Yeah…. She’s a disaster and always has been. Been saying this for years.
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.
Not voting indirectly also is a vote for Trump.
no, it’s not
Yes, it is
if that were true, you could prove it. there is no world in which non votes are counted for Trump
indirectly
Say there are 9 voters. Four vote for Trump. Five heavily disagree with Trump (more than Trump’s four supporters). Three of them vote for Harris, two refuse to vote. Then these two people helped Trump since he’s winning now.
It works exactly the same on a much larger scale.
The only votes that help a candidate are votes for that candidate. A non-vote doesn’t help any candidate.
removed by mod
In the actual world, governed by actual mathematics, you are incorrect. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you, with illustrative examples, by many people. Your stubborn, willful ignorance cannot change the fabric of reality.
this is just hand waving. it’s not proof.
Still no proof, friend.
Good point!
Not voting isn’t a protest either. Disrupting the voting? That would be a protest. But the Greens and Stein don’t have the balls for that.
Voting for Jill Stein is only “taking a vote away” from Harris if you assume that the voter would’ve voted for Harris without Stein in the race.
That’s a big assumption and I don’t think there’s any good reason to make such an assumption.
removed by mod
removed by mod
Exactly what I’ve been saying. Democrats are clearly making a choice to die on and sacrifice our democracy to the hill of imagined centrist voters that make perfect, unquestioning and loyal followers for their party. If they lose for it then they alone are responsible for their loss and they should be the ones we direct our anger at for leaving voters on the table in what they themselves call a close and existentially important race.
If they would rather lose elections than court progressive voters, if they would like to win without us as they so clearly do; because we are less convenient to their bottom line than the aforementioned loyal centrist; then that should be laid bare for the world to see. We shouldn’t let them pass their strategic failures off on voters for having morals and sticking to them.
I mean those perfectly loyal clown fearing pineapple pizza hating plastic people are clearly here in the comments with us. They would have voted for a dementia addled corporate goon if he hadn’t literally gone silent for 30 seconds during a debate. They will throw our “privilege” in our faces, and claim that we don’t care about minorities so we aren’t doing everything in our power to bend the arc of history away from Trump. Not even realizing that their own cowardly groveling is the fucking reason he ever got a spot on the ballot.
The residents of Ohio and Pennsylvania who are undecided aren’t here. They’re undecided because they can’t be bothered to look. Or they’re so disillusioned with the concept of representative government they ignore it as a defence mechanism.
those perfectly loyal clown fearing pineapple pizza hating plastic people
Is this like the MTG space laser lizard Jews?
I mean those perfectly loyal clown fearing pineapple pizza hating plastic people are clearly here in the comments with us. They would have voted for a dementia addled corporate goon if he hadn’t literally gone silent for 30 seconds during a debate.
Right, and every one of those “vote blue no matter who” folks already voted for Biden in the last election and barely eeked out an electoral college win. It’s a dice roll if they can do it again. If democrats want to widen that margin then all they have to do is offer literally anything at all to progressive voters.
Agree with everything you’re saying. The white moderate (re:MLK) is willing to throw anyone under the bus to save their own asses. They will not stand up for what’s right if it comes at the risk of losing their seat, so all you have to do is threaten that seat and they will all collectively sit nice and pretty.
Awesome post!
To be fair, while I’d be like whoa lets not say centrists don’t exist, someone going “Hm idk Donald Trump’s policy of … lets just let cops go wild and kill anyone they want for one day sounds pretty rational and good lets weigh that with Harris’ policy.” is uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh not a fucking centrist.
You think…centrists are imaginary?
My friend, you might be in a bit of a social bubble. Like someone in the deep South who only ever sees Trump yard signs and thinks “everyone” supports Trump.
Nope, didn’t say that. I said the perfect voters they are courting instead of progressive voters are imaginary.
Oh, well that’s still pretty stupid. Centrist voters are by definition less loyal, since they have to be courted in the first place. Democrats don’t expect centrist voters to be unquestioningly loyal, or else they wouldn’t even advertise to them.
No, I’d say they’re pretty loyal to republicans (else you’d be correct, Democrats wouldn’t be courting them with republican policy) and they don’t question the status quo or capitalism, which gives Democrats plenty of room to maintain loyalty to their donors.
Agreed, friend! You get my upvote.
Based on which party they’re registered as? That doesn’t mean much, it doesn’t mean they’d definitely vote for the D candidate if there wasn’t another option. You’re assuming that the D candidate otherwise has that vote locked down just by being a democrat.
You can’t “steal” a vote because no one owns that vote except the individual voter and the individual voter is not being robbed when they decide to vote 3rd party.
Great deduction skills there.
Sure, you can’t literally steal a vote, but either you’re unfamiliar with American colloquialisms or being deliberately obtuse. It’s a term that describes exactly what you’re doing here - actively trying to convince people to vote against something using deception.
Yes, you’re being deceptive by trying to drive democratic voters to split their vote so the right wins. I have yet to see you make a single good faith argument here.
In reality a not insignificant portion of them would probably vote for Trump to “own the libs” honestly.
A not insignificant portion of them will vote for Donald because they are MAGAs cosplaying about wanting a third party.
Voting for a minor party in terms of the effect on the outcome is approximately equivalent to not voting.
Well… That would depend on how many people vote for a third party, doesn’t it?
I mean, I know Americans love telling other Americans that voting third party is a wasted vote, but that’s a self-fulfilling profacy. If everyone believes nobody is voting third party, then nobody will vote third party, so third parties never win, which will lead Americans to say that nobody votes for third parties.
Your first past the post system and your major news agencies who don’t have the decency to pretend to be impartial is really doing a number on your country.
Edit: Always fun to see how Americans get so offended about being reminded of such a simple fact. All the excuses and the downvotes are great indications of how you’re all doomed to be stuck with what you have.
You are your own worst enemy.
It’s mathematically Impossible to have a 3rd party in the US, when are you people with other systems going to understand that?
It’s mathematically Impossible to have a 3rd party in the US
you’re making that up
Then why do they never win any votes in the electoral college? When is the last time a third party ever succeeded nationally in the US when it didn’t involve the dissolution of some other party that preceded it?
That’s not math. those are just questions.
Then I guess I’d like someone to explain the mathematical probability, because from an empirical standpoint I haven’t seen anything to disprove the claim being made above.
you can’t prove a negative, but a positive claim has been offered here. so the person putting forward the claim must support it, as a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You absolutely can prove a negative, actually.
The very assertion that a negative claim can’t be proven is itself a negative claim, to frame it another way. Though that claim is unproven as it would be a paradox to be otherwise.
You’re on a roll today. I just may love you a little bit!
You need 270 Electoral College votes to prevent the vote going to the states for the Presidency. There are 538 votes available. The only way to have more than two parties compete and have the election not go to the House is if one party is unified and has large public support against the other parties that do not. This essentially creates a single-party state.
Ergo, our system is designed to have two parties, each with roughly half the population behind them. Anything more mathematically ends in a single party state.
this is not a mathematical proof. it’s a story.
Don’t come to Lemmy for math proofs, particularly in a political conversation. What an obtuse statement.
the claim is that it’s mathematical fact. I am only demanding a proof
Yep!
deleted by creator
I love watching remedial game theory being taught every day on multiple instances. What a delight.
Patronizing ex-Redditors vs paid trolls, who will win? The number of Lemmy’s 50k users who are definitely all able to vote in American elections and are unaware enough to be undecided at this point will surely turn this tide.
Bien sûr que je vais voter aux élections américaines!
How much would trolls get paid to freakin’ post on Lemmy?! Think about that for a bit…
LMAO
I love watching people think that this is “game theory”.
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.
I wish we had ranked choice voting, it just makes so much more sense
Yeah, and there are two major parties that don’t really want ranked choice voting. lol
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.
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.
That’s nice dear, you’ve said this exact same thing since Reagan.
When is the right time?
I’m down for December of this year
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.
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!
The democrats supported RCV in my state.
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?
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.
Lol there’s definitely a way to affect them.
Two actually.
One is $$$$
The other one you aren’t allowed to propose.
?There’s several ways to affect politics
-
Corruption - largely the higher corruption is the more advocates to lower taxes for their donors. This is driven by capital accumulation.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
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.
-
Some level of election reform will be on the ballot in 9 states this fall. Make sure you vote, if you can!
Also worth noting that these efforts are generally led mainly by democrats, with support from some moderate republicans. In contrast, 10 republican-led state legistatures have passed outright bans on RCV. One of these parties is not like the other!
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/05/nx-s1-4969563/ranked-choice-voting-bans
And did that selfless doctor use medical billing codes that would charge the least amount to the patient? Does that doctor take a modest pay compared to the other medical staff who also play a vital role in the saving and preservation of lives. And how much time does that doctor spend with patients compared to the rest of the medical staff?
Edit: I am referring to the doctor who wrote the letter to the editor that this entire article is about. There is a hyperlink at the very beginning.
What does this have to do with anything that is being discussed in the article?
Can’t tell if bot or posting to the wrong thread…
Please expand because the article is about “protest votes” and the top level comment I responded to is seemingly about how the doctor who wrote it should have earned less money. It seems completely non sequitur.
I think they’re talking about the comment you responded to.
At least, I hope they are.
Oh that would make more sense.
Yeah, sorry about that. I did mean the one you were responding to.
No worries. It was obvious in retrospect
deleted by creator
Bibi marches from genocide to a full-scale war in the Middle East. The donkey glumly follows its master. But they fein suprise when we don’t meakly trudge behind.
In California, it doesn’t matter because the results are already known. In other states the calculus is a bit different.
Right? Imagine believing there are enough conscientious progressives / leftists to flip CA red because of third party voting. Sure, Jan.
Online rhetoric sways voters in swing states. Your vote may not change the outcome, but your words might.
Good!
I must have really pissed you off huh?
Not at all.
That’s absolutely true, especially for a paper like the LA Times. I am dubious that there is any appreciable effect when it comes to random blogs and so forth.
So practically speaking, there is no anti-genocide vote. There is no health care for everyone vote. There is no reduction in firearm caused deaths of children and teens vote. There is no anti corporate regulatory capture vote. These things just are not possible to achieve in America by voting.
Ahahaha spoken like a true Nazi watching Jews being boarded on a train.
Edit: I dont know what the hell is going on with this person. I am for damn sure not a nazi.
My guess is a hexbear or .ml user got bored (because they’re caustic and people block them quickly), so they made a .world account and are doing some low-skill trolling attempts.
It’s cute when you realize they’re probably piss poor living in squalor and doing this for trump bux.
They’re a troll.
Just wanna point out that calling someone a troll is against the civility rules in this sub. Thank you!
You’re a troll too.
Nope.
Ok
Yes. This is correct. Kudos to you for reaching the correct conclusion. It’s difficult to admit the system is fucked beyond repair; the fundamental shortcoming of Jill Stein voters. The only hope is to continue voting for the most progressive of the two candidates and pressure the winner to change the system (if that is even possible)
Stein refused to call Putin a war criminal, so yes. There is no anti genocide vote.
deleted by creator
Accepting that you have limited power, choosing an issue, and acting locally has become a lost art. People would rather bitch about how it should be different.
Single-issue voting is a plague.
There is a vote for MORE or LESS of all of the above. It’s not like your vote doesn’t matter. Do you want more genocide, or less genocide? “No genocide” isn’t an option. So do you want more genocide, or less genocide?
OK I want LESS.
I have been wanting less for a long time. Those things I want LESS of don’t seem to be reduced by much since I became eligible to vote. Voting’s not enough.
Awesome, vote Democrat.
Voting’s not enough.
Almost correct. There’s just not enough voting. Having a razor thin Democrat majority doesn’t net us any victories, it just prevents (most) catastrophe. You want progress, give us a 5-senator majority (enough to override the Manchins and Sinemas). You want major progress, give us 60 dems, to bypass the filiburster. Though, Democrats finally seem willing to end the filibuster rule, so at least we should see some progress on that front.
Which is which? Like, seriously. Put the recent headlines about Israel’s actions against the other guy’s vague, contradictory statements and demonstrated lack of deep interest in foreign affairs. It’s not clear at all.
Put the recent headlines about Israel’s actions against the other guy’s vague, contradictory statements and demonstrated lack of deep interest in foreign affairs.
You’re comparing Netanyahu to Trump? I don’t understand.
For what it’s worth, I’m comparing what’s actually happening (genocide and the Middle East spiraling into war) with Democrats in office (tsk-tsking but providing material support to Netanyahu) to what history shows would likely happen with the other guy in office (hot air and bombast, but almost certainly not any greater material support).
You know Trump has called for the extermination of all Palestinians, right? If you think Trump will be soft on Palestinians…well, you don’t. You’re lying. If you’re saying Trump would (or even might) be easier on Palestinians than Biden or Harris, you’re just straight up lying. There’s no possible way to be ignorant enough to make an honest mistake there. It’s a lie, and probably propaganda, because why else would you say it?
More directly relevant, many members of Netanyahu’s government have also called for the extermination of all Palestinians, and they have the U.S. government providing political cover while they do it.
Why is that more relevant?
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
I voted Green in 2020 because I hated Biden, and after 4 years of a Biden presidency I have concluded that I was a fucking moron and that my vote for Hawkins didn’t amount to shit.
I remember what the Trump admin was like, and we’re just now concluding the Biden admin, and when I look at the options on the table right now, I have:
- Trump: A fascist who wants me dead.
- Harris: A milquetoast liberal that will do a fine job at governing.
- Stein: A valueless Green Party spoiler who is rooting for Trump (who wants me dead).
- Not voting: A coward’s way out.
Harris is the obvious choice for anyone who actually wants America to improve.
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.
No one’s voting 3rd party because they think they’ll win, they’re just throwing away a vote for Harris.
Would you prefer people voting 3rd party not vote at all?
If Malcolm X were alive
Why Malcolm X’s Family Is Suing the FBI, NYPD, and CIA 58 Years After His Death
Do you seriously think X was pro-FBI? Why on earth would he support a candidate who was?
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.
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
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.
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.
“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
Both have valid reasoning
I disagree.
Based on your downvotes, looks like more people disagree with you.
But hey, don’t fret, friend. I know what it’s like getting downvoted every comment. Doesn’t bother me. Hopefully it doesn’t bother you. :)
Ok
Fucking well said. And you have my upvote for mentioning my man, Malcom X. Great post!
deleted by creator
Maybe Democrats need to work harder and be more welcoming.
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.
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.
How is throwing your vote into a hole going to help exactly?
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.
As it should be but not how it is.
But it can be that way if people stop being so scared to stray from the Duopoly.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m 60. I would argue that 20 years is not a long time. Keep pushing.
The US isn’t causing the genocide in Gaza and it will if anything be exacerbated if we bring in Trump to support Bebe
The US isn’t causing the genocide in Gaza
Peak liberal delusion.
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.
They never have this energy for the millions of actual Trump voters.
Comments turned off
The genocidal lib fears the well informed Jill voter.
Hilarious. More like they don’t want to deal with the flood of nonsense from trolls, bots, and people that just turned 14.
trolls, bots, and people that just turned 14
-
Jill Stein voters are throwing their votes away.
-
Jill Stein voters don’t exist.
Which is it?
Lmao the thread is full of accelerationist dipshits, this isn’t the flex you think it is.
-
Being informed means knowing Stein will not win the election. At least if Harris wins Ukraine can be saved.
deleted by creator
Kiss me.
I don’t get it. What’s that a reference to?
It was a bad paste, sorry. Changed my mind anyway and deleted
Truth.
Jill for president. <3
Bruh, I get downvotes just for posting articles about her. I can only imagine the drama you are gonna get for saying this right now. lol
I’m not voting for her, but I like her. So I support your support of her, friend.
