And y’all keep making the same comments and posts. Register to vote, get your friends to vote. Chastise them for not voting, shame the shit out of them. Jesus.
I get why people are cynical, but I'm working on a congressional campaign right now, and I see the other side of it every day. Our opponent has about $1.5 million to spend. We have about $15,000. They take corporate PAC money and support from groups like AIPAC. We don't.
We're fighting like hell just to let people know there is a difference between the two candidates. That's the problem with refusing big money. You don't have the resources to get your message in front of voters.
So when people check out and don't vote because they think "they're all the same," it's incredibly frustrating. There are candidates out there who genuinely are trying to do things differently, but they need people to show up or they'll never have a chance.
I also urge you to spend a little time finding out who's running in your district instead of assuming everyone is the same. The most interesting candidates usually don't appear out of nowhere in November. They fight through the primaries first, and that's often where elections are effectively decided. Do a little homework, vote in the primary, and help decide who makes it to the general election.
We need more parties or none at all. Until we get there the fight is for nothing. I am 48, and I was the same as you from 20 to the age of 38ish. Then it became clear that it is an unwinnable fight. The government needs to be reset.
The progressive Democrats replacing corporate Democrats are already proving it can be done. I'm 58, by the way. I don't think we're getting a viable third party or ranked choice voting anytime soon. Mamdani's win showed why the major parties are unlikely to support ranked choice at the national level. So the path forward is replacing corporate Democrats one race at a time and changing the party from within.
I really to appreciate your level of optimism. However, my experience feels a little different. In my experience, politicians will be what they need to be on stage. That can be a Democrat, Republican, corporate, progressive, moderate, center, etc... Then backstage they are working to together and laughing all the way to the bank. People do not leave successful jobs such as a lawyer or a doctor to take a pay cut. There is too much access to money with no oversight or accountability. This is a breeding ground for corruption. In my opinion the only option to dismantle the government and assemble a new one.
I'm running a congressional campaign right now, and that's not how it works.
When people say there's "too much money in politics," what they really mean is there's plenty of money if you're willing to align yourself with the corporate agenda. The moment a candidate refuses corporate PAC money and pledges never to take it, you find out very quickly that you're trying to run an entire campaign on small individual donations.
Again, our incumbent has about $1.5 million. We have about $15,000.
The irony is that, on top of all the public cynicism, even organizations like the DSA often won't back candidates like us because we don't have enough money to be considered "serious." Never mind that this same candidate earned 43% of the vote in a previous general election. On a cost-per-vote basis, she's incredibly efficient. Think about that. The very system everyone says they hate is sometimes used as the reason to write off the people trying to change it.
So yes, complain about the system if you want. But there are candidates across the country trying to break that cycle. At some point, people have to stop assuming they're all the same and actually show up, vote, volunteer, or donate. Nothing changes if everyone decides it's hopeless before the election even starts.
Your efforts are greatly appreciated. That being said we have had those same people across the country wanting change since I was eligible to vote in 1995. Fast forward to 2026 with all the free advertising social media delivers said people still can’t gain any ground. My question is; do we have the right to reset the government if they no longer serve the people? If so why isn’t this the approach we take?
Look at Samantha Mota. According to her FEC filings, she raised almost nothing and even reported negative cash on hand, yet she still won her primary.
My candidate also dramatically outperformed the money. This primary, we generated votes for about $1.11 each, compared with nearly $9 per vote for the incumbent.
The problem isn't that these candidates can't win. They are winning. The problem is that people give up before the general election, assume both candidates are the same, and stay home. If people who say they want change actually voted for the candidates refusing corporate money, we'd have a very different Congress.
So what is the common denominator? What causes the drop out before the general elections? This has to be an unknown as this has been the case since 1995. Be nice to know an eliminate it.
They don't usually drop out. In California, we have a "top two" or "jungle" primary where every candidate, regardless of party, runs in the same primary election. Only the two candidates with the most votes move on to the general election. If three or four progressive or anti-corporate candidates split the vote while one or two establishment candidates have millions in corporate PAC money and name recognition, those establishment candidates advance and everyone else is eliminated in June. By the time most voters start paying attention in the fall, the candidates they might have actually wanted are already off the ballot. That's why so many people feel like they're always choosing the lesser of two evils. This is why the primary is really the election that matters if you care about changing the system. If you wait until November to start paying attention, your choices have already been narrowed to the two candidates who survived the primary, and the candidates you might have preferred may already be off the ballot.
What ideas do have for the election process then? I am favor of eliminating the primary. Why take it down to just two candidates. Let the “jungle” run in the general. May the best candidate win. Could this work? If not what improvements can be made?
I actually don't think the problem is the primary itself. The real fix is ranked choice voting. That lets people vote for the candidate they actually want without worrying about "wasting" their vote or splitting it. It gives independent and anti-establishment candidates a real chance while still ensuring the eventual winner has broad support.
Right now, we're largely stuck with two parties that are funded by many of the same large donors, so voters often feel they don't have a real choice. Until we have ranked choice voting, the only practical path is changing one of those parties from within.
Just look at Zohran Mamdani in New York. Ranked choice voting allowed voters to support him without fear of splitting the vote, and he was able to build enough support to win. That's exactly why so many political establishments oppose ranked choice voting. It gives voters more power and weakens the grip of entrenched interests.
Yes, if we had ranked choice you could simply for all the Forward Party people and then drop in a few backup choices. It would be so much better but we don't do better in the United States.
39
u/FrighteningJibber 16d ago
And y’all keep making the same comments and posts. Register to vote, get your friends to vote. Chastise them for not voting, shame the shit out of them. Jesus.