Winning the presidency is not the only goal for third parties. They contest for a lot of other reasons. Some are grifters. Some use it as a platofrm to increase their party’s reach. I think voting third party is good for signalling a lack of faith in the tired two party duopoly. Voting between the two big parties is essentially meaningless anyway. If the bourgeoisie don’t like what the people elect they can let the electoral college off the leash or just do lawfare like they did with Bush/Gore in a case that is not meant to be used as a precedent for other cases for some reason.
I think voting third party is good for signalling a lack of faith in the tired two party duopoly.
Unless you live in a swing state, it costs literally nothing to vote left of genocide, and the duopoly does track these votes and they can nudge future decisions. If you do live in a swing state, I think tactically voting within the duopoly shouldn’t be pre-emptively altogether dismissed, but considered case-by-case.
Even if a major crisis brings about the second overthrow of the duopoly, who will that party’s donors be? Almost certainly the bourgeoisie, and if not, it almost certainly won’t survive a second election.
Pre-revolutionary Marxists use the vote to develop their organizational & rhetorical skills, promote their messaging, and count their numbers, with the understanding that revolution won’t come from the ballot box.
Honestly making the existing two parties panic and make changes to get votes back is still a good idea, and if you get the ball rolling in earnest then I still believe we can see the rise of a third party.
Winning the presidency is not the only goal for third parties. They contest for a lot of other reasons. Some are grifters. Some use it as a platofrm to increase their party’s reach. I think voting third party is good for signalling a lack of faith in the tired two party duopoly. Voting between the two big parties is essentially meaningless anyway. If the bourgeoisie don’t like what the people elect they can let the electoral college off the leash or just do lawfare like they did with Bush/Gore in a case that is not meant to be used as a precedent for other cases for some reason.
Unless you live in a swing state, it costs literally nothing to vote left of genocide, and the duopoly does track these votes and they can nudge future decisions. If you do live in a swing state, I think tactically voting within the duopoly shouldn’t be pre-emptively altogether dismissed, but considered case-by-case.
Even if a major crisis brings about the second overthrow of the duopoly, who will that party’s donors be? Almost certainly the bourgeoisie, and if not, it almost certainly won’t survive a second election.
Pre-revolutionary Marxists use the vote to develop their organizational & rhetorical skills, promote their messaging, and count their numbers, with the understanding that revolution won’t come from the ballot box.
Honestly making the existing two parties panic and make changes to get votes back is still a good idea, and if you get the ball rolling in earnest then I still believe we can see the rise of a third party.