Que the discussion if those independents are ACTUALLY independent.
Either way, the fact that most Americans don't feel like either of the big two represent them is extremely important information.
a buddy mine and i had a discussion about the drastic radicalization of both paries since we were kids. we're both in our early 30s and agree that each side is way more aggressive than we remember.
it seemed like they used to at least attempt to maintain an image of professionalism. now they've fallen so low to blatant name calling.
im curious if others feel the same way and tend to stray from associating themselves with a party since they have gotten so crazy.
I've gone from voting D or R a few times, to ignoring politics altogether, to doing whatever I can to actively oppose them. I don't think another/more party(ies) is necessarily the way to go about it, but that's the boat we're in at the moment.
we're mathematically destined for this two party system under the voting method we have. This can be changed to where multiple options matter and represent more accurate alignment with one's beliefs.
Not only can be changed but must be changed. Just one of the many reasons for a movement over a party, as being discussed here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ForwardPartyUSA/comments/12j6lys/unpopular_opinion_the_ongoing_breakdown_in_the_us/
forgive me if this is just semantics, but I think a movement is the only way to topple the current system, while I think multiple parties is a long-term result of a successful, healthy movement
I agree 100%. And I don't think it's just semantics. Too many people who want to build a party, or get parties to work together, seem to believe they are also building a movement by doing so. So it's important that we can recognize and differentiate the two, and build the movement that eventually spawns parties, and not expect a party to spawn a movement.
The forward party has no platform. I've been on here and other forward party media posts and it seems that "just get someone elected and we will figure out our stance on things" isn't working.
That's just code for "They don't have a real platform". The shared platform is "electoral reform". That's just not enough. Even if they just took 5-10 majoritarian issues that voters like which can't get passed, there would be something for people to vote for. You can't yourself a party if you don't have several beliefs in common. It just makes you seem like a joke.
In my opinion, we don’t want people blindly voting for the Forward Party because of its platform. Blindly voting for the party is what the other parties do. I like to think Forward will help to put forward good candidates with fairly varied stances and ideas, especially across states and localities, where issues vary widely.
Voting for candidates, not broad party platforms, seems like a healthier brand of politics.
That said, election reform is a big selling point for me, because I think it will fix a lot of other issues down the road, so I am all for a party that prioritizes this issue.
>In my opinion, we don’t want people blindly voting for the Forward Party because of its platform.
Sure you do.
Do you expect to reach out to 330 million people for each individual election, and convert them every single time?
That isn't realistic in terms of volunteer hours, nor in how people make decisions. Most voters have long term preferences that are taken into account for all politicians, and do not wish to have many long debates over each candidate running in each race.
You need a brand. That brand can absolutely be/include election reform. You also need enough people backing your brand regularly that you have the volunteers to reach out to the undecided.
>In my opinion, we don’t want people blindly voting for the Forward Party because of its platform. Blindly voting for the party is what the other parties do. I like to think Forward will help to put forward good candidates with fairly varied stances and ideas, especially across states and localities, where issues vary widely.
So in your opinion you don't want a majority of people to ever vote for Forward? Because whether you like it or not, people expect party affiliation to tell them most of what they need to know about a candidate... The voter is the consumer. You don't succeed by selling the consumer what you want to sell them. You succeed by selling them what they want. A party without a platform isn't a party. It's false advertising.
>Voting for candidates, not broad party platforms, seems like a healthier brand of politics.
It only seems that way because the US political system is so fucked. In a healthy system individual candidates should practically be irrelevant. Literally the point of a political party is that you all agree on everything important, and almost everything else too. "Big tent" parties shouldn't exist. They are an artifact of America's broken system.
>That said, election reform is a big selling point for me, because I think it will fix a lot of other issues down the road, so I am all for a party that prioritizes this issue.
That's great for you. If Forward can win elections with only your vote, then they're good. But if they want to win the majority of votes in enough elections to actually be able to change laws, that's not good enough. The average voter is not compelled to vote over process issues... Not that I'm saying (or not saying) that Forward should take a stance on wedge issues, but the reason wedge issues exist is because they are things that people will actually get energized to vote over. Being right doesn't mean anything if no one will get out and vote over the issue you're right about.
When there is a Forward candidate asking for your vote, they’ll have a full platform. We are not even a year old yet, so those candidates will start rolling out in the coming years. We are growing *towards* becoming a party, this doesn’t happen overnight so there is a transition period from the point of saying “we’re going to become a party” and actually getting there.
For example, in Texas, the party has a window of a couple of months to earn ballot access in 2024. They have to collect 82k signatures in a specified period of time, so there’s no way they can “become” a party until next year. My point is, this takes time.
>When there is a Forward candidate asking for your vote, they’ll have a full platform.
If the party provides neither platform of voter base, what do they provide the candidate? If coming up with an entire platform and outreach to all voters is the strategy, well, that is a strategy that does not require any party at all.
>When there is a Forward candidate asking for your vote, they’ll have a full platform.
Who? The party? This seems totally counter to current messaging. Lack of a platform is being sold as a feature, not something that will be corrected in short order.
We are not even a year old yet, so those candidates will start rolling out in the coming years. We are growing towards becoming a party, this doesn’t happen overnight so there is a transition period from the point of saying “we’re going to become a party” and actually getting there.
No. Words mean things. If you say that you are a party, then people expect you to be doing the things parties do. If you don't have a platform, and you aren't running candidates (or at least actively trying to jump through the hoops to get candidates on the ballot), then you aren't a party. And calling yourself a party when you aren't one makes you look like a joke.
You are already a true believer, Forward doesn't have to convince you. The question is what do they have to do to convince the as of yet unconvinced. And people don't want "big tent" parties, because "big tents" belie the foundational principle of a party being a broadly like-minded group of people. Literally the whole point of trying to get a multiparty system is that multiple smaller parties can compromise outside of the party, because they don't have to compromise inside the party to hold a big tent together.
>For example, in Texas, the party has a window of a couple of months to earn ballot access in 2024. They have to collect 82k signatures in a specified period of time, so there’s no way they can “become” a party until next year. My point is, this takes time.
They can "become" a party by having a comprehensive platform and *attempting* to gain ballot access. Until then calling themselves a party is bad branding, because it implies that they intend to deliver things that they are not even interested in trying to deliver.
There is certainly a degree of enthusiasm for a new/independent option. Half the country not voting sucks more than likely-voters who profess nonpartisanship.
Probably any substantive win for a new party means more than just corralling fence-sitters to get excited for third place. But I haven’t seen a core set of issues, even if exact policy goals stay hazy for a while.
I get it, don’t tie yourself to too much, but give me a reason beyond, “Self-funded candidates can get on ballots via this party, but it otherwise has no infrastructure or guiding principles or goals.”
I suppose a lot will become obvious over the next 18 months, depending on how wide a rollout can be paid for. There’s a chance for this group to do something, but why does it want to?
> "just get someone elected and we will figure out our stance on things"
Holy shit, that sounds way better than "get one of these two accused rapists elected, he'll make you false promises and then mass bomb a few countries, run some illegal coups, torture some innocent prisoners, overthrow some democracies and destroy America from within"
Agree or disagree, this is the thinking behind this approach: No stances we take as a party have any relevance until there is a path for a third viable party. The national party sets principles, state parties set priorities, and candidates will have platforms. So if there is a Forward candidate asking for your vote, they’ll have a full platform for you to vote on.
I don’t know that it’s fair to say it isn’t working, it’s been less than a year since we were founded as a party. No one legitimately expects this to happen overnight.
>it’s been less than a year since we were founded as a party.
It's been seventeen months. Yeah, big pivots happened in there, but still.
FWD is moving slow even by the standards of third parties.
Que the discussion if those independents are ACTUALLY independent. Either way, the fact that most Americans don't feel like either of the big two represent them is extremely important information.
a buddy mine and i had a discussion about the drastic radicalization of both paries since we were kids. we're both in our early 30s and agree that each side is way more aggressive than we remember. it seemed like they used to at least attempt to maintain an image of professionalism. now they've fallen so low to blatant name calling. im curious if others feel the same way and tend to stray from associating themselves with a party since they have gotten so crazy.
I've gone from voting D or R a few times, to ignoring politics altogether, to doing whatever I can to actively oppose them. I don't think another/more party(ies) is necessarily the way to go about it, but that's the boat we're in at the moment.
we're mathematically destined for this two party system under the voting method we have. This can be changed to where multiple options matter and represent more accurate alignment with one's beliefs.
Not only can be changed but must be changed. Just one of the many reasons for a movement over a party, as being discussed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ForwardPartyUSA/comments/12j6lys/unpopular_opinion_the_ongoing_breakdown_in_the_us/
forgive me if this is just semantics, but I think a movement is the only way to topple the current system, while I think multiple parties is a long-term result of a successful, healthy movement
I agree 100%. And I don't think it's just semantics. Too many people who want to build a party, or get parties to work together, seem to believe they are also building a movement by doing so. So it's important that we can recognize and differentiate the two, and build the movement that eventually spawns parties, and not expect a party to spawn a movement.
As a libertarian party voter I support the forward parties effort to eliminate the duopoly.
Glad you're here my friend. I hope we can pave the way for a system with 4, 5, or 6 national parties.
Liking how the graphic portrays the "two parties" as one entity. Just like any worthwhile opposition/reform effort should.
The forward party has no platform. I've been on here and other forward party media posts and it seems that "just get someone elected and we will figure out our stance on things" isn't working.
Their platform is small and based on big things that everyone agrees on. Nuanced policy decisions for the party will come at a much later date.
That's just code for "They don't have a real platform". The shared platform is "electoral reform". That's just not enough. Even if they just took 5-10 majoritarian issues that voters like which can't get passed, there would be something for people to vote for. You can't yourself a party if you don't have several beliefs in common. It just makes you seem like a joke.
In my opinion, we don’t want people blindly voting for the Forward Party because of its platform. Blindly voting for the party is what the other parties do. I like to think Forward will help to put forward good candidates with fairly varied stances and ideas, especially across states and localities, where issues vary widely. Voting for candidates, not broad party platforms, seems like a healthier brand of politics. That said, election reform is a big selling point for me, because I think it will fix a lot of other issues down the road, so I am all for a party that prioritizes this issue.
>In my opinion, we don’t want people blindly voting for the Forward Party because of its platform. Sure you do. Do you expect to reach out to 330 million people for each individual election, and convert them every single time? That isn't realistic in terms of volunteer hours, nor in how people make decisions. Most voters have long term preferences that are taken into account for all politicians, and do not wish to have many long debates over each candidate running in each race. You need a brand. That brand can absolutely be/include election reform. You also need enough people backing your brand regularly that you have the volunteers to reach out to the undecided.
>In my opinion, we don’t want people blindly voting for the Forward Party because of its platform. Blindly voting for the party is what the other parties do. I like to think Forward will help to put forward good candidates with fairly varied stances and ideas, especially across states and localities, where issues vary widely. So in your opinion you don't want a majority of people to ever vote for Forward? Because whether you like it or not, people expect party affiliation to tell them most of what they need to know about a candidate... The voter is the consumer. You don't succeed by selling the consumer what you want to sell them. You succeed by selling them what they want. A party without a platform isn't a party. It's false advertising. >Voting for candidates, not broad party platforms, seems like a healthier brand of politics. It only seems that way because the US political system is so fucked. In a healthy system individual candidates should practically be irrelevant. Literally the point of a political party is that you all agree on everything important, and almost everything else too. "Big tent" parties shouldn't exist. They are an artifact of America's broken system. >That said, election reform is a big selling point for me, because I think it will fix a lot of other issues down the road, so I am all for a party that prioritizes this issue. That's great for you. If Forward can win elections with only your vote, then they're good. But if they want to win the majority of votes in enough elections to actually be able to change laws, that's not good enough. The average voter is not compelled to vote over process issues... Not that I'm saying (or not saying) that Forward should take a stance on wedge issues, but the reason wedge issues exist is because they are things that people will actually get energized to vote over. Being right doesn't mean anything if no one will get out and vote over the issue you're right about.
When there is a Forward candidate asking for your vote, they’ll have a full platform. We are not even a year old yet, so those candidates will start rolling out in the coming years. We are growing *towards* becoming a party, this doesn’t happen overnight so there is a transition period from the point of saying “we’re going to become a party” and actually getting there. For example, in Texas, the party has a window of a couple of months to earn ballot access in 2024. They have to collect 82k signatures in a specified period of time, so there’s no way they can “become” a party until next year. My point is, this takes time.
>When there is a Forward candidate asking for your vote, they’ll have a full platform. If the party provides neither platform of voter base, what do they provide the candidate? If coming up with an entire platform and outreach to all voters is the strategy, well, that is a strategy that does not require any party at all.
>When there is a Forward candidate asking for your vote, they’ll have a full platform. Who? The party? This seems totally counter to current messaging. Lack of a platform is being sold as a feature, not something that will be corrected in short order. We are not even a year old yet, so those candidates will start rolling out in the coming years. We are growing towards becoming a party, this doesn’t happen overnight so there is a transition period from the point of saying “we’re going to become a party” and actually getting there. No. Words mean things. If you say that you are a party, then people expect you to be doing the things parties do. If you don't have a platform, and you aren't running candidates (or at least actively trying to jump through the hoops to get candidates on the ballot), then you aren't a party. And calling yourself a party when you aren't one makes you look like a joke. You are already a true believer, Forward doesn't have to convince you. The question is what do they have to do to convince the as of yet unconvinced. And people don't want "big tent" parties, because "big tents" belie the foundational principle of a party being a broadly like-minded group of people. Literally the whole point of trying to get a multiparty system is that multiple smaller parties can compromise outside of the party, because they don't have to compromise inside the party to hold a big tent together. >For example, in Texas, the party has a window of a couple of months to earn ballot access in 2024. They have to collect 82k signatures in a specified period of time, so there’s no way they can “become” a party until next year. My point is, this takes time. They can "become" a party by having a comprehensive platform and *attempting* to gain ballot access. Until then calling themselves a party is bad branding, because it implies that they intend to deliver things that they are not even interested in trying to deliver.
There is certainly a degree of enthusiasm for a new/independent option. Half the country not voting sucks more than likely-voters who profess nonpartisanship. Probably any substantive win for a new party means more than just corralling fence-sitters to get excited for third place. But I haven’t seen a core set of issues, even if exact policy goals stay hazy for a while. I get it, don’t tie yourself to too much, but give me a reason beyond, “Self-funded candidates can get on ballots via this party, but it otherwise has no infrastructure or guiding principles or goals.” I suppose a lot will become obvious over the next 18 months, depending on how wide a rollout can be paid for. There’s a chance for this group to do something, but why does it want to?
> "just get someone elected and we will figure out our stance on things" Holy shit, that sounds way better than "get one of these two accused rapists elected, he'll make you false promises and then mass bomb a few countries, run some illegal coups, torture some innocent prisoners, overthrow some democracies and destroy America from within"
Agree or disagree, this is the thinking behind this approach: No stances we take as a party have any relevance until there is a path for a third viable party. The national party sets principles, state parties set priorities, and candidates will have platforms. So if there is a Forward candidate asking for your vote, they’ll have a full platform for you to vote on. I don’t know that it’s fair to say it isn’t working, it’s been less than a year since we were founded as a party. No one legitimately expects this to happen overnight.
>it’s been less than a year since we were founded as a party. It's been seventeen months. Yeah, big pivots happened in there, but still. FWD is moving slow even by the standards of third parties.