-4
4 independent presidential candidates have filed paperwork to appear on ballot in Wisconsin
(www.channel3000.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
-4 points (0.0% liked)
politics
19101 readers
3593 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Or WI has a lot of leftists sick of voting for genocide.
Well you can vote for partial genocide based on really outdated foriegn policy or you can vote for complete genocide that includes all marginalized and minority people inside the US. Take your pick, we have to fix FPTP later, not right fucking now.
I'm voting for Harris because less suffering is good.
But your comment was off base. WI does have a lot of leftists sick of genocide and that's why so many are on the ticket.
If Dems don't want the vote diluted, they need to come out against the genocide. Not shame people for having a conscience and not stepping in line, like Kamala recently did at a rally .
She did address it again at the next rally, to be fair to her. Though I agree the first reaction was... let's call it sub-optimal.
Still, she is in an incredibly tough position here. Not only does she carry the regular US baggage of Israel relation and wanting the strategic position in the middle east - she's also an active member of the current administration. There is a pretty hard limit on how much she can speak out given Biden is still in office, and ceasefire talks are ongoing.
I hear you. But proclaiming that third party candidates are intentionally trying to dilute the vote, as the commmentor I replied to implied, is no different than Harris's response at the rally.
It's meant to shame third parties for not getting in line behind the Democratic candidate. Instead of listening to people's grievances, they both weaponize shame.
You do realize there have been many cases of third party candidates being explicitly on the ticket to confuse matters and pull votes from opposition, do you not?
Though admittedly that’s usually with a similar or identical on the ballot name: https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2024/06/florida-dem-latest-victim-of-same-name-ballot-confusion-scheme/
First, let’s be clear: voting is a fundamental American right, and every citizen has the right to vote for the candidate they believe in, without being accused of ulterior motives. The idea that supporting a third party is somehow working for Trump or any other major candidate is both historically inaccurate and logically flawed.
Throughout American history, third parties have played a crucial role in shaping political discourse and pushing important issues into the spotlight.
The abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and labor rights were all advanced by third parties before being adopted by the major parties.
By voting for Jill Stein and the Green Party, I am supporting a platform that aligns with my values, particularly on issues like environmental sustainability, social justice, and democratic reform.
The notion that a vote for a third party “dilutes” the vote is rooted in a fear-driven mentality rather than in democratic principles.
It assumes that votes are owned by the two major parties, which they are not. Our electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate, not just those of the dominant parties.
That was a great 6 paragraph comment, but you didn’t actually address the literal one topic I was referring to. Like, at all.
I think I have made myself clear. Thank you!
Me: “You didn’t address the topic…”
You: “I spoke clearly!”
Good job, buddy. Good job.
I have made myself clear. Please stick to information that is in the news article posted.
This Lemmy community explores and respects diverse viewpoints.
And thank you for respecting the right for me to vote for who I want to vote for, even if it's not your candidate. Let's keep this sub civil.
I appreciate your perspective, but I’m trying to understand how your response relates to the specific topic I raised. It seems like you sidestepped the issue I mentioned regarding third-party candidates and their potential impact on elections.
I also want to clarify that I’m not being uncivil; I’m simply expressing my concerns about the broader implications of voting choices. It’s important to consider how those choices might affect the country as a whole.
Are you suggesting that the viewpoint about the intentional confusion created by some candidates isn’t worthy of respect? I’m a bit confused, and I’d appreciate your help in clearing this up.
And I appreciate your perspective. But I've made my point clear in many posts, and from now on I will only discuss information that is in the actual news article that I posted.
And I respect your right to think that. I, however, disagree. I like the fact that there are more voting choices.
The notion that a vote for a third party “dilutes” the vote is rooted in a fear-driven mentality rather than in democratic principles.
It assumes that votes are owned by the two major parties, which they are not. Our electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate, not just those of the dominant parties.
Voting for the candidate who best represents my beliefs is not just a right—it’s a responsibility.
Democracy thrives on diversity of thought.
It’s crucial to acknowledge that there have been documented cases where candidates have entered races specifically to confuse voters or draw votes away from a particular party. Ignoring these tactics is just as dangerous to democracy as discounting the role of third parties.
While I understand your commitment to voting for the candidate that aligns with your beliefs, it’s essential to consider how these strategies can impact the electoral process as a whole. Recognizing these issues doesn’t undermine the value of third-party candidates; rather, it highlights the complexities and challenges within our political system.
I believe that voting for the candidate who best represents my beliefs is not just a right—it’s a responsibility. One that I take very seriously.
I don't belive there is a spoiler effect, and that it relies on the strength of candidates. I understand and appreciate that you disagree, and you have every right to your opinions. As do I.
It's hard to feel otherwise when operating under a FPTP system, which is basically intentionally built to shut out third parties. In fact, one of the prominent benefits of FPTP is that it's incredibly difficult for an extremist party to find foothold - as opposed to what is seen all over Europe currently in places with party-list proportional representation.
Whether the third party candidates are naive about their chances, putting themselves out there as an act of protest or intentionally diluting the vote is impossible to say (and I suspect there are some out there in each category).
In the end however intentions don't really matter - the practical impact of third parties in an FPTP system is diluting the vote.
First, let’s be clear: voting is a fundamental American right, and every citizen has the right to vote for the candidate they believe in, without being accused of ulterior motives. The idea that supporting a third party is somehow working for Trump or any other major candidate is both historically inaccurate and logically flawed.
Throughout American history, third parties have played a crucial role in shaping political discourse and pushing important issues into the spotlight.
The abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and labor rights were all advanced by third parties before being adopted by the major parties.
By voting for Jill Stein and the Green Party, I am supporting a platform that aligns with my values, particularly on issues like environmental sustainability, social justice, and democratic reform.
The notion that a vote for a third party “dilutes” the vote is rooted in a fear-driven mentality rather than in democratic principles.
It assumes that votes are owned by the two major parties, which they are not. Our electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate, not just those of the dominant parties.
Thank you!
Speaking the truth! I like it!
That's been said every fucking election on the last 50 years. Variations of, "Oh no, we need change, but not THIS election. THIS election is too important!"
So guess what? No more waiting.
I'm voting for who I want to win, not because I am scared of who might win. Also, even though this article is about a socialist candidate, I'm personally voting Green Party this year.
I applaud your frustration at our voting system because I share that frustration, but the whole crux of it is that it results in a two party system. Your green party vote, in the grand scheme of things (at least in terms of making an actual difference), is a wasted one.
I honestly don't know how we will ever make this change. It's going to require people like Joe Biden that are willing to give up tremendous power in order to make a change for the better.
Politicians in general aren't really good at letting go of power. One of our dominant parties especially will never allow this to happen - they cannot even accept the outcome of a fair-ish election (even though they were assisted by their gerrymandering and voter suppression and voter roll purging). It won't be until the US has a very progressive phase that we have a chance of making this change.
Until we can make meaningful changes to enable us to make a change to our voting system, any vote for someone not in one of those two parties will be seen as an attempt to dilute the vote, and will also realistically have people be very suspicious towards you. This is especially the case if one were to post continually to this community and keep pushing the idea.
To recap - fundamental, core changes need to happen first before we have a remote chance of being able to make a difference outside of the two dominant parties. You should, however, vote for who you want, that's your right!
You've got it exactly right here. The big key is that this critical "core change" only happens at the local level. RCV has to be implemented in countywide and statewide election systems, proving that it works, before any third party can hope to effect change and pressure for RCV and reforms at a national House/Senate/President level.
People like OP who bitch and moan about not wanting the two party system and wanting a (wasted) third party in a high profile race like POTUS simultaneously refuse to notice or care that all that change has to start BELOW. You can't just keep your head in the sand for 4 years, then pop up to vote for Jill Stein and expect everything to be hunky dory. You have to be on the beat for every office, even ones as low as ward representatives for your city, trying to support and promote candidates who want to implement RCV and 3rd party independence. Targeting the big race with a no-name candidate is a waste of resources, and always has been.
I have supported the green party in my state for a while. Through ballet initiatives and access, to local elections. What makes you think I just pop and vote just in Pres elections?
I've been voting for longer than you have been alive, comrade.
And always will be as long as people like you belittle people who are trying to make a change. I'm voting Green Party, as is my right, and I'm proud of it.
I've made donations, I've volunteered for my local Green party, I have my bumper stickers and even my Green Party shirt, friend. And I'll keep working for what I believe in. Even if you're upset that it's not YOUR candidate.
If you are that worried about spoilers, then you should have a stronger candidate. I, and many others, don't support her. That's how democracy works.
Voting for who I want, even if YOU don't like that person, is not a wasted vote. If the democrats are so worried about "spoilers," then they need stronger candidates.
I'm voting for who I want to be president. And right now, that's Jill Stein.
You misread my comment. I directly said you should vote for who you want and truly mean that. What I said was that your vote IN TERMS OF ACTUALLY MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN THE OUTCOME is a wasted vote, and that is a fact that comes with the FPTP voting system.
But since you snapped back with throwing shade at "my candidate" your posts and comments are even more suspicious.
I'll be blocking your spam from here on out. I really do think you should vote for who you want though. It's just not going to make a damn bit of difference in this election.
I will. And it's Jill Stein
Not wasted at all, because I am voting for who I want to vote for. As is my right.
Spam? I don't think that word means what you think it means. But yes, feel free to block me, because you haven't changed my mind. At all.
You want to get rid of FPTP? Have 3rd parties actually win?
Ignore the presidential race completely. It's literally irrelevant to third parties and you are wasting your breath with a symbolic vote that isn't worth the paper it is printed on. I'm glad it'll make you feel better when the rabid fascists successfully suppress enough other progressive votes to win the rest of the election up and down ballot, and then oopsie you can't vote anymore teehee how'd that happen?
Start at the local level. Campaign for ranked choice voting at the county and state level. Get independents and progressives in at the lower city, county and state wide offices that actually DO have an impact on setting election policy and can build the groundwork that actually lets 3rd parties get a chance. All of this tunnel vision on the high profile presidential race has forever ruined every 3rd party's chance of even existing, because they absolutely refuse to put any kind of effort into the races that matter.
RCV is on the ballot in Oregon for November. I have high hopes it will pass, given our state's general electoral leaning. These kinds of movements have been brewing for all those years you are bitching and moaning about "ohhh but next year" but never get much traction due to hand-wringing about the national bullshit. So shut the hell up and MAKE IT HAPPEN LOCALLY, QUIT BITCHING ABOUT THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE!
and with that in mind, maybe you should vote for the candidate most likely to support a change to RCV and actually win.
What makes you think I haven't. I totally stumped for my local green party. And the green party has won local elections: Californians have elected 55 of the 226 office-holding Greens nationwide. Other states with high numbers of Green elected officials include Pennsylvania (31), Wisconsin (23), Massachusetts (18) and Maine (17). Maine has the highest per capita number of Green elected officials in the country and the largest Green registration percentage with more than 29,273 Greens comprising 2.95% of the electorate as of November 2006.[68] Madison, Wisconsin is the city with the most Green elected officials (8), followed by Portland, Maine (7).
Oh, I am. I'm voting for Jill Stein as president this November. Proudly so. I have the shirt, the bumper stickers, I volunteer. It's awesome.
That's creepy and weird just like how it's creepy and weird with the whole trump cult. It's politics, not some concert for a band
So you think all the people who have the Biden, and now Harris stickers and shirts are creepy and weird?
She just talked at a convention and there were thousands wearing Harris shirts.
You think that's creepy and weird?! All those democrats are creepy and weird?
Ok, man, good luck!
Yes, it's creepy and weird. I dgaf what 'side' your on. It's politics, not some fan club. It's all around weird and creepy.
You think you're doing some kinda gotcha thing? Lol add pathetic to the pile just for you
Ok, be sure to tell the thousands of people that wear Biden-Harris shirts that.
You realize that EVERY party has people who like to wear their shirts, right?
You realize that it's still creepy and weird to idolize parties of politics right.
I don't care what 'side' does it. It's creepy and weird. Stop trying to spin this like you know my political stance. I'm staying neutral for a reason.
And I am fine if you think that. You are definitely entitled to your opinion.
Wasn't asking for your approval on my thoughts.
That's ok, too. But letting each other know our thoughts is sorta what this sub is about. Have a great day! And you are entitled to your opinion. And I am ok that you don't like mine.
Just because you are sick of it doesn't mean FPTP magically has less of an impact on third-party votes this particular election. If you've been around that long you are well aware of how meaningless and potentially dangerous it is, and yes it sucks but the way to combat a two-party system is not voting third party and hoping for the best. Doing that is only creating a mental out for feeling morally superior.
Of course not. But I'm practicing the change i wanna see. I'm down listening to you guys keep saying, "next time! Next time, we'll fix it. Promise!"
Nah, fam. No more next times. I'm voting for who I want. And so are my friends.
I don't even know why you're upset tho, Democrats will probably win this year anyway. Hey! So then are you all gonna fix FPTP issue? Hmmmm. if I were a betting man...
No, what's dangerous is our system being run by a duopoly. I won't support it anymore. Many of my friends agree.
If you are worried about it, choose a better democratic candidate. I don't like Harris. And I don't like Trump. Soooo I won't vote for Harris. And I won't vote for Trump. See how that works?
First, let’s be clear: voting is a fundamental American right, and every citizen has the right to vote for the candidate they believe in, without being accused of ulterior motives. The idea that supporting a third party is somehow working for Trump or any other major candidate is both historically inaccurate and logically flawed.
Throughout American history, third parties have played a crucial role in shaping political discourse and pushing important issues into the spotlight.
The abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and labor rights were all advanced by third parties before being adopted by the major parties.
By voting for Jill Stein and the Green Party, I am supporting a platform that aligns with my values, particularly on issues like environmental sustainability, social justice, and democratic reform.
The notion that a vote for a third party “dilutes” the vote is rooted in a fear-driven mentality rather than in democratic principles.
It assumes that votes are owned by the two major parties, which they are not. Our electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate, not just those of the dominant parties.