I’m not even convinced it’s even real leftists posting this stuff. It often seems like astroturfing. Not only would fake leftists possibly sway undecided voters, but they also tarnish any positivity the left deserves. Win-win for the right.
I’d like to think you’re right.
But I have heard borderline stuff like this in real life from people whom I know are solid progressives. (Admittedly, these are folks on my soccer team who are almost 2 decades younger than me. I can’t imagine what ending their teens during a pandemic was like so I kind of expect their politics to be wildly different.)
“Borderline” is entirely different. Voting for Harris while being salty about it is a perfectly reasonable thing real progressives should do, and it’s exactly the opposite of what these astroturf third-party propagandists are calling for even if the (alleged) sentiment is adjacent. That “border” is a knife edge and the difference between a genuine progressive and a[n effectively] pro-Trump useful idiot comes down to which side of it they fall off.
That’s absolutely true and very well put. Doing the right thing and being happy about it are two very different beasts.
Thank you!
This shows how absolutely broken the American voting/party system is though.
Konnichiwa.
I understand you are very concerned about people voting 3rd party. Considering our broken First Past The Post voting system, I get it.
Did you know that alternative voting systems could alleviate all your worries about people who wish to vote outside the two party system? People could be free to vote how they wish, safe in the knowledge that their vote would still count against the Republicans.
How we vote us controlled at the state level, which means we can pass this much needed reform without federal intervention. Actually, some states have already passed legislation doing away with First-past-the-post voting, and even more are in the process of passing it! Exciting times no?
So, in conclusion, I hope you stop by my ask lemmy Post to discuss your post election commitment to replace FPTP voting in your state.
If achieved, you wouldn’t have to worry about 3rd parties anymore and your fellow citizens would be involved and contributing to the poltical process.
So, in conclusion, I hope you stop by my ask lemmy Post to discuss your post election commitment to replace FPTP voting in your state.
Sure, I’d be happy to! But the key phrase there is “post election.” IMO you should delete it and re-submit it on Wednesday.
Astroturfing exists to poison the minds of on lookers. If useful idiots didn’t adopt the warped logic they wouldn’t astroturf.
It blows my mind that people are dumb enough for it to work but in an era of razor tight electoral margins, even a few idiots can matter.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I’m a real leftist who is not voting this US election
...
I’m not an American citizen.
Removed by mod
Hang around them long enough. They will slip. They inevitably use right wing colloquialisms.
Dealt with someone ostensibly from the UK advocating for not voting and after being pressed repeatedly finally worked their way down to “I’m not voting because I can’t”.
Actual foreign election interference, and the UK has some notable Russian ties. Wouldn’t be surprised if that rube has ties to Russia or is actually on a ruble payroll
Ha, I know exactly who you’re referring to!
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I was shocked to find out I have a friend I thought was intelligent suggest I withhold my vote for Kamala. Fuck you, dude.
It’s all the fault of the Democrats. If they had run Bernie he would have been voted in and we wouldn’t be here.
The fact that Bernie endorses Harris is meaningless, because he’s not a real Socialist.
Things I’ve heard today on Lemm.ee
Ahaha, you had me terrified for a sec there.
Who on .ee are you seeing comments like this from?
I’ve never seen a fellow .ee like this. Curious to hear what communities it’s on
deleted by creator
To be fair, Bernie would have won in 2016, and I do blame Clinton for Trump winning in the first place.
Didn’t stop me from voting for Harris though in an actually important election. Just glad it’s not Hillary i’m having to hold my nose over.
Biden got more votes in primaries than all the other candidates combined. That’s kind of how popularity works.
People on the internet like to pretend that US has more progressives than it has, but all the statistics show that even the most popular progressive candidate can’t get enough support to win primaries, so chances of him winning the general election were even more slim.
Unless that will change, best we can hope for is a competent centrist.I’ve heard the “progressives” going on and on since high school. According to them the entire nation is a powder keg primed to blow up into glorious revolution any day now. Any day now…
I mean, they might be right but not for the reason they think and definitely not by the people we hope. “It could happen here” and all that
deleted by creator
I’ve had people telling me that I have “blood on [my] hands” because I’m voting for Harris. It’s insane. These people have no fucking concept.
If Harris wins, it will be by razor-thin margin. If she loses, trump wins. If trump wins, the genocide will get cranked up to 11. So voting 3rd party means even MORE “blood on my hands” than a Harris vote.
At least with Harris, there’s a CHANCE she can be reasoned with and stop the bloodshed.
These “Harris = genocide” people are liars, just trying to get trump elected - to sabotage this country.
There is a world where abstaining could be a reasonable approach. That world probably disappeared before I was born.
Even if that 1 to 10 scale was in magnitudes (10^n), 11 would still be an understatement for what Donald Dump would encourage Israel and Russia to do.
Removed by mod
It sounds like it’s young people (under 25) who don’t understand exactly how bad it will be if trump wins.
I’ve survived a lot of shit presidents. Trump is the first one who actually scares me.
Hopefully they will do the right thing when it comes time to actually vote.
Even Dick “I did 911” Cheney is against him. He’s an actual evil person who thinks Trump is too evil
Too evil for Dick Cheney is a very special form of evil indeed.
In a way, this is all you need to know right here.
I think ‘too evil’ is an oversimplification. DC is lawful evil, DT is chaotic evil. It’s the chaos DC doesn’t like, not the evil.
Well put!
W was actually worse than trump’s first term.
But that’s only because W had far more competent people, it’s like how Germany was severely handicapped in the war by Hitler always getting in the damn way.
This time I suspect he’d have better minions.
The time to actually vote is now. I voted a week ago.
Are these Schrodinger’s young people who simultaneously don’t vote, but also single-handedly tip the entire election?
If every young person voted, the Republican party would collapse until it took a hard left turn. This is not a paradox.
If wishes were fishes we’d all be in the sea?
Germany’s first time voters helped the far-right (Nazi) party AfD getting a lot of votes in the EU elections recently. AfD’s TikTok game (with Russia’s support) is very strong. Go figure.
It must be them ruskies! And the brainless, easily brainwashed young people’s fault! Seriously some of you need stop being tools and get a grip
If anything, lefties shouldn’t be a single issue voter at all. They should be picking someone who might move toward that direction and have the chance to win, not abstaining.
As the famous word goes: Evil triumph when good men do nothing. You can’t abstain or do protest vote and expect anything to change under Trump, that single issue you hold so important will get worst, or even impossible.
Jay Shapiro explains this well in a video:
TL:DW?
In this video, I challenge the dismissive label of ‘single-issue voting’. I break down how a focus on an issue like genocide reveals deeper political and moral stakes, rejecting the idea that elections are merely a choice between the ‘lesser of two evils,’ and offering my reasoning—and hope—for refusing to play the game.
Well this “single issue” of land stealing, white supremacist subjugation of a people on their native land, ethnic cleansing and genocide, has only gotten worse with every election.
If we look at AIPAC they arent powerful because they influence who wins. They are powerful because they onfluence who looses.
That is why being pro genocide remains a staple of both parties policies. The only way to change that, is to punish the side that claims to not be pro genocide generally, so it has to become against genocide specifically.
And we had one year of trying to do that before the election, where people here and in othernplace vigorously defended being pro genocide, as challenging that before the election would be bad for the election.
We saw with Biden stepping down that challenging the dementia candidate was actually beneficial for the Democrats election chances, despite the same denial and backlash over pointing out Bidens failing mental capacities.
Now i am sure that these sentiments of immediately attacking people who wanted the Democrats to become a non genocide party when it was still possible to achieve that for the election, were stirred by AIPAC and other establishment actors, who would rather have Trump win than end genocide or get to meaningful progressive politics like proper healthcare and workers rights.
Okay, sure, but let’s say Trump win and you successfully punish Democrats, the results are…you also punished abortion right, people of colour, the lgbtq community, american with middle-eastern origin, worsening the immigrant deportation, and lastly, eliminating the chance of palestine-israel ceasefire and basically confirming the annexation of Gaza and West Bank. Isn’t that the thing you most concerned with? And now the blood is on your hands too. That doesn’t sounds like left-wing thinking to me at all.
I leave out a lot of thing, it’s really up to you to figure out what you will lose. I’m not even from US and another Trump term will undoubtedly affect the world in one way or another.
Most of what you say is exactly correct. The thing is, you have drawn a little outline of a box around this one situation, and allowed its glow to obscure all else outside the line.
Make the box bigger. Let the other issues that still count and effect people be inside the box.
Trans people need you to vote Harris, because they’ll be in extermination camps under Trump. Women in Mississippi whose pregnancies are going to tragically go bad next year need you to save their lives by voting Harris, because Trump will put the final nail in the coffin on abortion. Plenty of people will go homeless under Trump who would have hung on with higher wages and monopoly busting under Harris.
Being a single issue voter is a luxury that assumes everything else is basically solid, so we can press the one issue extra hard and let the rest of the garden tend itself a bit.
We are in the exact opposite of that situation in the 2024 presidential election. Dont confuse the shittiness of the whole situation with relatively much much better choice of Harris over Trump.
So women needlessly dying of miscarriages and trans people getting locked up in camps is fine so long as the democrats are punished.
Mass deportations with sketchy legal grounds are also fine because the democrats will totally learn their lesson this time.
Wake the hell up. You’re only punishing innocent americans. The democrats will be FINE if trump wins.
Ho Chi Minh knew all about America’s long history of genocide and slavery.
When the time came to work with the American OSS to fight the Japanese he helped the Americans.
Any questions?
Yeah one question, what did America do to Vietnam after that?
What were the Japanese doing then?
Are you saying we should allow the genocide in Palestine to continue, and add suffering in America too?
Im saying using Vietnam as an example why working with the US is good is the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard.
I think it was less, “the US is good” and more “one way or another someone is gonna fuck you over, sometimes the only choice you have is who”
Fine, give me a better example.
I’m not married to that analogy.
I could talk about the women and former slaves who worked for politicians who couldn’t promise them the vote.
Would that get the point across to you?
Can’t believe I missed you when I blocked all your little friends.
Why do people feel the need to publicly announce blocks?
Block me as well. Do not forget the blocking user ceremonial reply to my comment!
Removed by mod
But Palestine hurr Durr
You dumb fucks know how many more Palestine’s there’s gonna be if he gets in? You can kiss Ukraine goodbye, and probably hong kong too. This is nothing.
2016-2020 was the beta test. If this goes into production we’re all fucked.
You dumb fucks know how many more Palestine’s there’s gonna be if he gets in?
It seems like such a basic concept; trump means more dead Palestinians. How can someone simultaneously claim to support Palestinians and advocate for more dead Palestinians?
Removed by mod
Advocating against voting for Democrats, no matter what the particular language, is advocating for actions that will increase the chances of Trump getting elected, of Republicans having majorities and of Israel’s further escalation in Palestine, in addition to all the other bad things Republicans will do.
The time to move Democrats on the issues is not now. Those times were during the primaries (in which I voted uncommitted on the presidential level and for pro-palestinian candidates on other levels) and after the election through things like lobbying.
If there are particular third-party candidates who have any reasonable chance of winning rather than being a spoiler (I don’t know of any), it’s reasonable to advocate to their electorate that one vote for them instead of the Democratic candidate. However, if one supports Palestinians and opposes genocide, the best vote in the presidential election and in most national or state elections on November 5 is for the Democratic candidate. That’s not a “vote blue no matter who” opinion or an “all you need to do is vote for the Dems” opinion. It’s harm reduction in the short term so that we can ensure that there actually are medium and long terms for as many people as possible.
What primary?
Removed by mod
You dumb fucks know how many more Palestine’s there’s gonna be if he gets in? You can kiss Ukraine goodbye, and probably hong kong too. This is nothing.
Tankies would love that, though.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I echo the sentiment (regarding Trump being a much, much worse outcome), but you can already “Kiss Hong Kong goodbye”. It’s part of China, they have cracked down, and the two systems has been reduced to like 1.5 systems ahead of schedule.
I am genuinely curious what you think either presidential candidate would do about this, considering they will continue to espouse the One China policy. Where they might differ is in their support of Taiwan, whose status is much more murky.
Hong Kong though? Pretty sure that ship sailed once the UN decided: no Empire no longer, and the 99 year lease came to an end.
Ope sorry I meant Taiwan
Lol, yeah this makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying 😅
Removed by mod
Nah china already has that under control with their summer camps and organ harvesting
Removed by mod
I cringe every time I see this come up.
Because it isn’t what you actually mean, and the horrible logic of it makes it easy for the Lemmy Lefties to dunk on.
Of course a 3rd party vote isn’t a vote for Trump any more than it is a vote for Kamala.
What it actually is is a discarded opportunity to vote against Trump. Which is also dispicable, but actually accurate.
Everyone knows that’s what you mean by this, but the Lemmy Lefties will play dumb and latch onto that logical fallacy every time.
It’s the trolley problem again. This time, you have 3 tracks and 2 switches. The trolley is headed towards 5 people, one switch sends it to 1 person, and the other switch would send it to 0 people, but it’s broken. Voting third party is pulling the broken switch, knowing the 5 people will die but you’ve shifted the responsibility from yourself to whoever was supposed to fix the switch.
They loved Bernie and praised him to the skies.
Then he endorsed Biden and Harris.
Now he’s a ‘sheepdog’ that rounds up people to be slaughtered.
If nobody votes 3rd party then we’ll never have a 3rd party candidate that matters.
It’s like bicycle infrastructure. Nobody wants to ride bikes on a highway, but you won’t see bike riders until there’s a trail somewhere for them to ride on. You can say it never matters and that there aren’t any cyclists out there, but you’re wrong. I think there’s a lot of Americans looking for another party right now.
Not everyone lives in a swing state where votes actually matter.
Do you know what will definitely NOT help get rid of the electoral college? People wasting their votes on 3rd party spoilers
Do you know what would MORE LIKELY move people to demand the elimination of the electoral college? Harris getting 10 million+ more votes, and Trump either winning the electoral college or attempting a coup based on lies because a swing state was close.
The more votes Harris gets, the clearer the will of the people, the harder it is to pretend there was voter fraud.
I must have missed that footnote in their rhetoric.
Come on, guy.
I’m not your guy, buddy!
Hey, not only am i your buddy, I’m also your fwiend, guy.
Check my history. Vote third party if you don’t live in a swing state is literally what I have been saying.
Ex https://lemmy.ml/post/21262971, https://lemmy.ml/comment/14519387
By definition, most people do not live in swing states.
Disclaimers and footnotes are irrelevant.
Thank goodness not enough people in “safe” states think that way.
I think we have the best chance to break the third party at the local level.
You sure seem to have every excuse in the book, don’t you?
No one is buying the bullshit you have for sale.
The Dems are running on Trump’s 2020 platform. Build the wall. Lock up immigrants. Both parties are far-right shitholes, and it’s time people started realizing that.
The Dems in 2028 will be calling for mass deportations.
I voted for Obama, Clinton(at an empty polling place BTW), Biden, and will for Harris, all with no snap in my step and a funeral dirge in my heart, just so I can say I used what little power I have for harm reduction.
I’d rather not have fascist scapegoating along with our antisocial, rigged crony market capitalist economy we don’t get a vote on sucking us dry as we struggle to subsist. We only get a vote on how to address the social issue symptoms of that economy, if at all, and who to blame, and sadly it’s never the private shareholder class that should be.
Let’s be clear , we’re circling the drain. Inequality will continue to increase as greed induced climate change increases scarcity for the non wealthy masses, D or R, but at least with D, we won’t arbitrarily point the finger at brown people and hit them with sticks. That’s is the extent of our vote, whether to starve us or starve us while beating us.
We need a new constitution, one that punishes greed, with life imprisonment when applied to politics, and rewards prosocial activity. This country died under Reagan as anything more than a money printer for the tiny class of people that don’t see you or as human, just resources to extract MOAR value from.
But since that won’t happen, I’ll do the right thing without hope in the face of Armageddon, harm reduction. A vote to leave the water pumps running on this sinking ship, nothing more.
The concept that voting for a third-party candidate is somehow “helping” one of the major party candidates is based on the assumption that the third-party candidate’s voters would have otherwise voted for one of the major party candidates.
all they have to do is point out that they don’t live in a swing state and that’s it, there’s nothing else to say, they just made a strong case and you have no rebuttal
lol
I live in a swing state, and a frightening number of my friends are refusing to vote or voting 3rd party. When pressed if they truly felt that there would be no difference in their lives or the world between Harris or Trump, they just double down on regurgitated excuses and bury their heads in the sand. I really don’t get it.
There’s tons to say.
Well, not tons, but a solid-ass rebuttal.
Those states do matter. They only “don’t matter” because everybody in them has historically done and is predicted to do a certain thing. If enough people learn of that prediction, become unmotivated, and don’t do that thing anymore, then those states become swing states which could swing the other way. It’s not guaranteed to always be the way it’s been.
“Blue state” and “red state” aren’t unchanging aspects of the geography, they’re the actions of individuals as seen from an aerial view.
Strongholds fall, and the commanders who act like theirs never could have a way of not writing history.
Strongholds fall, and the commanders who act like theirs never could have a way of not writing history.
And yet, this logic doesn’t apply to unseating the existing parties, for some reason. If Illinois could eventually turn red, then it follows that it could eventually turn green. In either case, it’s just a matter of “enough people” changing their behavior.
New parties have to get big at local levels first before shooting for the stars
The difference between red and blue is often about 5-10 percentage points. But if you’re up 5, that means your opponent is down 5. Because it still has to add up to 100.
To turn a state green, that party would have to be up at least 50%.
You see how that’s a problem, right?
But while Green is pushing ahead, where do you think those votes are coming from?
If the Greens pick up 5% of the vote, they need to take those votes from someone, and that’s most likely the Dems. Now they have 45% of the vote, because percentages still have to add up to 100, the Republicans have 50%, and handily win the election.
For greens to replace, most likely the democrats, would involve the left loosing every election for about a decade or two. Just completely having no voice in government.
You see what parties don’t switch like that right? No, the party has to collapse, and then a replacement has to step in.
And in order for a party to collapse, it needs to be a coalition party. Like the Whigs. https://www.history.com/news/whig-party-collapse
Something that is unlikely to happen to a modern party.
Thus the only way for the greens to gain power is to change the voting system. Real voting reform needs either Approval or STAR as the voting system. (there are a few more, like Ranked Robin, but the main point is that it needs to be a cardinal voting system.)
The Green party under Jill Stein mildly supports RCV, a system that deeply flawed and will not actually fix things.
I see you understand the flaws of First past the post voting quite well. We definitely need people like you to help fix how we vote so you don’t have to have this conversation over and over every 2 years.
Swing by my ask lemmy Post to discuss your post election commitment to replace FPTP voting in your state. Appreciate your time either way. Peace.
If the democrats started losing every election because of the greens, then I expect what would happen is that they’d start supporting voting reform, and if that happened, I’d be willing to vote for them so that they can implement it. But currently, while there are a handful who do, they are incentivized not to support it, since FPTP benefits them.
Lol they’re big mad about this one but it’s true. Next they’re gonna go blame the left in states that voted for Kamala for her loss.
het.jpg
I already voted for Harris. No need to discus this any further.
Like this?
Well in that case it’s not really relevant.
Right right and many of the posts that we’ve seen here over the past 3 months forget about that key point, which is just an insult to the majority of voters in the United States.
And that’s how the Democrats can lose political support. That’s how they can alienate potential allies.
I feel bad for Americans and kids in general. More fascist radicalization pipelines pop up every single day. The money and effort spent must rival most countries GDPs. Just the media organizations alone…
Some days it can feel like standing at the foot of a mountain watching the entire mountain side crashing down.
Then I realize it’s just people. People we can step up to. And slap in the damn face.
shortsightedness is a stubborn affliction
I imagine that folks on both sides believe this comment is about the other one.
I wish that more people could see that there aren’t two sides. Neither side is on your side, nobody is on your side, and you can think you’re on their side but it just doesn’t work that way.
Good point. Same goes for fake news. Let’s address the fear and anger on both sides first, only then we can get some facts in.
What other side? America is a one-party country with a republican cancer metastasizing.
They aren’t wrong. At least not in spirit. In a non-stupid system they’d be correct at every level.
Until everybody in the conversation understands the contents of that video, you aren’t at the point where you can have the conversation meaningfully. It changes the whole game.
And once they understand it, the remaining conversation may just be a mutual nod of understanding. First past the post is a third party killer, and not because the idiot populace lacks the will. The actual voting math itself is the problem, and ranked choice (or similar) solves the voting math problem in a way that third, fourth, fifth parties can exist and win, instead of debuffing allies and by so doing helping their enemies.
If Democrats really cared about beating Republicans, they would be fighting hard for ranked choice voting. Instead, their primary concern is setting up a scapegoat so they can blame "the left’ if they lose.
This is the scapegoat I’ll always remember:
Did the democratic party ever update their vetting process?
Idk. Tbh for me this was a huge turning point of distrust. They had the power and couldn’t get a $15 minimum passed. I’ve since kind of fallen down the “the system is working exactly as designed” rabbit hole. From where I am, I don’t believe a vetting process will really help.
I had this thought after Obama removed the “public option” from the ACA.
I can’t conclusively prove that the Dems claim to support progressive policies but always offer up a Sinema to take the heat for failing…but in the last 15 years I haven’t seen anything that contradicts this theory. When banks need money it’s an emergency and we had better shovel cash out the door without discussion, but when people need help we kick them a month’s rent and then bitch about it for years.
the video learned the wrong lesson. party consolidation is the result of strategic voting. values voting is the solution.
You just completely missed the point.
You literally cannot “values vote” your way to a functional First Past the Post voting system.
And trying to get others to join in your misunderstanding of basic reality is actively harmful to your, and their interests.
Maybe that’s the problem. You don’t want to admit that you’re the bad guy…
values voting is the solution. it’s plain as day that the reason party consolidation happens is strategic voting. a refusal to compromise preserves a diversity of parties.
I’m not a bad guy.
You’re not bad, and I’m sick of the infighting. But denying the reality of the fundamental flaws in the electoral system is just ignorant. Idealism doesn’t work when the platform to implement those ideals is broken as fuck.
If you’re not a bad guy, you’re just wrong. This is very basic game theory and not actually controversial in any way
game theory assumes rational actors. it does not determine human behavior
Perhaps you should try being a rational actor
Here’s what happens when we refuse to compromise. Some people care more about minority civil rights than anything else, so they get the best civil rights candidate. Some people care about feminism more than anything else, so they get the best feminist candidate. Some people care about unions more than anything else, so they get the best union candidate.
Conservatives then rally around a putrid flesh monster who promises to shoot all the above on day one, because that’s what they care about. That candidate wins with a 40/20/20/20 vote.
Values voting cannot solve this.
you speaking about it as though people who would vote for a conservative only have one issue: Conservative candidate. but it’s a whole platform, and it’s also diverse in its Interests
people who would vote for a conservative only have one issue: Conservative candidate.
That’s literally what’s hapepning. Trump’s VP pick was incredibly against Trump until he got picked and then he got very much pro. Hell, conservative party doesn’t have a stated program, they literally don’t state any values.
the libertarian party punches way above the greens. you’re simply wrong.
It is, but they don’t recognize the contradictions between their various factions. They will very happily rally around a candidate that promises to sweep away all the leftists. Each of them imagines that their faction will be the one on top in the end.
Removed by mod
We all already understand how it works. Every single third party voter hears this stuff constantly, from literally everyone. It is impossible to not hear it while telling people you’re voting third party, even if you tried as hard as you could to block it out.
Maybe someday you’ll actually understand then.
Your little party literally cannot win at anything beyond the local level.
Has your third party run for any local positions? No? They only show up in presidential election years?
That tells us they are horrible people who know damn well that they’re helping Trump.
I understand already. The problem is that none of you understand or have any interest in engaging with what third party voters actually believe or why we reject your arguments, you just want to repeat the same BS over and over in hopes that we fall in line.
The only people who are helping Trump are Trump voters, because that’s how votes work.
That’s not how votes work. And I’m not going to explain it to you because EVERONE here already has. You have absolutely no intention to argue in good faith at this point.
In FPTP, any vote not for one, is an assist for the other. Period. End of story. Case closed. No more debate on it.
That you’re here to continue arguing with people illustrates that you’re not here to discuss it in good faith at all.
Therefore, I’d ask anyone reading along to just disregard this person as a bad faith actor and don’t engage with them any further on this.
So if I don’t vote for Kamala, I’m voting for Trump. But hold on - by not voting for Trump, that’s also a vote for Kamala! But I’m also voting for the person I actually voted for. Am I casting votes for three different candidates?
The way votes work is that they tally up all the people who actually voted for a candidate, and that number is higher than the people who actually voted for any particular other candidate, then that candidate wins. Third party votes do not get added to either candidate’s vote total. So not voting for one is not an assist for the other. Period. End of story. Case Closed. No more debate about it.
by not voting for a candidate that can win, your vote is entirely thrown away, it could’ve been used on someone who had a chance, but was wasted, therefore it benefitted the party you least support
vote strategically, or why bother?
Yeah… they have no intention to discuss anything in good faith whatsoever. You’re spot on with the logic, but they’re not going to even address it. Instead- they’ll just dump an unasked-for ethics lesson on you because it makes them feel smart and superior to everyone.
Check their comment history. They’re like a wannabe Chidi from The Good Place, only he isn’t even a real person, and their interpretation of him is WAY off.
or why bother?
Why are you encouraging people not to vote?
Ok, so now it’s thrown away as opposed to being a vote for Trump.
There are several good reasons why voting third party is better than not voting. First, it is a self-fulfilling prophesy to say that a third party can’t win, and that assumption is based on previous vote totals in previous elections, so the total in this election will affect conventional wisdom in future elections. Second, there are thresholds where even if a party doesn’t win, they could be eligible for things like public election funding. Third, voting third party as opposed to not voting promotes political engagement, and can publicize organizations like PSL that are involved in things outside of elections. Fourth, voting third party tells politicians where you’re politically aligned, and opens the door for the party to bargain with a major party and potentially being able to offer an endorsement in exchange for concessions.
Reading this thread is painful…
You say you know exactly how it works. Are you aware that the only possibilities for president are the Dem or Rep nominee? Your comments make it seem like you don’t know that.
It’s because Objection here is a full on ml cult member. They use moronic statements like calling people NSA spies, everyone they don’t like is a lib, they’re trans of course so that’s their defense when cornered, Ukraine started the war, etc etc. Their comment history is a who’s who of all the classic cliches.
It’s not worth your time talking to them. They’re just trolling for 20 comment deep arguments.
Yes, I’m aware that those are the only realistic winners of this election. I’m not aware of anything I might have said that would imply I think otherwise.
You’re wrong.
No, you’re wrong.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_United_States_presidential_election
Here. This is how your system actually works. Not how you believe it to work. Wilson won with less than 42% of the votes because a third party managed to be popular enough to split the votes and stole enough votes from Taft. This is what would happen if people actually listened to you. Thank fuck they don’t.
Those votes did not belong to Taft in the first place, so they were not “stolen.” They belonged to the voters, who can give them to whoever they choose. As a matter of fact, Taft got fewer votes than Roosevelt, so if anything it would be more correct to say that Taft is the one that “stole” votes from him.
Of course, it is impossible to say what would’ve happened if it were just between two candidates, there is no way to know that every Roosevelt voter would vote Taft or that every Taft voter would vote Roosevelt.
I can’t be baited bud. That’s not how it works. I have the strength of conviction to say something and stick with it. So I won’t be indulging you by answering your bad faith bullshit.
Not happening.
I’m just here to walk you into the light so people can see what you’re up to and maybe stop taking you so seriously.
Nothing more.
But please, by all means. Continue with your smug little ethics lesson. Im enjoying it!
I think there is a point that gets left out in this back and forth a lot. So because of the way our system is, only two parties currently have a real world chance at winning. And yes voting for one is not a vote for the other. Likewise voting 3rd party is not voting for the other. In any literal sense this is true.
The argument that’s trying to be made but is being done poorly imo, is that if you aren’t helping to stop a party from winning by voting against them (and for the only other party capable of winning) then you are actively hurting the chances of said party being defeated. So in this case, not voting for harris, who is the only candidate opposing trump with a real world chance of winning, means that you are helping trump to win, because it’s one less vote to the party capable of beating him.
When they say you voting 3rd party is a vote for trump, it’s not literal. It’s the effective end though. If not enough people vote harris, trump wins. They are talking about the argument from a single perspective, of defeating trump. You can make the argument from the other perspective of trump defeating harris too, that not voting trump helps harris. And both statements are true. If you don’t help a cause, you hurt it. And the same goes for 3rd parties. If you don’t help them, you hurt them.
Let’s take our current race as an example. If I had ranked choice I’d vote 3rd party, then harris, then a 4th party then at the very bottom trump. Since we have FPTP though this really just becomes my order of preference.
In our FPTP system without ranked choice voting, when it comes to a federal presidential election, if you aren’t voting for a party that can actually win (even if they aren’t your first choice), then you are increasing the chances for their competition. In our case the 3rd and 4th party are incapable of producing a win, no matter how badly we may want it. So if I want my vote to make a difference that helps push things towards my preferences, then I have to remove those two from my consideration. I could vote for them. But by doing so my alternative preference of harris doesn’t get a vote. Fewer votes for my alternative preference means that my lowest preference of trump stands a better chance of winning because there is now less opposition from the preference with a chance to win.
Any and all parties want you to vote for them. But their next preference is that you not vote, or at least vote in a way that doesn’t support their strongest competition.
If it were green against democrats as the top two in an election, and you are cheering on green. Would you prefer someone (Joe) that doesn’t want to vote green, instead vote democrat, a 3rd party with no chance at winning, or not at all? I can’t say what you’d choose in actuality, but in most cases, others in the same position wouldn’t care one bit if Joe voted 3rd party or not at all, because at least he didn’t help the democrats.
Sorry, a bit rambly and this is from my phone so probably littered with grammar issues. But that’s my general point of view on it. Most people view it as if someone isn’t helping, they are hurting. Thanks for coming to my ted talk lol
In any literal sense this is true.
It is very much false, in any literal sense. When they count up the votes, they do not add third party votes to the other side. The argument you’re actually trying to make (or should be trying to make, at least) is that, despite being false in a literal sense, it is true in a metaphorical or in a practical sense. Otherwise, you are just objectively wrong.
The argument that’s trying to be made but is being done poorly imo, is that if you aren’t helping to stop a party from winning by voting against them (and for the only other party capable of winning) then you are actively hurting the chances of said party being defeated. So in this case, not voting for harris, who is the only candidate opposing trump with a real world chance of winning, means that you are helping trump to win, because it’s one less vote to the party capable of beating him.
No, I’m not “hurting” Harris’ chances. I’m just not helping them. I am not taking a vote away from Harris, if you wipe me away from existence, Harris doesn’t have “one less vote” than she would have otherwise, she has the exact same number. So this is also wrong.
When they say you voting 3rd party is a vote for trump, it’s not literal.
You just said it was literal.
If you don’t help a cause, you hurt it. And the same goes for 3rd parties. If you don’t help them, you hurt them.
Categorically false. If someone on the other side of the world murders someone, and I did nothing to help the victim, did I hurt them? No, I just didn’t help them. The baseline or zero-point is non-involvement.
In our FPTP system without ranked choice voting, when it comes to a federal presidential election, if you aren’t voting for a party that can actually win (even if they aren’t your first choice), then you are increasing the chances for their competition
Again, false. I’m not increasing the chances for their competition, I’m just not decreasing their chances.
Most people view it as if someone isn’t helping, they are hurting.
I have no idea if “most people” view it that way or not, but regardless, it’s not how I view it and I don’t think it’s a reasonable way to view it.
What you believe doesn’t matter. What reality is, and how it works, and what is on the line is what matters.
Here are two candidates, and you vetter like one of them, because that’s all you get, otherwise we couldn’t call ourself a “democracy” anymore.
I haven’t done the math. Assuming full support, is there a 3rd party candidate on the ballot in enough states to actually win?
The last time a 3rd party candidate had an actual shot (and it was a looooong shot at best) was in 1992 when Ross Perot ran. He split the R vote badly enough that it handed the election to Clinton.
So long as we’re using first past the post a 3rd party candidate has a vanishingly small chance of doing anything other than helping elect the opposition.
And the lesson the Republican Party learned from that was to support the Greens—or any vaguely left party—hard.
Admittedly, watching PR play out across the rest of the world kinda scares me. Israel is paralyzed into a destructive war because the ruling party is in a coalition with a few crazy extremists who will bring down the government (and thus expose Netenyahu to criminal trial) if their increasingly wild demands aren’t met. Germany’s having a clusterfuck of a time etc.
While there would be different parties, imagine the horribleness of a PR system right now in America. You could easily see a scenario where RFK acts as kingmaker and gets to demand whatever from trump or Harris. Given that trump would sell his children (maybe sub Melania for Ivanka) for the presidency, who knows what insanity would ensue? And there would be no real mechanism between the election and the next one to reign them in.
I didn’t think there was anything scarier than a trump presidency until thinking that one through. Uggggh.
Yes, I was there and that’s not what I was asking.
Nope. The Green party’s got their candidate on the most states’ ballots, and they only managed to get 38 states. Granted, it’s still mathematically possible, considering the threshold is 270 votes, and the states that have Stein on the ballot comprise 440 votes… but still. Would be incredibly, almost impossibly difficult.
It doesn’t even matter whether or not the Green party is technically able to win. As long as America has this first-past-the-post voting system, people will have to tactically vote for Democrats, because otherwise the Republicans will win. To stop the current duopoly, there needs to be an electoral reform first. It’s probably nearly impossible to get that through but there’s no other way.
If it’s “probably impossible” then can you explain why Alaska and Maine have already been successful implementing electoral reform? Why are several states working towards getting rid of First Past The Post voting right now?
It’s not impossible. This reform is possible at the state level. We don’t need an act of God from congress to make this happen. It’s already happening, and it can happen in your state to!
yes of course it’s possible at state level, but it’s the federal level that’s hard
Stein and Oliver both do, though that’s certainly not going to make a difference in their actual chances
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Do you mean the electors? Delegates are part of the nomination process, not the general election. The electors for a party are chosen by that party, then the voters cast votes for the electors. It’s unlikely that electors pledged to third parties would be faithless, as they probably deeply identify with the party ideals.
