• rhythmisaprancer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    3 months ago

    I dont like that voting third party in the US is essentially a non-vote for a party in the “system,” but it is. I voted green party in the past, and ended up regretting it. And relavent to Stein, not a good person, or even party, to vote for now. Folks need to be active, and vote down ballot, and in “off cycle” years. Change takes time, the best way to be heard is through the down ballot when helpful.

    • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      3 months ago

      It really does suck. The current voting system not only discourages anything other than a two party system, it basically guarantees it. And then it becomes one of those things where why the hell would one of those two parties, who’s perpetually in charge, ever vote to change a system that would allow for another party (or parties) to come into power? It’s just gonna be a slog to ever get it fully changed to something like ranked choice. But I’d absolutely love to be proven wrong.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        many states have initiative systems. Alaska, for instance, implented a solid Ranked Choice Voting system for statewide elections. As we see from weed legalization: eventually ballot measures get soaked up by major parties.

    • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      The current electoral system has myriad problems, and you’re absolutely right that focussing on local seats is a better path. I’m glad we’ve been seeing more comments like yours that do understand the stakes.

      For people who rightly feel their interests aren’t adequately represented, rather than voting for spoilers or not voting at all, the best way to actually help fix these problems is to become an activist for electoral reform – starting now for 2028 and beyond. It usually feels like an afterthought brought up a month or two before the election, which is far too late.

      Organisations like FairVote Action have been working to get alternative voting methods implemented in various states, and they’ve had some success.

      If we want to escape this unfair and undemocratic voting system that’s shackled us to mediocrity and allowed fascism to gain a foothold, we have to keep thinking, educating, and acting now for the future. It’s doable if we work towards it.

    • superglue@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yep, I was also a young idiot that voted 3rd party in a swing state in 2016. Regretted it ever since. I admit that I put the way I viewed myself and what my values were were more important to me than anything. What I did was selfish and I’m fully on the Harris bandwagon.

  • GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s just privilege all the way down. If you’re ok with trump, or not worried about him, you’re just riding the ivory tower

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      3 months ago

      I wish we’d yell at democrats for failing to appeal to voters, which is really one of the most basic responsibilities of a politician.

      • MonkRome@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        It’s impossible to appeal to everyone. 6 in 10 Americans believe Israel has a right to continue it’s fight with Hamas. 6 in 10 Americans are also sympathetic to both sides of the conflict. The Dems are attempting to thread that needle. And while I don’t agree with the unconditional support of Israel. The US is heavily invested in partnership with Israel and foreign policy has always shifted painfully slow. Despite all the death in the world, the US is involved in the least death it has been involved in since the WWII. We’ve been constantly at war since WWII. And shifting from the US being constantly at war to only arming our allies is at least some improvement.

        One things certain, if Trump wins authoritarians will be emboldened worldwide and the amount of death will increase much much more, including here.

        • hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Forget appealing to everyone, democratic party policy fails to appeal even to democratic party supporters: https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/5/8/support-for-a-permanent-ceasefire-in-gaza-increases-across-party-lines

          Given these polls, one would think that the democratic party wouldn’t be so supportive of israel, the far-right party in charge there, and its campaign of genocide, yet the party keeps going full throttle all-in on support. Democrats like to use the excuse of their hands being tied, but their hands aren’t tied here. In fact, if democrats did nothing it would be an improvement, because they’re actually putting in the extra effort to increase funding to israel and vetoing UN resolutions against them.

          • MonkRome@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yeah I generally agree, but I suspect that every politician that attends national security meetings is constantly being told that Israel is a necessary partner. Combine that with a strong Christian and Jewish Israel lobby and even a good person may recognize that they can’t gain power to do all the things they want and also oppose funding Israel at the same time.

            It’s the paradox of political power, it’s why if I went back into politics I would do activism instead of elected office, with activism you have the freedom to put your energy where you want without compromise. In politics compromise is fundamental, even necessary, even when dealing with unquestionably immoral things. Personally I think being afraid to spend your political capital means you have failed, but id also probably lose if I ran for office.

        • zbyte64@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yes the Dems need to win but you’re giving them too much credit. We don’t need to make them sound competent with “they’re threading the needle”, because they aren’t. Doing that will give people a false sense of security that there are adults in the room. At best, the voters are the adults, not the Dems.

          • MonkRome@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            How they gonna nominate someone that has only ever said they will never run for president. Dumbest take I have ever seen on lemmy. Michelle would never be president, she doesn’t want it.

    • styxem@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Exactly. It’s the apithetic and doomer non-voters that are the real issue in US elections. Voter turn out is usually abhorrently low.

      People can have all the fights they want about third party votes for president and other high offices, but third parties have great potential to make local/regional change. Sometimes it feels like people forget there is more than just a president in this country.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Who is this article for?

    It doesn’t address the real problem here: That first past the post voting is a broken system and that main party candidates should make more effort to fix this glaring hole in the voting system.

    Because fptp is garbage, third parties are little more than a method to undermine a candidates opposition (in the US in 2024 the green party is ironically propped up in part by the republican party)

    By leaving out fptp it just sounds like anti democracy drivel.

        • webadict@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          There is really only one major party against ranked choice voting. Every year, Democratic caucuses vote to add ranked choice voting to their platform. Democrats have managed to get Ranked Choice Voting in several cities.

          Republicans do not. Republicans repeal RCV. Every RCV repeal in the US was done by Republicans.

          Both parties are not the same, and if you really want a third party candidate, you’re better off getting rid of every Republican you can.

          • This is exactly what I came to say. Dems also seem like the best chance to get the 127 DC states plan into play, after which we could easily see a surge in third parties (without the harm thanks to having nation wide RCV)

    • UrPartnerInCrime@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      Most all Harris voters agree things need to be changed.

      We also agree that NOW is not the time for that. Just, let’s make sure the orange man stays out of power first before arguing what to change.

    • stinerman [Ohio]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      3 months ago

      first past the post voting is a broken system and that main party candidates should make more effort to fix this glaring hole in the voting system.

      The Democratic Party would rather lose to the Republican Party than change the rules to allow for a multi-party system.

      That aside, the major parties don’t want to reform the system they have because it’s worked very well for them. Our parties are incredibly old by world standards. The Democrats have been around since the 18th century, and the Republicans have been around since the 1850s.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        The Democratic Party would rather lose to the Republican Party than change the rules to allow for a multi-party system.

        That’s a weird false dichotomy. Why are you painting those as the two options?

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        The problem is if you believe this entirely then there’s no mechanism to affect parties. Which is easy to disprove.

        The overarching reality is that the parties are affected by things: culturally there’s been a long period (150 years) of slowly unrestricting people with lots of resistance. Then there’s also a economic right wing drift for decades, largely along capital accumulation lines.

        I buy the idea that the parties are hard to affect but the idea they are impossible to affect seems ahistorical.

          • Fedizen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            ?There’s several ways to affect politics

            1. Corruption - largely the higher corruption is the more advocates to lower taxes for their donors. This is driven by capital accumulation.

            2. Bottom up struggles - largely if a number of states do a thing the federal politicians will pick it up. Voting rights, marijuana legalization etc fall into this. Realistically this is probably the way to pick up votes.

            3. Media driven - Trump is primarily influenced this way with scares, fear, bullshit. The last 40 years are driven heavily by media scares funded by right wing billionaires. Factual information sometimes breaks through here: I would argue the obamacare ban on pre-existing conditions was the outcome of a media cycle. Usually these are bad rather than good.

            4. Personal affectations of politicians. Cheney’s daughter caused him to be sensible on gay rights, McCain’s stance on torture was a result of his time as a POW. George Bush’s daddy issues about Iraq lead to millions of people dying. If enough people shoot at trump I do see him passing gun legislation (not encouraging it, just speculation)

            • Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Indeed politics is a tea kettle in the Lagrange zone between the earth and the moon.

              But I was suggesting methods for affecting political parties.

      • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        3 months ago

        The Democratic Party would rather lose to the Republican Party than change the rules to allow for a multi-party system.

        Exactly! I wish I could upvote you more than once, friend!

  • YeetPics@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    3 months ago

    Your ‘protest vote’ for Jill Stein is really a vote for Donald Trump

    And it always has been.

      • Stovetop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        And George W. Bush.

        And Donald Trump (the first time).

        If the Green Party wasn’t a thing, there would be a lot of elections that the Republicans wouldn’t have won, because the margins were just that thin.

        • NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          That’s assuming green party voters would vote for the dems, which probably isn’t the case. They’d be more likely to just not vote.

          • YeetPics@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            That could mean that 60% of the US leans green.

            Or they’re just apathetic and attaching a social meaning to their apathy feels good.

          • Stovetop@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’m not sure I agree with that estimation, but even then I’d say that the majority of Green Party voters who would decide to vote anyways would probably vote Dem over GOP, and that still matters.

            Because only one of those parties is trying to deny me basic human rights, I can’t say I’m sympathetic to anyone who would choose not to vote out of spite just because they don’t personally have as much at stake.

            • eacapesamsara@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              3 months ago

              You must not have been alive in the 90s or 00s if you think Dems wouldnt and dont want to deny your basic human rights

              • YeetPics@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                I remember when the Dems repealed roe v Wade.

                Oh wait that was trump and the GOP. My mistake.

                I was definitely there when the dems tried to ban music based on it’s offensive nature.

                Oh wait that was Reagan and the GOP. My mistake.

                I was there when the Dems banned foreign travelers based on nationality.

                Oh wait that was trump and the GOP. My mistake.

                • eacapesamsara@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Neither Dems nor the GOP did the first one, Dems did fail to ever codify the right to privacy or bodily autonomy though, despite every legal scholar for 50 years saying roe was a Shakey decision.

                  The second one never happened, unless you’re confused by just the general existence of the FCC with your half remembered fantasy, and yes, I do remember when Dems fully supported banning travellers based on nationality, Biden cowrote that bill.

              • pooperNickel@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                No, no one is wondering why a tiny fraction of the public willfully chooses to throw their vote away. It’s actually impressive that on this one issue only half a percent or so are so woefully uneducated. We don’t need to wonder why, all we are concerned with is that fascism is on the ballot and so we need you to stop spreading this donkey-brainery because we even need morons to vote for Harris. If Trump is elected, as everyone paying attention knows, we are absolutely fucked. No amount of pretending to be a socialist will change that. Btw, come the fuck on. You are not a socialist. We all know what you are. WoKeFrEe is perhaps the only sliver of truth in that story you call a profile.

              • YeetPics@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                Because you can’t self reflect?

                Don’t confuse your ego with the world outside yourself.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    3 months ago

    I mean doyee?

    No one’s voting 3rd party because they think they’ll win, they’re just throwing away a vote for Harris. Their statement is that they have no issue with another 4 years of Trump because their demands aren’t being met anyway (cough genocide).

    You can argue all day about the rationality and lack of utilitarianism, but it won’t change anything.

    If MLK were alive, he’d probably vote Democrat because he believes there is a solution in comprise over time, and keeping Republicans out is beneficial to that. (He generally favored the more progressive party).

    If Malcolm X were alive, he’d probably be protesting just like the uncommitted group, but choose not to vote if his major demand wasn’t met, because his reasoning would be that any promised or hypothetical solutions would not come to fruition. (The Ballot or the Bullet)

    Both have valid reasoning, and it can obviously depend on the situation, but it bugs me that 50 years later people still don’t understand why people choose to vote a certain way.

    • YourShadowDani@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      “I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens’ Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection” - MLK

    • Subverb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      Change won’t come overnight (at least without revolution). Like evolution, it requires constant pressure on the system. Changes that are too radical kill the organism.

      A long as people think we can jump from Geoge H.W. Bush to Bernie Sanders in one election it’s going to continue to fail.

      Votw Harris this time. Vote for the person slightly more liberal than her next time, etc. It’s a process.

      • mlg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s one of my issues though, Harris is less liberal than Obama. It went in the opposite direction.

        I advocated that Biden step down and allow a primary. Instead they ran with the VP because the DNC is not interested in actually bringing a more liberal or leftist candidate.

        Meanwhile Trump has made Bush look good in comparison, so even if he stops running, an equal or worse candidate will simply take his place, and then we’ll be faced with a similar problem.

        It would take 20 years to make a grassroots movement work, but if we never start it’s never gonna happen.

        • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Presumably because the US electorate isn’t actually leftist or progressive in general and losing swing states wouldn’t be balanced by extra votes in safe blue states.

      • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        3 months ago

        But with the Democratic party, the conversation is ALWAYS “Vote us this time…” or “This election is too important!” They’ve been saying that for 50 years. Nah, friend. Now is the time for me to vote third party. Tired of waiting.

          • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            18
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’m voting for someone I believe in and who matches my values. If the duopoly has a problem with that, then they can work harder to welcome me rather than mock me for not voting for them.

            So it “helps” because I’m voting for who I want to. As the system should be.

                • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  You can’t get to a progressive candidate this way. A more progressive candidate is going to pull votes more from the left than the right. If you project the results at the point where the progressive candidate starts to matter they just tank the Democrat.If they take 80% of Democratic voters they just lose every state.

                • pooperNickel@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Yeah we will just pretend the supreme Court back to being not packed with ultra conservative assholes. You know, something a socialist would give a flying fuck about

                • Charapaso@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  We could also achieve universal peace if everyone just threw down their weapons, and no one would go hungry if everyone would stop being greedy. Unfortunately, people aren’t rational, and there’s cultural/social constructs that keep these things from happening.

                  If we want to change them for the better, we unfortunately have to operate within the constraints we’re faced with. We can change those constraints with hard work, but can’t just act as if those constraints don’t exist. It’s the same way folks pretend that being “color blind” re: racial issues will solve things. Would be great, but sadly plenty of folks are incapable of not being racist, and historical harms mean that we can’t just pretend that perception is the only problem.

                • This is technically true, but it’s quite tough.

                  If extradimentional aliens from outside the multiverse came in and reprogrammed everyone who was a Dem (and only Dems) so that they suddenly switched and voted for West, we likely would have West as our next president.

                  The difficulty in the current system is that it basically enforces two parties. Makes people afraid to leave. Reform like RCV would make this easier, and allow for events to snowball (a 3rd party might have a good showing in an earlier RCV round as people are less afraid of having their vote wasted, and then the next election more people are willing to vote for that person, until it’s enough to cause an actual win).

                  It’s unlikely that Dems keep the Senate. But with I-WV and I-AZ retiring, if Dems take the presidency and both houses, we might have enough finally to drop the filibuster and push through real reforms… (we did in 2020 but Manchin wouldn’t have gone along with it, making it 49:51 with reform losing.)

                • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  So your solution is to try harder within the current system, like many others have done for the last 50 years, but this time it will be different! If the problem is with the system, work on changing the system while achieving the best you can until the system has changed. Who you vote for in this election won’t have any impact on the system. This will require a different approach. Vote for who you like, but don’t fool yourself that this will make anyone with power change their stance or plan. Your actions are part of the system working as intended.

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      The US isn’t causing the genocide in Gaza and it will if anything be exacerbated if we bring in Trump to support Bebe

        • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          In brief the Israelis stole the Palestinians land both historically and literally continuing to this day. The Palestinians have both historically and to this day retaliated with horrific acts of violence often against women and children. Both sides are immoral shitbags who are fighting for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the US.

          Arguably at this point Biden/Harris could pull out all the stops and pull all support for Israel in hopes of influencing their decision making. This would probably cause the Democrats to lose the election bringing in the guy who wants to build condos on the rubble and the bones of all the dead Palestinians.

      • mlg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        Did… did you even read what I wrote…?

        My point was that he is exactly against the system and playing it by voting for a major party. His whole speech was literally about utilizing your status as a voter in key swing states to demand change from candidates by threatening your power as a voter to choose, regardless of whether you vote 3rd party or not at all.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          My point was that he is exactly against the system and playing it by voting for a major party.

          That’s not true.

          His whole speech was literally about utilizing your status as a voter in key swing states to demand change from candidates by threatening your power as a voter to choose

          That’s a wildly inaccurate interpretation

          • mlg@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            What does this mean? It means that when white people are evenly divided, and Black people have a bloc of votes of their own, it is left up to them to determine who’s going to sit in the White House and who’s going to be in the dog house.

            A ballot is like a bullet. You don’t throw your ballots until you see a target, and if that target is not within your reach, keep your ballot in your pocket.

            Straight from his speech lol.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              You don’t throw your ballots until you see a target, and if that target is not within your reach, keep your ballot in your pocket.

              That’s very different from

              His whole speech was literally about utilizing your status as a voter in key swing states to demand change from candidates by threatening your power as a voter to choose

              He was arguing to abstain from voting without a quality candidates on the ballot. Not to court mediocre candidates by promising them your vote.

  • Soup@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yeah…. She’s a disaster and always has been. Been saying this for years.

  • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    3 months ago

    If you think casting any ballot is a form of protest you need to learn what real protest looks like.

    Hint: It doesn’t involve participating in the system you’re protesting.

  • chakan2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    3 months ago

    I don’t get it…why would you even vote for Stein at this point? She’s not going to win, she’s not going to break the threshold for federal election funding, and I don’t see a substantial distinction between her policy and Harris.

    Brain worm at least had a 1 in 1000 of breaking the funding threshold. Jill has what, less than a chance of finding the winning lotto ticket in the middle of the desert?

    The only result of that vote is boosting Donald’s chances.

    Why…why would you even vote for her at this point? What’s the end game?

      • chakan2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Are you a paid spokesperson for the Green party? I don’t know how you can write something like that with a straight face.

        Edit: I went to the green party page to make sure I’m not full of shit…I’m not…it’s a slightly more liberal Democrat policy page.

        Same focuses on equality, green energy, and inclusion.

        I really don’t get what you think a green party vote will get you that a vote for Harris won’t. Other than another feather in the fedora of stupid mistakes we make when we are young, or you really like Russia. I don’t get it at all.

        • eacapesamsara@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          3 months ago

          Because you’re young, clearly. Maybe this is just the first election you’ve paid attention to. Every disaffected voter was like you, once.

          Then we realized dem platform has nothing to do, whatsoever, with what the do in office. Even when they have a majority in both houses of Congress and can pass anything their heart desires, they actively refuse to pass legislation relating to the platform they sold us on. You can only be lied to so many times before you realize doing the same thing will not get you a different outcome. Voting dem will never improve your life. Maybe third party will, maybe not, but voting dem won’t, it’s empirically proven.

          • chakan2@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’m old enough to remember the green party votes haven’t worked in the last 5 presidential elections. I threw away a vote on them when Obama had a lock on his second term.

            Here we are a couple decades later and the green party has done zero to affect major change in the US. They did likely get Hillary fucked, so thanks for that 4 years of hell I guess.

            Brain worm was your best chance this cycle and he’s been paid off already.

            Really…seriously…what will voting green get you here? You can’t win, you can’t get federal funding, if you break 2% I’ll be amazed…

            What’s the point of a green vote when Harris is so closely aligned with your platform?

            • TheHiddenCatboy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yeah. My first vote was for Bill Clinton in '92. I voted for him again in '96. I saw no difference between Gore and Bush and didn’t vote in 2000. We got the utter shitshow that was Bush 43, but even then I still voted third party in some elections.

              No more. Team Red is now Team Fascist, and either Red or Blue will be in office unless and until Team Green or Team Yellow or whatever you got can take more than half of their political ideology’s votes.

              That’s the real problem here. Third Parties cap out at 10% of the total vote, or about 20% of their ideologies’ parties vote share. They can’t win THIS party’s primaries. How can I expect them to win the country?

            • eacapesamsara@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              3 months ago

              No child, they didn’t lose clinton the election she refused to campaign for.

              And no, a genocidal cop that has only repeated Trump’s 2016 immigration platform has nothing in common with my preferred policies. Greens are he compromise party. The minimally progressive option of things developed countries generally already have.

              • chakan2@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                nothing in common with my preferred policies

                Really? And the chick eating dinner with Putin represents you as a person? That’s what you stand for? That’s an interesting statement.

      • Soup@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        Thank goodness. I don’t know what I’d do if I found out Harris was a Russian shill.

        • eacapesamsara@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          3 months ago

          Man you people have brain worms like trump worshippers. Yes granny, I’m sure sleepy Jill is totally taking billions from those filthy Soviet commies that want to eat your dogs and cats.

          • Soup@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            No need to resort to ad hominem, bud. She’s a proven spoiler, and a shill.

            And I’m not sure that you’re aware, but most of your leftists friends have already abandoned her, so you can either keep up or catch up, either way, I don’t care what you do as your little Green Party is now more irrelevant that it ever was. I’m going to guess it won’t exist come next election.

            And I’m going to assume the cheap little “dogs and cats” thing is somehow supposed to be an accusation that I’m a mouth-breathing conservative, just because I said that Shill Stein is a fraud?

            Is that how you want to be seen? Insulting people because they don’t like your candidate?

            Who does that remind you of exactly?

            Better luck next time. But you lost this one.

            Badly.

            • eacapesamsara@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              3 months ago

              An opinion piece from the wsj and a story funded by the dnc?

              That’s what you based your confused worship of corporate bootlickers on?

              Also I don’t care how you people see me, you people already thought I was trash because I was poor, hysterical because I care about the climate, and a traitor because I think we shouldn’t have an offensive military force or corporate owned government. returning insults isn’t going to change how you see me, you never considered me a person in the first place. Hell you all thought I shouldn’t get married just a decade ago.

              • Soup@lemmy.cafe
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                3 months ago

                Wow… I didn’t know you were a victim of…. Everthing ever. Had I known, I’d have just blocked you like I am going to do now.

                I don’t debate with bad-faith rhetoric designed to take away anyone’s argument or else appear as a villain.

                You win by default. You’re untouchable.

                Enjoy victimhood and be sure to do this with everyone so you can never lose an argument!

                • eacapesamsara@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  14
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  The actual face of liberalism shows itself again. I really can’t wait until you people appoint the next Hitler like liberals did last time so we might get some progress and time away from liberal nonsense.

    • kiljoy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      3 months ago

      Because I don’t care. Neither party actually listens to the average American either way my bills are getting more expensive and my dollar worth less.

  • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Sigh. Sorry deleted by moderator for replying with same thing they said which was I feel necessarily aggressive but it’s understandable.

    Anyways;

    A vote for Green Party/PSL/etc. is better than the alternative for those voting third party: not voting at all.

    Those voting 3rd party will still vote dem down ballot often and will also support dems on amendments and ballot measures.

    It is not worth losing the vote across the board, so just chill out and let them vote.

    IF the DNC actually wanted those votes it would court those votes. Biggest difference in PSL/Green and DNC is stance in Israel/palestine and some socialist policies. (Well and PSL wants to nationalize the top 100 companies, but that’s probably too much of an ask). Instead of any of that they’ve decided to praise Israel and crack down on immigration. So… sure if you want to court republicans go for it but don’t cry when leftists refuse to vote for you.

    Also… people complaining trump supporters don’t vote 3rd party: 80% of third party votes in 2020 were right (libertarian+constitution at 1.22%) 20% were leftist (Green+PSL at 0.31%) so… yeah… 4x more right wing than left wing 3rd party voters.

    Edit: updated numbers using 2020 data.

    • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t really see the appeal of Jill Stein but going after the few thousand people voting her is a ridiculous plan. It’s not like they are going to vote for third party or Republican senators. If they are going to vote third party, they are doing it for key issues; no point in shooting yourself in the foot so that they become nonvoters and you Congress seats.

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      Those down ballot victories wont mean much in an environment where we have carved out the heart of our democracy and replaced it with dictatorship. Also the problem with the policy positions that would allow Democrats to win n green voters are also such that adopting them would cost >n moderates which is why people haven’t adopted those positions mercenary though they are.

      The green voters should adopt a pragmatic strategy whilst pushing for stuff like ranked choice voting or some such at the state level which would allow them to actually win federal office something they haven’t done in 40 years!

    • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      A vote for Green Party/PSL/etc. is better than the alternative for those voting third party: not voting at all.

      That’s not the only alternative. There is overlap in the spheres of voters of the green party and democratic party.

      IF the DNC actually wanted those votes it would court those votes.

      The issue is the spoiler effect which is a result of the overlap.

      • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Again, 4x as many third party votes on the right. Spoiler effect ain’t shit to the left. If it was they would’ve actively tried and court progressives past Obama. The overlap exists yes but the DNC has not moved left much in 12 years leaving progressives pretty disenfranchised. It’s pretty obvious why many refuse to vote for a woman who used DNC funds to fight against the progressive candidate in primaries, or an old man who helped write one of the biggest anti-crime bills (which ends up a large anti-minority bill) and said nothing will fundamentally change, or now a prosecutor who is “tough on immigration” refuses to denounce those actively committing genocide.

        Medicare for all, or not supporting a genocide, or plenty of other options available to help attract progressives if they wanted it.

        BUT again, rather than not vote at all those can at least vote 3rd party and still help down ballot. A lot better to win house and senate than lose everything.

        Edit: updated to correct ratio of 4x based on 2020 data

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          Again, 6x as many third party votes on the right. Spoiler effect ain’t shit to the left.

          On its own that statistic is meaningless, as it doesn’t tell you how much overlap there is, and therefore how much spoiling there is. And regardless of which side, the spoiler effect is a symptom of a terrible voting system. The entrance of an irrelevant candidate should not sway the results of an election at all.

          Additionally, everything is looking like it will be a very close race, in which case every bit of the spoiler effect matters, even if more of it is on the right, which you haven’t established.

          The overlap exists yes but the DNC has not moved left much in 12 years leaving progressives pretty disenfranchised

          I don’t like it either. But my point stands, there is an alternative choice.

          The problem here is the spoiler effect, the system in which we elect representatives. It is in large part what allows the doupoly to remain uncompetitive.

          • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            You say 3rd party is irrelevant but also that 4x(revised now that I looked up exact numbers from 2020) more right 3rd party doesn’t prove it’s more than the left…. If there are only 2 relevant parties then… right goes to right, left goes to left. Shock. Awe. Ignore the weird centrist or actual independent or etc ones as those are hard to place.

            Again, the issue is not that we have any third party vote. We should. It should be encouraged. It’s a fucking democracy. Dems trying to say trump will end democracy while simultaneously trying to remove 3rd parties is wild.

            If we look at 2008 the left actually had 1.16x more than the right on 3rd party votes, and still won by 7% (10x the 3rd party votes on the left) where as 2016 the right had 3x the lefts 3rd party votes (2016 was a big third party year at ~3% right vs ~1% left. Who would guess 2 bad candidates leaves a huge 3rd party.) and then in 2020 the right had 4x the lefts third party votes. If anyone should be worried about “spoiler” candidates it’s the right as their third party has grown a lot more than the lefts. Hell 2020 the left lowered by half of 2008 (Even the crazy year 2016 it was only 0.71% of possible voters, 2020 was only 0.2% of possible voters. 2008 was 0.43% of possible voters.)

            • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              You say 3rd party is irrelevant

              No I didn’t. I said the introduction of an irrelevant candidate (meaning one that did not win) should have no effect on the outcome of an election.

              I looked up exact numbers from 2020) more right 3rd party doesn’t prove it’s more than the left…. If there are only 2 relevant parties then… right goes to right, left goes to left. Shock

              If we look at 2008 the left actually had 1.16x more than the right on 3rd party votes, and still won by 7% (10x the 3rd party votes on the left) where as 2016 the right had 3x the lefts 3rd party votes (2016 was a big third party year at ~3% right vs ~1% left. Who would guess 2 bad candidates leaves a huge 3rd party.) and then in 2020 the right had 4x the lefts third party votes.

              As I already explained, that statistic is meaningless, as it doesn’t say anything about how much overlap and therefore vote spoiling is taking place. I’ll demonstrate:

              • Voters 0 through 40 like the green party
              • Voters 30 through 230 like the democratic party
              • Voters 220 through 410 prefer the republican party
              • Voters 400 through 510 prefer the libertarian party.

              That means green has 40 potential votes, democrat has 200 potential votes, republican has 190 potential votes, and libertarian has 100 potential votes.

              There is double the number of 3rd party voters on the right than the left. But it doesn’t matter, because the dems overlap with 10 voters of the green party. And the repubs overlap with 10 voters of the libertarian party. They’ll more or less cancel each other out despite there being way more right wing 3rd party votes.

              Unless you have data to show how much overlap there is, this statistic is meaningless.

              It should be encouraged.

              Not in a FPTP system, because that leads to the spoiler effect.

              It’s a fucking democracy.

              The United States is a failed democracy by any reasonable measure.

              • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                I love that you love this theory that you cannot possibly get any data on magically but also cannot realize that the 0.7% of the total vote in 2016 the leftist third parties got is almost 10x less than the loss from voter turnout between 2016 and 2020. the 40% of people who simply did not vote at all are a BIIIIIIT more to blame than the 0.7% of people who voted third party, no matter how many of them would overlap with the DNC or not.

                Spoiler candidates exist, sure, but that is shit like IIRC when republicans in miami funded a dude who didn’t live in florida in a miami race because he has the same legal name as the democrat who was running.

                That is a lot different than third parties who aren’t even getting 1% of the vote. the DNC shot themselves in the face in 2016 and cannot get over it, so they would rather continue to scapegoat bernie bros and green party instead of just admitting their plan of pissing off as many progressives as humanly possible and trying to court republicans instead has not worked extremely well.

                and finally, if you’re cool with FPTP then great for you, keep voting DNC. No need to remove money from politics, support the poor, stop genocide, or anything important that would lose us money when we have something more evil than us to vote against! Yay! Some aren’t stoked on how complicit in that idea the DNC is. I’m not going to tell someone with a straight face that democrats will fix everything we just have to vote for them another 600 times so they can… keep going further from progress each year. Example being immigration they’re pushing which is fully 2 steps backward to take one step forward.

                • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I love that you love this theory that you cannot possibly get any data on magically but also cannot realize that the 0.7% of the total vote in 2016 the leftist third parties got is almost 10x less than the loss from voter turnout between 2016 and 2020

                  It’s not a theory or hypothesis. It is how a venn diagram works, it’s geometry. And both geometry and that loss of turnout can be the case, they are not mutually exclusive. And I also never said that those who didn’t turn out to the polls weren’t to blame. You’re putting words in my mouth at this point.

                  the 40% of people who simply did not vote at all are a BIIIIIIT more to blame than the 0.7% of people who voted third party,

                  Both are to blame. Anybody who didn’t vote or voted for a candidate who had no chance is 100% to blame. Distinguishing blame by group isn’t of value.

                  Spoiler candidates exist

                  I’m glad we agree. That’s the whole point.

                  they would rather continue to scapegoat bernie bros and green party instead of just admitting their plan of pissing off as many progressives as humanly possible and trying to court republicans instead has not worked extremely well.

                  You’re preaching to the choir. I hate their shitty ass strategy too.

                  and finally, if you’re cool with FPTP then great for you, keep voting DNC.

                  I am explicitly not cool with it.

                  No need to remove money from politics, support the poor, stop genocide, or anything important that would lose us money when we have something more evil than us to vote against! Yay! Some aren’t stoked on how complicit in that idea the DNC is. I’m not going to tell someone with a straight face that democrats will fix everything we just have to vote for them another 600 times so they can… keep going further from progress each year. Example being immigration they’re pushing which is fully 2 steps backward to take one step forward.

                  Welcome to FPTP two party systems.

            • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Trump has literally said he would end democracy. Third parties literally by design are either irrelevant or destroy the party they are most like because of the electoral college. Trying to prevent a situation in which a third party acts as a willing pawn to spoil an election is pro democratic in terms of leading to an outcome that is desirable to a larger portion of the electorate.

      • eacapesamsara@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        3 months ago

        The spoiler effect is at best a bad hypothesis, and has never been proven to effect actual votes.

        People voting third party just would not vote if there was no third party option. This means there is no spoiler.

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          The spoiler effect is at best a bad hypothesis

          No, it’s well understood, and very clearly exists. Here is an example using randomly generated voters ans candidates:

          Election report for election "Plurality 2 Candidates"
          Total people: 1047
          
          Kruger - 112 votes - WINNER
          Sahl - 111 votes
          

          Election report for election "Plurality 3 Candidates"
          Total people: 1047
          
          Sahl - 109 votes - WINNER
          Kruger - 93 votes
          Maikol - 91 votes
          

          The problem is that these are in effect venn diagrams. There will always be overlap, and that’s the problem. That’s what leads to election results being changed by the entrance of an irrelevant candidate (the spoiler effect).

          and has never been proven to effect actual votes.

          That’s because the spoiler effect most easily happens in races that are already close, because we don’t do much actual real life testing with actual elections because of the uncountable number of variables, and because doing it the python data science way is significantly more meaningful because of the aforementioned number of variables problem.

          People voting third party just would not vote if there was no third party option.

          If that’s really true, then this whole idea about the democratic party trying to earn the votes of green voters is bunk. Either there is no overlap, in which case it’s bunk. Or there is overlap, in which case we have a spoiler effect.

          • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            You went to a lot of effort here to present that very clearly, and I salute you. I’d like to think others here are just blinded by their own ideals, and that’s why nobody is answering, not because they were just arguing for a side they didn’t believe in and don’t have response to that.

            • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Thank you. I’d hesitate to speculate exactly why it hasn’t been addressed.

              But at least part of it is because arguing against what I’ve presented is akin to arguing that 2 + 2 != 4

          • eacapesamsara@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            3 months ago

            You have just proven my point, it’s not a thing that happens in reality if it were you’d point to actual data, not randomly generated test cases where the hypothesis works assuming everyone has to vote and is going to vote.

            To your second point, they not trying to win voters, Dems have never attempted to court anyone left of Reagan voters, ever. The point is demoralization. Non voters are better than energized voters that will never vote for you; the latter group protests, riots, threatens your monopoly on power.

            • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              it’s not a thing that happens in reality if it were you’d point to actual data

              I already explained why this is a terrible goalpost. But even under this terrible goalpost you’re still not correct.

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect

              See the section under “Notable unintentional spoilers”

              Additionally the 2000 election:

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_2000_presidential_campaign

              not randomly generated test cases where the hypothesis works assuming everyone has to vote and is going to vote.

              That’s already accounted for. The gray dots are non voters. Including non voters doesn’t actually change the math, because the math is the overlap of circles. It is already only accounting for the subset of people who are voters.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      the supreme court run by the Federalist Society is seeing a serious deterioration in rights and a vast expansion of corporatism. I’d argue the denial of more federalist society court judges is far more valuable (to both americans at home and the international community at large) than literally anything the fringe parties could contribute

      likely a green party president would just be impeached if he/she refused to tow the line on israel or whatever - note that trumps first impeachment was on denying ukraine weapons.

      While I appreciate the idea that we have a democracy in the US - corporate rule has become far more likely because of a decades long campaign by the far right billionaires to seize control of it

  • Hawanja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    3 months ago

    If you guys think the spoiler effect isn’t real then I’ve got a bridge to sell you. I voted Green in 2000. Never again.

    • PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      Climate town just did a really interesting video about how the election in 2000 was literally stolen by the Republicans via brothers Bush and Bush and their corrupt secretary of State in Florida. And honestly wouldn’t matter if you had voted red, Green blue purple or rainbow.

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Yes, it was stolen, however they were only able to do that because the margins were close. Had the green voters instead voted for the candidate closest to them that had a chance (Gore), then it would have mattered.

      • TooManyFoods@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Green votes were well within the margin that would have triggered the automatic recount. It just would have been an automatic recount for Bush, not gore. Meaning if they blocked the hand recount like they did, it would have gone to gore.

  • Phegan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    The people who don’t vote will far out number those who vote for Jill Stein. Why do we let them off the hook when they would have a larger impact on the election.

    Don’t get me wrong, Jill Stein sucks, but don’t blame her voters. Blame those who don’t vote to blame those who blindly vote for trump because of “the taxes”

    I am tired of blaming someone who gets 2% for when bad things happen. Blame the 30% who did nothing.

    I realize a portion of those who don’t vote are due to voter suppression, bring the fire you bring for stein voters to those suppressing votes, it will be a more effective strategy. Stein and her voters are an easy scapegoat.

  • Red Army Dog Cooper@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    maybe if they would try to court literaly anything to the left of where reagon was they would not need to worry about people voting there. this is the Dems bed they need to lie in it and not yell at the voters for not longer supporting them