In my state, the two major parties keep changing the rules to make it harder for other parties to get ballot access. If a party gets a certain number of votes in the general, they can keep their ballot access without needing to jump through a bunch of expensive hoops designed to keep them out. I vote to have more choice in future elections. Because that is all I can vote for.
Okay, that is, at least, a reasonable explanation of why to vote third party without having to name a candidate. You’re literally the first person who has done this even though I have asked people who tell me to vote third party for a name for months now.
Here is another reason: because I would rather try for long-term improvements than to accept gradual worsening.
Voting for conservative Democrats will not improve anything. They do not want increased accountability for the rich. They do not want universal healthcare. They do not want to get away from fossil fuels (in the time frame required). They do not want to fix our car-centric infrastructure. They do not want to stop genocide. They do not want affordable housing. They do not want affordable education. They actively fight against those who do.
Voting for conservative Democrats is not about making things better, it is about stopping things from getting worse. The Democratic Party is not a big tent, it is a hostage situation: the liberals are told “stay with us and vote for us, or the fascists will kill you.”
Long term, will voting 3rd party force the Democrats left? If the Democrats shift further right instead, will there be enough time for a liberal party to emerge and challenge before the county fails? I do not know.
I am not mad at anybody for voting for the lesser of two evils. It is a reasonable, defensible choice. I understand that many of the people making that choice are victims of our system, not the perpetrators. If their strategy works, and we keep getting the lesser evil, I cannot fault them for it.
But I would rather try for a long-term improvement than to accept gradual worsening.
The Greens have a 99% chance of winning if everyone stops acting like Biden is holding a gun against their heads to prevent them from voting differently.
I see, so if something that is almost certainly not going to happen happens, a Green candidate who you might not name has a 99% chance of beating Trump.
That’s not what I asked. I didn’t ask for special, very unlikely circumstances.
Name the third party candidate who has a good chance of winning as things stand now. Just give me a name.
Your wild guess percentages based on zero evidence are not a name. You still have not given me a name. Who am I supposed to vote for if you won’t even give me a name?
I asked for a name that has a reasonable chance of beating both Trump and Biden. I see that West has 2% support. That is not a reasonable chance, so that name is not the name I asked for.
Also, you have contradicted yourself, because Cornel West is not a Green party candidate. Therefore, based on your previous post, he won’t have that (evidence-free) 99% chance of winning.
Odd that this name for a candidate that can win is so hard for you to come up with.
By not voting for genocide and showing that there is support for the other party so people can finally jump ship. If their voting percentage stays at 2% forever nobody will ever jump ship.
Will you win in one election? Not likely. But continuing to vote for Democrat will only solidify America sliding into Fascism (though with the current Genocide I’d argue we’ve reached that point already)
The vote is to elect a president. If you are not going to vote for someone who has a chance of winning, what is the point of voting at all?
I will happily vote for a third party candidate that has a chance of winning. I have asked for a name many times and have yet to be given one.
I live in a state that is not even close to be competitive. Why should I not vote for the Green Party candidate?
Why bother voting at all?
In my state, the two major parties keep changing the rules to make it harder for other parties to get ballot access. If a party gets a certain number of votes in the general, they can keep their ballot access without needing to jump through a bunch of expensive hoops designed to keep them out. I vote to have more choice in future elections. Because that is all I can vote for.
Okay, that is, at least, a reasonable explanation of why to vote third party without having to name a candidate. You’re literally the first person who has done this even though I have asked people who tell me to vote third party for a name for months now.
Here is another reason: because I would rather try for long-term improvements than to accept gradual worsening.
Voting for conservative Democrats will not improve anything. They do not want increased accountability for the rich. They do not want universal healthcare. They do not want to get away from fossil fuels (in the time frame required). They do not want to fix our car-centric infrastructure. They do not want to stop genocide. They do not want affordable housing. They do not want affordable education. They actively fight against those who do.
Voting for conservative Democrats is not about making things better, it is about stopping things from getting worse. The Democratic Party is not a big tent, it is a hostage situation: the liberals are told “stay with us and vote for us, or the fascists will kill you.”
Long term, will voting 3rd party force the Democrats left? If the Democrats shift further right instead, will there be enough time for a liberal party to emerge and challenge before the county fails? I do not know.
I am not mad at anybody for voting for the lesser of two evils. It is a reasonable, defensible choice. I understand that many of the people making that choice are victims of our system, not the perpetrators. If their strategy works, and we keep getting the lesser evil, I cannot fault them for it.
But I would rather try for a long-term improvement than to accept gradual worsening.
The Greens have a 99% chance of winning if everyone stops acting like Biden is holding a gun against their heads to prevent them from voting differently.
I see, so if something that is almost certainly not going to happen happens, a Green candidate who you might not name has a 99% chance of beating Trump.
That’s not what I asked. I didn’t ask for special, very unlikely circumstances.
Name the third party candidate who has a good chance of winning as things stand now. Just give me a name.
Biden doesn’t have a good chance of beating Trump either lmao. I’d give him 20% max.
Your wild guess percentages based on zero evidence are not a name. You still have not given me a name. Who am I supposed to vote for if you won’t even give me a name?
Cornel West there you go.
I asked for a name that has a reasonable chance of beating both Trump and Biden. I see that West has 2% support. That is not a reasonable chance, so that name is not the name I asked for.
Also, you have contradicted yourself, because Cornel West is not a Green party candidate. Therefore, based on your previous post, he won’t have that (evidence-free) 99% chance of winning.
Odd that this name for a candidate that can win is so hard for you to come up with.
Donald Trump. he has a high percentage chance to win.
That’s what you’re looking for right? Someone with a high win percentage?
Or are you looking for someone that endorses your views with a win percentage? I hear Joe Biden endorses Genocide, do you endorse genocide?
Nope, this is what I have asked you for multiple times:
If there is no candidate that has such a chance, why bother voting?
“candidate X would easily win if everybody voted for them”
No shit, now who are they and how do you propose convincing people to vote for them?
By not voting for genocide and showing that there is support for the other party so people can finally jump ship. If their voting percentage stays at 2% forever nobody will ever jump ship.
Will you win in one election? Not likely. But continuing to vote for Democrat will only solidify America sliding into Fascism (though with the current Genocide I’d argue we’ve reached that point already)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election
18.9% wasn’t enough either
Maybe if we gerrymander hard enough
Again I ask you, who do you propose we vote for instead?