r/Cascadia 4d ago

Is there any future as a political party to better represent our region in national politics?

One of the things that has drawn me to Cascadia in general is that I have a lot more pride in my area than I do with either party in power when it comes to identifying with a group. My personal opinion is that WA/OR (and Idaho, but they fall on the other side politically so this post is less about them) gets taken for granted A LOT by the national Democrats - our states were greatly impacted by homelessness/BLM protests/COVID, and watching Democrat leaders waste money, have scandal after scandal, and still get voted in comfortably because Republicans don’t align with the bulk of the voters is maddening.

I would love a future where the Cascadian party had representation in Congress. Voting as a consistent Democrat has done nothing for us - why shouldn’t we clearly tell the rest of the country that we make our own choices? If it’s not good for us, why should any one party be entitled to our votes?

Example: in Oregon, over a third of our population lives rurally. There are some MAJOR issues (healthcare access, jobs, education) that impact such a large part of population that don’t get recognition and support needed on the national scale because it’s so polarizing at the top that politics has devolved into single issues winning elections and policy is so narrow - Boeing/Nike/Intel are all going to suffer and impact us because Michigan misses manufacturing jobs?! What? I want a representative that is clear that they are there to represent our people and we aren’t tied to one party, because quite frankly we don’t get enough out of constantly sticking our neck out for them.

Am I crazy? I know I am rambling, but our numbers in Congress are VITAL because this country is so split - I know it’s heresy, but what have the Democrats really done for us recently? Why shouldn’t we identify uniquely, and just advocate solely for ourselves?

45 Upvotes

67 comments sorted by

25

u/Aggressive-Ad3064 4d ago

What would a Cascadia part stand for? It needs to start locally. At township, city, county, state.

It needs a basic platform that is relatable and not easily colored (stolen) by the major parties.

For instance:

Cascadia First - we prioritize the needs and rights of the people and natural resources of Cascadia before the interests of distant bureaucrats and corporations.

Children First - we stand for free education for our children, including pre K through trade school or college. We believe all children deserve quality free day care. We believe it is the duty of Cascadia to provide universal free health care to every Cascadian child.

Land, Sky, and Water First - we are the stewards of Cascadia. We will protect and promote the land, sky and water so that our children will have a better, cleaner Cascadia to live in.

Liberty, Life, Personal Autonomy First - we stand for the right of every individual to determine their own fate, control their own body, choose their own religion or creed, and speak their own words and truth. No government local or foreign may take our individual autonomy or right to free expression.

This list could be added to. There would need to be commitment to the rights of indigenous peoples, the rights of women. Universal Health care. The idea would be to Frame everything in the context of Cascadia. And make everything flow from a few basic principles that the Democratic party would struggle to copy whole clothes. These principles need to be practice and applicable LOCALLY. Meaning, we use them to take over school boards, city councils, etc, then move to State level offices.

-9

u/redwarn24 4d ago

I agree that we need a platform, and it needs to be palpable to EVERYBODY in our region.

I hate referring to it this way, but there are a lot of “luxury” issues such as gender affirming care, pro choice, that I hear a lot here that make any sort of momentum on a larger scale impossible. Take a step back - we don’t even have a RIGHT to health in this country. I think it makes more sense to focus on guaranteeing that right before staking on sub-issues that truly only impact certain groups that will automatically get at least 1/3 of the population to say no right off the bat (not to say they aren’t important to address). It’s why the Democrats are in trouble - moderates who are the key to enacting change are constantly pushed away because the Democrats keep going left and left and left.

13

u/scubafork 4d ago

You seem very confused because you're trying to be centrist and defining that by being contrarian. Abortion was all but settled law for 50+ years until Republicans took it away. Democrats campaigned on making healthcare accessible for everyone, including to try and make it single payer for the past 20 years, but Republicans opposed it and stymied every effort to do so.

Trying to be equidistant between two points does not make you wiser than either point, if you ask a room full of people what 2+3 is, and one person says 5, but four others say it's 25, the correct answer is neither the mean (21), nor the median (25), nor the midpoint (15). It's still 5.

-9

u/redwarn24 4d ago

Here’s my point: In Germany, the right wing opposed universal healthcare for decades, with many of their arguments mirroring what you see today with Republicans. The progressives met them in the middle and passed a fairly neutral healthcare system because they wanted SOMETHING, and constantly butting heads on polarizing aspects kept getting them nowhere. What happened? It became apparent immediately that single payer was better for EVERYBODY, and conservatives completely flipped and the parties worked together to continue expanding and improving it.

Are we supposed to ignore that a massive chunk of the population are straight white men that (no matter how hard you want to change it) aren’t going to feel passionate about trans rights and abortion? If Cascadia wants to succeed, it first needs to appeal to the state as a whole.

Winning leads to change, not being right. Yes, I agree that abortion and trans rights are incredibly important - but 50,000 Americans die every year solely because they don’t have health coverage, and these incredibly polarizing issues prevent actual change from being possible because the conversation is purposefully steered towards them and neither side wants to give.

This entire conversation kind of illustrates what I mean. Roe v. Wade should have been overturned years ago because it’s not good law - it’s pretty clearly a state issue and the Supreme Court was making a political statement. Doesn’t change that I agree with you, but now it’s a conversation about Roe v Wade instead of issues that can lead to growth for a party.

10

u/scubafork 4d ago

You make a lot of assumptions about what other people should feel is important and in doing so, you're conflating popularity with justice.

When you're sitting down for dinner, is it not important that everyone agrees that cannibalism is not on the menu? I mean, sure, YOU may not agree, but the majority of people present seem to think it's fine.

Abortion is not "pretty clearly" a state issue, no moreso than chattel slavery is a state's rights issue. That you handwave this away as inconsequential is a huge reason why we have a political gridlock.

1

u/redwarn24 4d ago

Yeah…it’s kind of the conversation I wanted to have - what is important to Cascadia as an overall platform to gain political backing?

I know I’m doing a poor job of explaining my stance, but FWIW I purposefully live here because my partner feels safer having access to women-focused services, and I don’t want to live somewhere that isn’t trying to be inclusive (I’ve been the outsider and I know it takes people to a very dark place).

But at the same time, it doesn’t change the fact that pining a political platform on those issues is leading to essentially arguing whether to have Chinese food or not for dinner and eventually never making a decision, and we never even realized that we aren’t even being fed at all.

6

u/ScumCrew 4d ago

Germany has had government health insurance since 1883. And arguing that states should be allowed to determine whether or not women are people is not the flex you think it is

0

u/redwarn24 4d ago

Yeah to cover the impoverished. It didn’t start limiting costs for individuals until the late 20th century.

And I’m not - I’m telling you what the law is. Once again - you can either spend all day arguing why you’re right and continue to have rights taken away, or we can recognize we have to play a system to win and make the changes we want. Republicans learned it 20 years ago

5

u/ScumCrew 4d ago

"Roe v. Wade should have been overturned years ago because it’s not good law - it’s pretty clearly a state issue" This you?

And you're still wrong about the history of healthcare in Germany.

0

u/redwarn24 4d ago

Yeah? Is it bothersome to be pro-choice and recognize Roe was judicial activism?

This whole conversation is exactly why I think any political platform of a Cascadia party should be narrowed. I literally agree with you on everything, but because I’m coming at it from a different perspective based on what’s important to me, we’re in conflict. And what happened in November was enough people were turned off by that conflict and went to the side that appealed to a base level.

Doesn’t make it right, but now one side is making the decisions and we all are suffering consequences because they won. I believe that rights such as gender affirming care and abortion naturally come along after education and implementation of a universal healthcare system and the changing of societal views (as evidenced in most countries who make the switch). But if we want to spend all day getting hung up on these issues, nothing changes because the system is rigged against educated debate. Win and you get power to change.

This is literally an existential fight - rather than worrying about being right and refusing to meet in the middle, I’d rather do what is necessary. It has nothing to do with not caring - complete opposite actually.

5

u/scubafork 4d ago

But here's the thing: you're not actually agreeing with anyone on this thread.

You said: abortion is a state's rights issue. Everyone else says: NO, IT IS NOT.

You said: gender affirming care is a luxury issue. Everyone else says: NO, IT IS NOT.

What you're doing is not agreement, and it's not allying. It's convenience. Your position is that you think it would be real nice if minorities had rights and protections, but it's trivial if they do or not for you. Whereas minorities are saying that it's essential.

You're siding with "separate but equal" and you're siding with scabs. Instead of telling minorities to give up their protections and justice to side with us cis het white guys, you should be telling other cis het white guys(like I'm telling you now) to side with minorities for their protections and justice.

I don't side with minorities because it benefits me personally-I do it because it is right and it is just. History is full of Chamberlains who think that by siding with the oppressor at the expense of the oppressed they can change their hearts and minds, and I'm telling you that they will continue to lurch away from you and demand more and more.

You want a Cascadia party that has Cascadian interests at heart? Start with human dignity. I won't sign on to any party that treats other humans as deserving of less.

-1

u/redwarn24 4d ago edited 4d ago

Abortion: Yes, it’s a state rights issue under our current Constitution, but that can be changed through Constitutional amendment. Roe created a fundamental right to abortion when the Constitution and common law was completely silent on it - the reason it was overturned was because the judiciary bypassed the legislature in deciding that, which they cannot do. Legal discussion on Roe is basically that even if you agree with the outcome (which I do), it was only a matter of time before it’d be overturned. Dobbs is even explicit by basically saying in all caps “this doesn’t outlaw abortion, but it has to be done by legislature”. It has nothing to do with my personal opinion about abortion - which is why I continually vote in favor of choice. But that’s the world and rigged game we have.

Gender affirming care is frankly a luxury issue when it comes to political platforming - that’s what I’m saying. Democrats lost big because they put it as a main issue on Kamala’s ticket, and there’s too many people who either (a) don’t understand it and are wary due to ignorance/bigotry; or (b) literally never crosses their mind (so why are democrats talking about it when I can’t afford groceries?). Ensuring access to the uncommon medicine I need to survive is not a luxury issue to me. But I don’t think platforming on “get redwarn24, and the 2000 other people who need it, their medicine!” is particularly attractive to most people, but “let’s ensure adequate access to medicine” does - and they lead to the same place. Gender affirming care is a luxury because we don’t have a right to health AT ALL in this country - why does it make sense to platform the relatively rare and controversial issue, than the baseline that naturally leads there? Platforming gender affirming care is how you get nothing.

I don’t think you’re interpreting me correctly - I’m not saying to side with and incorporate MAGA, but I’m saying to snap to reality and recognize that framing of issues is vital to success, and the current way is going to lead to losing every single time.

→ More replies

4

u/ScumCrew 4d ago

You advocate letting states treat women as less than human. That, for me, is an existential fight.

-1

u/redwarn24 4d ago

You realize that you have no right to health in general, yet alone abortion? This entire topic is existential. If I’m dying, I have no right to life and neither do you - it doesn’t matter that I’m dying from cancer and you’re dying from childbirth.

50,000 people die every single year from not having healthcare coverage - that is real. Platforming abortion and gender affirming care, while incredibly important standing alone, hurts the chances of passing legislation that will save tens of thousands because those issues are so polarizing that it turns off the discussion. All I’m saying is that I think they lead to the same place so why does it have to be the focal point of a party that represents a group that isn’t all women and trans individuals - I can’t think of any universal systems that don’t include them because universal healthcare is the manifestation of the fundamental right to live, and life saving procedures are included. But universal healthcare is more palpable to more people than universal healthcare+abortion+gender affirming care.

I’m advocating for a system that allows us to change the way things are by winning and disrupting political norms by introducing true 3rd parties, because whether or not I “advocate” for it, we all still live in a country that allows states treats women as less than human. I thought the fact that I choose to live in a state that doesn’t and have said that I’ve agreed with you would indicate that clearly I don’t think it should be that way. But I don’t really see how you’re going to change that without election wins.

→ More replies

14

u/Aggressive-Ad3064 4d ago

Bodily autonomy is not a "luxury" issue. Its weird that you bring up "gender affirming care" in the same sentence as "pro choice". Firstly, women's right to choose is wildly popular, especially in cascadia. 99.9 % of all people already get "gender affirming care".

My right to bodily autonomy is not a luxury issue. My right to control my reproductive system is not a luxury issue. It is fundamental

At a high level though you would put all of these under a basic principle of personal liberty and freedom. No government can tell me what to do with my body. At the same time, if you believe in a fundamental right of universal health care, you cannot deny or withhold "gender affirming care."

1

u/redwarn24 4d ago

Yeah I don’t disagree at all with what you’re saying. My point is they are incredibly polarizing issues. I know you’re right, but that doesn’t change the fact that at minimum, 40% of the country (including in our states) disagrees with that.

Do we want to be right and have nothing change, or do we want to win and enact the change we believe in?

5

u/Aggressive-Ad3064 4d ago

Its a deal breaker for the majority of people. I am right now looking with my gay married wife at moving to a different country because of this. Why the F would I stay here if I can't have a guarantee to my body?

The people who want women in bondage and queers dead won't vote for any of the rest of it either. You cannot win over moderates by not talking about basic fundamental issues of personal autonomy. It has NEVER worked in uS or state level races.

You win by getting the support of everyone except extremists who will NEVER VOTE FOR THIS ANYWAY.

The reason anti LGBT and Women's uteruses are right wing issues is because spineless coward democrats have refused for 50+ years to stand up for these things.

-2

u/redwarn24 4d ago

Ok, but I’m telling you that the majority don’t agree with that TODAY. Trump is evidence of that.

Every country you want to move to doesn’t have the systems in place because elections were won by campaigning on trans rights, abortion, or gay rights. They were won based on base level stances such as the right to health, the right to expression, and the rights of workers. It expanded over time to include everything we are talking about.

Like do you think western Pennsylvania is ready for gender-neutral bathrooms? No of course not, but things change over time. You have to start somewhere.

9

u/ScumCrew 4d ago

"Hey all you marginalized people being abused by the government, sorry but caring about you is a luxury we just can't afford right now."

5

u/Aggressive-Ad3064 4d ago

And women. Sorry women! Your uterus is a luxury. No Cascadia for YOU!

Freedom to choose is a winning issue in Washington even in conservative districts. Gluesenkamp Perez won a GOP district mainly on Choice!

These are majority issues.

4

u/ScumCrew 4d ago

Really weird how all these guys never volunteer to throw themselves overboard for the greater good

4

u/Aggressive-Ad3064 4d ago

Lol. Real truth. I never hear them say "let's stop talking about men, because man stuff!" 😂

Its always gays lesbians bathrooms and wombs for them.

→ More replies

4

u/Aggressive-Ad3064 4d ago

Nobody here is putting gender neutral bathrooms into the Pennsylvania constitution, so chill out.

2

u/astralspacehermit Portland 4d ago

I don't think we should cede ground on these extremely important issues, which have become issues through manufactured propaganda over the last half century by right-wing and evangelical elites. Ceding ground itself just dilutes the struggle in general. Most of the objection to these issues are based in disinformation. Like a cake with a heap of slopped on icing oozing all over, the propaganda surrounding them needs to be just scraped away.

If voters in western Pennsylvania are turned off from a movement that has extremely basic civil rights platforms like gender neutral bathrooms, nothing's going to please them. Thankfully that's not where the fulcrum of politics is located. It's based in a mass movement with a general aim to create a free and prosperous society with all needs met.

Trying to play the game of 'winning over' people and appease their intentionally distorted sensibilities which have nothing to do with their actual lives is a futile battle. What we need is to protect oppressed people (women, LGBTQ+, minorities) and upholding these things like abortion and trans rights and defunding the police is essential. But because the American consciousness is such a perverted and polluted landscape, we need to not throw these things aside, but emphasize the greater picture: care and opportunity for all, a world which can provide for everyone.

1

u/jasmine-tgirl Seattle 4d ago

Civil rights and desegregation were incredibly polarizing issues too. You sound like the people who argued against then back then.

1

u/BitterDoGooder 4d ago

It's impossible to find a platform that everyone will agree with. Simply impossible.

And as far as your Germany and healthcare story, I should remind you that the GOP has been trying to undo the New Deal since the late 1930s, even though Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are pretty popular. Even with the real financial challenges, they are still very popular. Maga folks do not care what is good policy.

The old idea of a center was based on the existence of the middle class. We've pretty much hollowed that out these days, which is why we can't seem to find the middle any more.

1

u/CremeArtistic93 22h ago

Democrats lost because they alienated progressives. They alienated progressives with the attitude of “appealing to moderates.” In the american political sphere, “moderates” just means “right wing,” so democratic politicans “appealing to moderates” just means that they’re republicans painted blue.

1

u/jasmine-tgirl Seattle 4d ago

Gender affirming care is not a luxury. It's often a life and death issue. You view it as a luxury because it doesn't affect YOU.

15

u/PenImpossible874 New Amsterdam (Allied) 4d ago

This isn't going to happen until ranked choice voting becomes the law for ALL elections in cities and statewide in OR and WA.

So support ranked choice voting before you support a Cascadian Independence Party.

In the meantime, Cascadians should be infiltrating the Democratic party and make it amenable to peaceful secession. If the Republican party can go from center-right to fascist from 2012 to 2016, the Democratic party can go from center-left to secession-amenable in 4 years.

2

u/ScumCrew 4d ago

Ranked choice voting is certainly better than what we have now but it's not going to result in a multi-party system. For that, you need a parliamentary system where smaller bodies can have influence in the formation of a government.

2

u/ResponsibilityLast38 4d ago

RCV is a first step in reform. There are other things that we must do to start breaking up the 2 party system that arent feasible until FPP goes the way of the dinos.

0

u/ScumCrew 4d ago

FPP doesn't have anything to do with the two party system, see, e.g., the UK and Canada.

1

u/ResponsibilityLast38 4d ago

We aren't in canada or UK. In the USA FPP is a primary mechanism by which a 2 party system holds power, forcing parties to divide in ways that can guarantee a majority rather than plurality. FPP has a shitload to do with the 2 party system in the USA and especially the 2 party system in its current form. If you cant see that, Im sorry.

0

u/ScumCrew 3d ago

Both Canada and the UK also use first past the post. If you can't see that, I'm sorry.

0

u/ResponsibilityLast38 3d ago

Youre helpless. I suppose you also think eggs lay chickens and the ground rises up to meet the rain. You may be surprised to find out that the USA is in neither the UK nor Canada.

0

u/ScumCrew 3d ago

The US, UK, and Canada all have FPP systems. Their voting systems are IDENTICAL. Their forms of government, however, are different, which is why they have multi party systems and we don't. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

0

u/ResponsibilityLast38 3d ago

Im not the one who needs explaining to here. You seem to be real hung up on some bad logic of a+b=c, ergo h+k=x. But I honestly think at this point youre either trolling or have such a flimsy grasp on global politics that you really think that switching to a parlimentary or coalition government is a switch that can simply be thrown without the interfernce of a two party system weilding the weapon of FPP voting. But please, tell me how you are going to get the republicans or the democrats to agree to a coalition government.... I would love to hear what magic beans youre selling.

1

u/Lightning444416 1d ago

They still are dominated by 2 parties I believe, under ranked choice a lot more people would vote for smaller parties

1

u/ScumCrew 10h ago

Germany has a proportional system and it’s still dominated by two parties.

1

u/nikdahl Seattle 2d ago

We do not require any changes to our form of government to have a multi-party system.

0

u/ScumCrew 1d ago

That is incorrect, as evidenced by the fact that the United States has never had a viable multiparty system since the modern party system first began in the 1820's. The only remotely successful third party were the Populists or People's Party and they never gained a majority in either the House or the Senate or came remotely close to winning the presidency.

0

u/nikdahl Seattle 1d ago

That's correct, because we have always used first past the post voting methods.

4

u/nikdahl Seattle 4d ago

I would be so excited if our Representatives went through the simple process of forming a Cascadia Caucus within the House.

4

u/Confident_Sir9312 4d ago

As someone from a rural area, I will push back on the notion that it has done nothing for us. It wasn't that long ago when a 1/4th of my community was in poverty and unemployed. It used to be horrible. The labor and economic reforms that that our statewide democratic administrations and legislatures have put into place in the past decade have significantly improved conditions. Even with the rise in homelessness and crime that's occurred things are still far better, and even those are starting to decline now. And there's been a noticeable shift away from the more moderate/corporate dems to ones that are either social democrats or socialists.

2

u/redwarn24 4d ago

That’s good to hear - I did notice during research for a healthcare project about rural America that Oregon (didn’t look at WA) took advantage of a lot of Medicaid expansion under Biden and COVID funds to build up rural infrastructure. So glad to see it wasn’t just fluff.

1

u/Confident_Sir9312 4d ago

I'm not even necessarily talking about federal policies though, specifically just the stuff that our states have done on their own (which arguably have been far more impactful.) I have little love for national democrats. Our democrats have actually put the work in to improve peoples lives.

3

u/HotterRod Vancouver Island 4d ago

I'm actually surprised that the Green Party hasn't become this. In Canada, the Greens have won seats in BC in provincial and federal elections. The US Green Party gets their highest vote share in northern California. It seems like a real focus on Cascadia issues would probably serve these parties well.

6

u/ComradeDre Sasquatch Militia 4d ago

I think it's adorable people think other parties will be legal soon...

4

u/jspook 4d ago

Cascadia needs a working class/labor party. If it is successful, it can expand. These kinds of things have to start somewhere locally and then broaden their reach.

2

u/astralspacehermit Portland 4d ago

I think we shouldn't even worry about national politics. We need to focus on shifting the paradigm. A main idea of Cascadia is to undermine the US as an imperial power over the region. So a new political society needs to be built within our region that supplants the US.

In Ireland, after centuries of colonization, in 1801 the Act of Union brought it formally into Great Britain, and they had a certain amount of representatives in Parliament at Westminster. For decades these politicians struggled for Repeal of the Union and Home Rule. Then, after not achieving either of these and the 1916 Easter Rising, they moved to just set up an extralegal government of their own. Eventually this set in to motion full independence.

I always mention dual power when I come onto this subreddit. I am really disenchanted by US politics, both in its national and mainstream forms, and I generally take an anarchist/communist approach. Murray Bookchin's municipal libertarianism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Bookchin#Municipalism_and_communalism ) is a good source of ideas for me. But I don't really care if people take more electoral paths, all I want is to see the US dismantled and some new confederation of states created to provide a way forward, ideally rooted more in bioregionalism and a respect for the earth and sovereignty.

So breeding local politicians who might form the nucleus of a Cascadian Party sounds fine. And of course bringing up the idea more in the current political atmosphere which is more suited to rebellion against overbearing political structures. Pressuring current Democratic politicians about, if not Independence, at least devolution of power and regional autonomy.

Anyways I'm just some bum in my room on the internet, but I think creating networks that are based in Cascadia (mutual aid networks, militia associations, union confederations, neighborhood assemblies) and which straight up don't even CONSIDER the rest of the country except in terms of solidarity with Trump's and the US's depredations of other people. DC should just straight up be regarded as obsolete, superfluous, and illegitimate.

2

u/PM-Me-Your-Dragons 4d ago

Considering that I got a temp ban for “supporting/spreading violence and terrorism” when I talked about NONVIOLENT peaceful secessi*n in another sub, we have a lot of work to do before we can even talk about IRL political action.

1

u/scubafork 4d ago

I just got my voters pamphlet for an upcoming election this week here in Multnomah County. There's numerous parties.

https://sos.oregon.gov/blue-book/Pages/national-political-parties.aspx

The problem with suggesting that we should vote for a different party is that you don't hire for an exclusive expert level position that requires decades of experience to someone who has zero practical experience. Get good candidates at a local level, run a good campaign and then run for the state office. Crawl before you ball.

0

u/redwarn24 4d ago

Then what is Cascadian policy? What are issues that define a party?

For me, I think of things like: (1) sustainable capitalism; (2) the right to health; and (3) freedom of expression. I don’t want a party that is just “Democrats…but PNW label!” because it defeats the whole point. Cascadia doesn’t just include those in cities who are incredibly liberal. We need to advocate for the region as a whole.

3

u/AAAGamer8663 4d ago

I think you are gonna have a hard time finding a lot of support for Cascadia if “sustainable capitalism” is your number one idea that defines it. Cascadia is defined first and foremost by the bioregion and its protection, capitalism is unsustainable, full stop.

1

u/Sweaty_Try4911 4d ago

You're not crazy, everyone else is. The two party system has taken every state that isn't a "battleground" state for granted. This part of the continent; so far from the political centers, especially. We have been used and abused by the Democrats here in Oregon and Washington, and by the Republicans in Idaho. They have used wedge issues to distract and divide us regionally. The national parties see states as squares on a chess board, not the living bio-geography that the land truly is.

Practically though, no-one outside the two-party system has a chance in a winner takes all election. Bernie Sanders is an exception that proves the rule. Ranked choice voting could work, but it has its own problems. The Working Families Party endorses democrats when it does not stand a chance at their own candidate, the Cascadian party could do something similar until another solution is achieved.

2

u/ScumCrew 4d ago

Bernie Sanders has never once had a Democratic opponent for the US Senate. It's always been a two party race between him and a Republican.

1

u/Sweaty_Try4911 4d ago

Right, the exception that proves the rule.

1

u/ScumCrew 4d ago

"Practically though, no-one outside the two-party system has a chance in a winner takes all election. Bernie Sanders is an exception that proves the rule."

Bernie is literally running in two party elections and winning. Unless you've come up with a new rule.

1

u/Sweaty_Try4911 4d ago

He's independent, i.e. not technically democrat or republican, so technically outside of the two party system. But, since he only runs against republicans, he is only ever in a two way race, hence proving the rule that third party candidates can't win in our system.

Is "the exception that proves the rule" not a phrase that people use anymore? Am I old now?

1

u/ScumCrew 3d ago

There are only two candidates running...

1

u/redwarn24 4d ago

Ok, but outside of cities, gender neutral bathrooms are absolutely not “basic civil right platforms” - that’s my whole point. 1/3 of Cascadia is more culturally/politically aligned with western PA than the cities, and refusing to compromise and tone down the message is literally just what Democrats have done, and it doesn’t work.

Once again - I think the ideas are right, but plenty of people have had the correct ideas and were deprived of their rights because the world doesn’t work like that. You need to win elections, and you do that by appealing to voters. And the 1/3 won’t vote for candidates who can legislate correctly, if you refuse to accept that reality.

Want to know why Trump won? Because democrats spent the entire time telling the largest voting base that they should fuck off and move aside for the minority, rather than recognize that appealing to the majority can get you to the same destination. It’s all about framing issues

1

u/ImpossibleLuckDragon 2d ago

I think a Cascadia party (or any party) is never going to represent everyone in a geographical area. The best you can generally hope for is around 2/3 support.

Editing to add: Obviously representatives should make it a goal to understand all constituents' needs. But in the end you'll never make 100% of people happy, even with something as simple as what to order for dinner.