26
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
26 points (67.6% liked)
politics
19238 readers
2025 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Every vote for Harris is stealing a vote from third-party candidates who represent real change. By sidelining those voices, you’re indirectly helping Trump win!
If you really want to avoid a Trump win, supporting a viable alternative outside the two-party system is the only way to push the conversation forward.
Sorry but that's an absolute shit take. I didn't mention any individual candidate or party. I didn't say voting for a third party is a vote for opposite major party candidate. It's just basic math that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in a state wins that state. If you think there is a state where any third party candidate has a chance of winning please show me the polling that backs it up. Otherwise, just admit that the winner will be the nominee from one of the two major party candidates, and admitting that acknowledge that basic math says the more 3rd party votes are cast, the fewer votes there are between the 2 major party candidates for one of them to overcome. You can be pissed off about it all you want, but it's reality.
Unfortunately that is just idealist naivete. I vote in the major party primaries to try and get either the least crazy republican (gerrymandered districts) or the most progressive democratic candidate on the ballot. The only thing that will break the duopoly is to get RCV in every state, and the presidential election has fuck-all to do with accomplishing that.
I think they've switched candidates they're voting for a few times, since they don't have any values other than getting MAGA in office and their preferred candidates don't have any values other than receiving foreign money.
They're mad every time they get called out on campaigning for MAGA. So of course we get "no u" style responses, whether or not it makes any sense whatsoever.
It’s the very duopoly you’re stuck with that makes real change impossible without challenging it. While ranked-choice voting (RCV) is important, dismissing third-party voting as useless only keeps the system locked in place. Voting for a third party is part of pushing for bigger reforms like RCV—it’s a step towards showing there's demand for alternatives outside the same old two-party narrative.
Indeed. But no 3rd party candidate has received a single EC vote since 1968. Voting 3rd party for president in the general clearly isn't doing a god damn thing to shift the parties.
I never said it was useless. But it's true that voting for a less popular left-leaning is going to reduce the number of votes that the most popular right-leaning candidate needs to receive to beat the most popular left-leaning candidate.
I don't think you will get the ear of the Democratic party by skipping the primaries or voting in a 3rd party primary. They don't know how you vote in a general, so you showing up in their primary is the only way they know reliably that you have opinions for their direction. Bernie succeeded in shifting the Democratic party left by running in the Democratic primary. Lets do that at the local levels, especially for primary candidates who support RCV. There's pretty much no chance we can get RCV as a federal law, SCOTUS would absolutely knock it down as unconstitutional, so that fight has to come through the state legislatures.
And look how bad they screwed him by choosing Hilary. How'd that work out?! lol
I liked Bernie and would have voted for him too.
But I am not listening to the duopoly any longer. I'm voting third party. Proudly.
She won more votes. There was non super-delegate rat fuckery thwarting the popular vote. Put that on the voters. But his campaign was popular enough that the party platform adopted some of his campaign goals:
Also after his campaign we saw more progressives running and winning around the country. Just because he didn't win the nomination doesn't mean he utterly failed to achieve anything. And that's what I'm talking about with winning state races in the Democratic primaries to fight for RCV and force the party left.
Fair point!
But I don't think after a Harris win we are going to magically have RCV. How many fucking years have they had to change the system? I just don't share your faith they will.
So I'm not voting for them.
I never claimed electing Harris will get us RCV. I've said pretty consistently that the presidential election is in no way connected to us getting RCV. We will only get RCV from a bottom-up effort to shift individual state legislatures.
And I am saying that Democrats (and Republicans) don't really want that to happen, or they would have made it happen already.
The Tea Party successfully shifted the Republican party farther right by running and winning in their primaries. Why is it inconceivable that progressives can do the same in the Democratic primaries?
It's not inconceivable, but I think it's improbable. So I'm not voting for them. Why haven't they done it yet?
Because there haven't been primary candidates winning their primaries on that issue. They won't do it as a party.
Ok so this is bad faith or you clearly have no idea how this country works. Or maybe even both.
So let me get this straight... In order to avoid another Trump term, we must vote for a party that, mathematically, has no chance of winning? Taking votes from the only candidate running against Trump that might win in the process?
Let's remember that Trump said he will not run again if he loses. That means winning in 2024 is the only way that "another win" can happen.
So please, I would love for you to explain to me, how voting third party in 2024 will "avoid a Trump win"?
Again, and perhaps you just don't know how elections here work, but these candidates can not possibly win.
That's not hyperbole, they are literally incapable of securing the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Please tell me you understand this. Like you get the basic arithmetic being used here, right?
So with that said... I would LOVE to hear how voting third party will avoid another Trump term.
part of me shitting on third parties is the fact they enable the bad stuff they want to happen, see the elections of 2000 and 2016. but it also needs to be pointed out, repeatedly, loudly, this other point you just nade:
IT IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE TO WIN ENOUGH ELECTORAL VOTES TO BECOME PRESIDENT.
they don't have an answer for that. if they do respond they never address that specific point only saying well enough people just have to vote third party.
none of these people have any clue how our government or elections or voting works. I'll bet some of them are convinced that because the cheneys endorsed harris it means she's an even bigger genocider even though they both have said they don't agree with her politics except for the politics that preserve the constitution. they're dead enders man.
Removed, civility.
Attacking other users got your comment removed.
Attacking a mod got your comment removed and earned you a temp ban.
The rules here are not ambiguous.
saying it doesn't make it true
In this election cycle, as well as all previous ones, their statement is accurate. In the future? Who knows. But their statement, as written is correct.
you haven't presented any evidence for any claims. saying it doesn't make it true.
A basic grasp of math and statistics is all that's needed.
more handwaving
this still isn't evidence. it is just handwaving.
Let's flip the script. Please provide evidence the green party has won a presidency, or there strong evidence they will this cycle.
I haven't made any such claim. I'm not defending a claim I didn't make.
I made a statement, not a claim. My statement was that the green party has not won a presidency. You demanded I provide evidence. I was merely showing you how silly that request was.
Your statement was a bad faith argument, and had been reported as such.
we can all see that you are not accurately characterizing this thread. it's public.
I am grateful for it being public
No one cares about this impotent propaganda made for idiots
I'll take this as capitulation.
It is. They have to create a strawman to support themselves. "Because people are choosing the best fit from the only two viable candidates, they are choosing based purely on which is more popular."
Feel free to take it however you want.
Every vote for Harris is stealing a vote from third-party candidates who represent real change. By sidelining those voices, you’re indirectly helping Trump win!
If you really want to avoid a Trump win, supporting a viable alternative outside the two-party system is the only way to push the conversation forward.
K