing decided to allow bans.

    Its all working to the same goal. Anti 3rd party messaging without context and rational thought is just anti-democracy messaging which only helps republicans. Every legal tool democrats are using to beat down 3rd parties will eventually be used by republicans to prevent democrats from being elected.

    The only way to fix it is to change the way we vote so that 3rd parties don’t produce spoiler effects.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Ah so what matters is words not actions? Taking steps to remove 3rd parties from ballots is fine as long as you don’t say it?

        • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          What matter is context. Intentionally leaving it out is garbage.

          As is not saying which ballots you’re referring to. In this case, I assume its the presidential election where they are playing the role of spoiler?

          Yes, it absolutely makes sense to legally challenge those.

          But “some democrats” is just as garbage and useless a comment as “people are saying”.

          Edited to add: This is also definitively and explicitly not the same thing as saying ban all third parties.

          Nonsense. Utter nonsense.