Democrats who are actually concerned about Republicans should be pushing hard for ranked choice voting.
These memes make Democrats feel good, but only annoys third party voters.
Never forget that in 2016 13% of Trump voters voted for Obama in 2008/12. Maybe the Democratic Party can share some blame, instead of just shaming the voters.
Maybe the Democratic party should consider what not following through on their campaign promises gets them. I don’t how their failure to realize their promises to their voters is the fault of people voting for third parties
Maybe if everyone that posted threads like this voted 3rd party, maybe 3rd party would get enough votes for once to push a reelection and get on the radar? Instead of trying to get people to vote for 2 candidates that don’t support their needs and/or wants.
You do realize that the winning president has to win at least 50% of the electoral college vote in order to win. If no one president does then the top 3 candidates go to the house of representatives to be chosen. Just the media if this happened would finally put a third party on the radar, even if they only won one state.
Voting democrat or republican gets you a divided republic. The repercussions or their actions are about to reverberate through society. I fucking warned you.
Then maybe Kamala should stop glazing Israel’s d. so much and actually do something to win back michigan muslims. They’ll either vote third party or won’t vote at all. The trumpists will vote Trump anyway. This post is purely delusional if you think you’ll win some voting groups back just by dragging third party candidates through the mud. Especially voting groups so deeply involved in some issues that your beloved candidate clearly doesn’t care about at all.
A broken system gives you broken candidates.
I don’t understand why people make such a big deal out of these voters. Maybe I’m just consuming the wrong media, but it feels like third-party voters get 50x the blame nonvoters get for ruining elections with probably something like a thousandth of the population. I basically never see this discussion call out both third-party voters and nonvoters equally.
I keep seeing third-party voters maligned for thinking a candidate has hope to win a national election, I see so many arguments to address why third-party candidates can’t win. In spite of that, I have never come across any community anywhere where people collectively believe these candidates actually have a chance. People who consume crazy media can believe crazy things, that’s why MAGA is a thing, but there’s a whole Fox News etc media machine feeding those people. Is there a forum somewhere with more than ten people where there’s a consensus that a third-party candidate might actually win? None of the third party voters I have known or met irl believed this, and I would be shocked if they’re all weird exceptions.
Like, please, where are these people congregating to spread the ludicrous idea that a third-party candidate can win a national election? Looking on the recent green party posts on their subreddits, the only thing I see even close is a thread with a headline about “candidates are electable if people vote for them”, where the furthest they go in the comments is a few people talking about how big a deal it would be for the party if they got 5% nationally, and a couple other people replying to say the greens won’t even get 1% this year but the election is still very important because of some nonsense about incremental gains.
It feels like we’ve imagined a brainwashing machine that does not exist in reality, rather than admit to the existence of protest votes. Condemning protest votes means condemning protest nonvotes equally, and we’ll never have sufficient information about protest nonvoters to reasonably make a claim about how they would have voted. That would severely muddy any attempts to assign blame for election results.
If you’re trying to convince these voters to act differently, the way to do that would be to address the arguments they’re actually making, like the incremental gains nonsense. If you’re addressing arguments they haven’t been making at all, then it’s worth asking whether you’re trying to convince someone other than them.
Nonvoters suck too.
Most elections I’m all for third party candidates in the hope that we’ll get one that can make a difference. We have had third parties on the national ballot and we’ve certainly had third parties influence the national debate even without getting a seat.
However the last few elections are different - Trump is so destructive to our democratic institutions, our national identity, any hope of caring for our own people or others. I still don’t see how he is a viable candidate or how any sane person will vote for him. But he is there and it’s a valid point that a third party can be a spoiler. In this case we have a party/candidate who is to the left of the Democrats, pulling enough votes to be a spoiler: your vote to be farther left could very well lead us into a nationalist tyranny, and assuming history repeats abuses of constitutional authority over the law, abuses of multiple scapegoated groups, historical levels of corruption, increased global warming, global chaos. None of us can afford this and while we appreciate your attempt to pull to the left, it could send us over the deep end to the far right
It’s about sending a message: “I care enoug to vote, but both of you are shit” in the hope that in the next election cycle the candidates are less shit.
Non-voters are idiots but ultimately they will not vote. You can’t lead a donkey to water
People who vote third party actively get up in the morning to piss away their votes. It’s like leading a donkey to water and they decide to eat sand instead.
You’ve never heard of a “get out the vote” campaign? I can’t imagine thinking that you can’t possibly convince someone to vote.
People get weird close to the election.
People voting green party did so for a reason. Not everyone fits into perfectly shaped boxes for the 2 party system. Many vote 3rd party for leverage for policy change. The narrative of picking the lesser evil doesn’t always apply to the narrative of the individual voter.
Did people who voted for Stein get what they wanted by electing Trump?
Did Democrats get what they wanted by running Clinton?
They did manage that the democrats will never run with hilary again -> If both choices in the current election are shit you can at least try to influence the next one.
Also fuck 'muricas election system. Everything resulting in a 2 Party system is no real democracy.
No, they got what they wanted by bringing third party candidates to the discussion table so more people would vote third party in future elections.
One day we might even be able to elect a candidate who isn’t the “lesser evil”
We’ll end up with 3 or more while instead of the usual 2.
One day we might even be able to elect a candidate who isn’t the “lesser evil”
Literally impossible in the US unless one of two things happen. Either:
-
Both the current major parties fracture, and the resulting two parties that will occur thereafter align themselves on axes that are dissimilar to the ones that the current two parties are aligned on, or
-
Laws are passed to remove FPTP and winner take all so that not voting for a Republican or Democrat has an actual influence on the vote.
The current system in the US is statistically proven to result in two majority parties controlling the government. The only effect that voting third-party does now is to spoil the votes for the majority-party candidate most closely aligned with that third-party.
The Labour party in the UK won as a third party in a duopoly system
The rise of Labour happened because of a change in the voting system. The Reform Act of 1918 got rid of property qualifications which previously hindered Labour’s base from being able to vote. And even then Labour and the Liberals competing for votes resulted in a decade of conservative government.
-
One day we might get stv approval voting instant runoff or one of the methods that allow 3rd parties to win push for that at the state level instead of fantasies that can never work
We are literally vote in a Hitler figure who is going to build concentration camps and wreck the country or stick with sanity. The lesser of two evils is necessary until the second major party stops running Hitler.
yes, dont voters know that a war criminal abroad vs a hitler at home is a way better deal for them? AIPAC has worked very hard with the DNC to set this up and American voters are just ungrateful and stupid.
/s
If Trump is Hitler, what is Kamala? At least third parties entertain ending wars
Third parties that can never win can in turn not make policy decisions.
A lot of things about foreign policy are based on realpolitik, not ideology. As long as you’re not in power, you can ignore realpolitik, and therefore can promise anything you want. Once in power, things are different.
Ranked choice voting eliminates the concept of spoiler candidates/parties.
You are correct. Also, OP is correct.
The duopoly of power won’t add ranked choice voting
People said this about weed. We literally had two states add it in like the last 10 years. Once a few more states pass RCV via initiative we’ll start seeing legislatures take it up on their own.
People said this about weed
Weed is not the good argument you think it is lmao. The fact it took decades to legalize and people are still imprisoned over it is a huge L, not a W
Well the point is that lack of 2 party support doesn’t mean it won’t happen, it just means its a slower, longer push.
Edit: I would also say there’s likely less built-in opposition for RCV - even hard conservative states like idaho are fighting ballot initiatives to expand RCV this year. 2 states are voting on it. Only 9 states have banned RCV (vs federal bans for MJ)
There you go again. Blame third parties for your own failure. Keep doing it, tell yourself it’s true.
I might risk voting 3rd party if this election wasn’t a choice between boring corporatists and 100% concentrated evil.
The stakes are just too damn high to risk letting Trump get back into the White House again.
Honesty is refreshing. I’m voting for Harris because I don’t want to see Trump’s orange face every week. Yes, I know what she is. Yes, I know what that makes me. I’ve made my peace with it. No, I don’t blame others who feel differently.
I’ve always critiqued the democrats but I’m so tired of trump. I will vote for a thousand boring democrats if it means removing these entitled, lying MAGA idiots from anything resembling power. They all belong in lunatic asylums, not in government.
it’s not worth it until first past the post is removed.
Until then it’s mathematically impossible for a third party candidate to win. Focus your energy instead on removing first past the post, then you have a chance
The only time I went third party it wasn’t to win. It was because I saw it as two main candudates so shirty that there was a good chance for third party to snag more voters than usual, possibly enough to gain slightly better recognition in the future.
The monkey’s paw curled.
We got Trump. The recognition came as irrational blame for Trump.
I won’t make the same mistake of voting for someone I think would do the best job. Now it’s merely an effort to keep the worst viable candidate out.
You do understand that this is exactly what the democrats and the GOP want? Most importantly, what the people funding both parties want. If you’ll vote for an unelected enabler of genocide just to keep another guy out you’re showing them morals don’t come into the equation for your vote.
What’s stopping them from running a charismatic fascist vs an unlikable one?
Stop blaming voters for the democratic party repeatedly choosing the most conservative candidate and pretending they did it for “electability”, only to end up in tight races.
The elections will always be between “boring corporatist and 100% concentrated evil”. Every election feels like it’s the most important one. You just gotta suck it up and vote third party regardless.
That doesn’t have to be the case. I’ve never felt that we had pure evil to battle until Trump was a candidate. Historically there’s been mostly two sets of policies and I prefer one or the other
Except this time there is a literal fascist running. The third party argument doesn’t work when we’ve got a candidate quoting Hitler and promising that this will be the last election you’ll have to vote in.
There’s always a literal fascist running, that’s what the GOP is there for. Lately, there’s two.
No, there isn’t always a literal fascist running and to say that there is severely and dangerously downplays the threat that Donald Trump poses to both the US and the rest of the world. It’s also a disgusting way to devalue the victims of fascism. A fascist is not simply someone you disagree with; they are not just an asshole, or a bad leader, or someone who leads their country into a war for their own gain. Fascists will erode your way of life, they will take whatever they want, they will take away your rights and spit in your face while doing so (assuming they don’t simply have you arrested), they will kill you as soon as it either benefits them or if they just want to for the hell of it.
Use whatever perceived intellect and moral high ground you can trick yourself into believing you have to vote 3rd party, but just know that you are aiding in Trump’s re-election. And all because you’re too much of a dipshit to know the difference between an asshole and a fascist. Fuck you.
This is the way.
Dont let online bullies influence your vote. Each citizen gets one vote, cast it for whom you wish to support. Learn about the issues, the policies being proposed, and cast your vote for whomever you support.
REEEEEEEEE how dare you vote any other way than what I PERSONALLY WANT? Have you thought about asking me first??
*as long as you support one of the major 2 parties
The GOP and the democrats are two arms of the same corporate party. Fuck them.
Jill Stein is a fascist bitch.
How is she a fascist? I’ve seen the two big party candidates run on more fascist policies than her, so I’d be genuinely surprised to see how she could be worse.
EDIT: People downvoting but giving me zero arguments
If you don’t like stein, consider voting party for socialism and liberation instead.
They’re running Claudia de la Cruz on a platform of Palestinian statehood and an end to arms shipments to israel.
I found out recently that they’re on the ballot or have official write in status in 42 states, so unless you’re in Alaska, Nevada, Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Georgia or Pennsylvania go for it!
E: forgot Nevada. They’re not officially recognized in Nevada.
Are they running anyone in elections they might actually win? I might vote for a party like that for mayor or something. But I wouldn’t even vote for them for state house representative unless they were well known enough in my state that they might actually win.
‘Third’ parties in this country can show themselves as serious if they try to establish themselves from the bottom up. If all they do is run for president and occasionally Senate or House, then they show themselves as unserious parties which are probably nothing more than attempts to siphon votes that might have gone to a real candidate.
I don’t know odds, I’m not much of a gambler. You gotta start somewhere though and winning isn’t all that matters: at the presidential level losing parties’ turnout determines their ballot access, event presence, access to funds and media and obviously how much you hear about them.
At the state and local levels there are Byzantine other benefits to having some percentage of the vote that vary wildly from place to place.
So its worth it to vote for a small candidate even if they lose because it can have big effects down the road.
Psl runs candidates at lots of local races, especially in California because that’s where they started.
Of course, if your main worry is having voted for a candidate that can win: good news! Psl can win every race it has a candidate in as far as I know. People were saying that they didn’t have enough ballot presence to tip the electoral college but they were wrong!
I’d advise that no one buy into any of this nonsense. De la Cruz has a mathematically impossible chance to win, and at this point will serve only to siphon votes and spoil the election. Knowingly or not, this is what is happening.
Think about it: Ever wonder why you’re really only hearing about them recently? Where were they four years ago? What have they done to prove they will even do as they say? They have no track record to stand on, but for some reason, these people seem to think they can sneak into an election and have a chance to win on unproven, untested policy with no practical or effective way to make any of it happen?
Make no mistake- there is no good intention from anyone asking you to throw away your vote on these people this late in the game- NONE.
Were it a year or two ago, I could maybe see it. But weeks away from what might be the most important election of our lifetime- to even think to request people not do everything they can to stop a racist rapist traitor to America from forcing our own militarily against us, systematically removing the rights of our LGBTQ+ friends and family, and the rights of women to have body autonomy is as shamelessly in bad faith as one could possibly be.
DO NOT LISTEN TO THESE PEOPLE.
I might be misremembering the electoral values of the states here, but I think the combined value of the states they’re not official write ins or on ballot is only 64.
That leaves 474 electoral votes that psl could get, so they very much could win.
The history of the party is easy to find. They’ve been around for a little while now.
I’d choose a party with no track record over one with a consistent track record of genocidal violence and extrajudicial killings, but luckily psl has a track record of grassroots activism that’s pretty consistent, so I don’t have to take a gamble.
It’s a bit absurd to call opposition to genocide and apartheid unproven, untested policy.
I’m swiftly climbing the ladder of age and my whole life people have been saying “well, you should have been advocating for this or that last year, it’s too late now, this is the most important election of our lifetime!”
The best time to vote (and do groundwork for) psl was last year, the second best time is now!
I agree with the last part though, don’t listen to people peddling tired cliches and misinformation trying to manipulate you into voting one way or the other!
News flash genius…. Most everyone here is opposed to genocide. As has been said before, you’re not part of some fringe grassroots group that figured out that genocide was bad ahead of everyone else.
Stop with that shit. I don’t believe you’re here in any good faith to help anyone in any way.
If most everyone is opposed to genocide then I agree with them and want to help them find parties and candidates that oppose it too, like psl!
What party in opposition to genocide do you support?
I’m not going to stop politely and courteously advocating for the party and candidate I think is appropriate in threads where it’s on topic in a political comm.
It might not be a good idea to accuse people of bad faith when you open up with a sarcastic insult. World is pretty strict about that stuff, it’s like their number one rule.
America is a two party system.
Someone should tell it there’s all these other parties then.
With the way our system is set up, a third party will never win. Especially when 50% of America is still backing Trump. We need a new voting system before anything can change
I accused you of bad faith because that’s what I think you are. And I think the PSL is hot garbage and that’s why no one is taking them seriously.
Is there an argument I could make from my position that wouldn’t read as bad faith to you?
You’re here trying to garner support for the hopeless psl within weeks of an election, so….
No.
Most everyone here is opposed to genocide.
Most everyone here is also voting for the Democrats, instead of agreeing to vote for a third party who is opposed to genocide
Again… everyone is against genocide. Your bad faith accusations aren’t working on anyone anymore. It’s just… cringy as fuck now.
And so you know- the third party clowns currently running have no viable end game to shut shit down over there. Go ahead and look it up. They say they do- but have no clear answer on how they’d do it that is even remotely viable. But it all looks good to the smug edgelords that think they’re somehow unique because they are against dOiNg gEnoCiDes!
What part of cutting military funding by 90% (Claudia de la Cruz’s platform) would fail to stop funding Israel?
You really think she’d have the support of Congress to do such a thing? In a system like America’s? That’s ridiculous. You should know full well such a thing would never happen even if Cruz were to magically win the presidency.
Talk is cheap, and it’s easy for third parties to say they’ll make such sweeping changes when they don’t have to actually back it up. They can tell you what you want to hear, but at the end of the day it’s all talk because such policies will never get past Congress.
They will have a barely above zero chance of successfully doing this. My god you people will believe anything won’t you?
I wonder why they didn’t just say they’re going to end world hunger…. Or cure cancer.
De la Cruz is a nobody that has no idea what there doing and no chance to ever see a position of authority to create let alone enact any policy that would produce meaningful change.
She’s a spoiler. And at this point- I’m beginning to think it’s purposeful.
