That outcome is indeed reasonable to expect, but what matters is what happens next. If e.g. the DNC did start losing elections because environmentally minded individuals started voting Green, they're not just going to shrug and keep losing every election. Instead, it would force them to genuinely shift their platform to regain these votes.
The whole lesser of two evils nonsense is just a remarkably effective 'social exploit' to get tens of millions of people to vote not only for people they don't like, but even against their own self interest - in a democracy, in the age of the internet.
> started voting Green, they're not just going to shrug and keep losing every election. Instead, it would force them to genuinely shift their platform to regain these votes.
what i was curious though was in the u.s context (where there is spoiler effect) has it been known historically to work?
In that sort of situation you have the same effect as a strong third party. Politicians had to concern themselves with the interests of voters, or they could actually lose them. Now all they need to do is simply show up on the ballot, and spend the rest of their time making sure people hate and fear "the other side" enough. Accountability is being effectively minimized through this, and civil society destroyed in the process.
This style of politicking is not new, and has countless historic examples demonstrating where it leads. The interests of the voter no longer mattering is but scratching the surface.
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2008/results/president/nat...
> Now all they need to do is simply show up on the ballot, and spend the rest of their time making sure people hate and fear "the other side" enough.
like if you dont ever need to actually need to convince voters in other parties and just appeal to people in your safe district.... doesn't that invite/encourage partisanship even more?
But this is something I don't tend really think about especially much simply because changing this would require both parties to cooperate to make major constitutional changes, that would result in both those parties losing power. The odds of this happening are probably literally zero. By contrast people dropping strategic voting is something that is at least viable to imagine, and could reasonably be expected to help move things in a positive direction. Thanks to the fact elections are basically 50/50 electorally, it doesn't even have to be many people to have a really meaningful impact.
interesting, so gerrymandering being a second-order effect and the main cause being first-past-the-post/non-proportional representation... interesting.
This applies especially for the Green platform - if you're going to advocate for people to meaningfully limit their consumption now in favor of the future of the planet, in a winner-takes-all election system you're not going to get any representation because no politician can gain your vote without losing more votes from the people around you.
[1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/09/14/in-response-to...
For example, when fuel costs rise sufficiently that people would actually have to reduce driving instead of just paying more (to a MUCH smaller extent that would be required to make a dent in climate change, i.e. where MUCH larger price increases would be needed to reduce consumption) people will literally riot to get tax adjustments or subsidies to keep consuming fuel in the previous rates - e.g. last year's protests in Argentina, Peru, Haiti; earlier Gilets Jaunes riots; and in places where the politicians can afford it, they just concede that without a fight because that gets them votes - e.g. California gas tax rebate.
Sure, people will say anything while its just talk, and they will agree (grumpily!) to meaningless changes like paper straws, however, when the push comes to shove and it would actually result in some significant reduction of consumption by the masses, those people will not only vote against that but actually fight tooth and nail to prevent any such measures from being enacted.
Do a survey on whether people are willing to have a carbon tax that's high enough to actually reduce their consumption, where they would sometimes not drive somewhere or not buy something because it's too expensive due to its effect on the climate - you won't get many positive answers. People would be willing to take "some action" like this survey https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans... which determined that ~$15/month would be the limit for most, i.e. a token amount that "takes some action" but does not actually require to change behavior and reduce consumption.
But some places like California are now actively working against this. The argument is that electric retail rates charged to consumers are dramatically higher than the real cost of that energy, so it's not fair for utilities to have to pay retail rates to consumers who contribute to the grid. So the new policy being pushed through will have you receive credit for a tiny fraction of the retail rate for energy you generate. And now all those benefits get reversed.
Actions like this aren't being taken because of voters, to say the least. The reality is that at all levels of politics, corporations are kings and voters are peasants. The irony is that the peasants, exactly like in times of yore, absolutely have the ability to change this - but cannot organize themselves efficiently enough to do so. Even when all it would take in modern times is ticking a different checkbox.
Welcome to politics. The hard fact is that the Republican right-wing of the US is the roadblock to the US tackling emissions and climate change. The reality is that if the Democrats don't appease the center-right of the US with low gas prices and other climate change causing policies, the Republicans will win the votes and usher in an even worse destructive policy. The Democrats are trying to make as much progress as they can without losing the ball; pulling towards what you want while Republicans are pulling the opposite. If you don't balance as much as you can, it gets worse. Such is uninformed democracy.
I am not trying to excuse bad behavior, but there are never perfect options.
Choosing between the lesser of two or more evils appears to be the adult human condition.
This is important to accept because otherwise people just avoid voting.
The only hopes younger people have is technology and the fact a lot of older politicians support base is dying faster than it can be replaced, so hopefully some newer blood in politics is on the horizon to make some smarter choices.
JFK was last in Congress in 63 years ago, and last alive 60 years ago; the longest serving member of Congress served for 59 years and retired in 2019.
Chuck Schumer was first elected to Congress in 1980, Mitch McConnell in 1984, Kevin McCarthy in 2006, and Hakeem Jeffries in 2012. Only one of them was even in Congress within 20 years of Kennedy’s assassination, much less all of them being in Congress with him.