politics
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
view the rest of the comments
I get that this is a strong ticket on paper, but it’s really not the time for this.
Voting for Stein when somebody would’ve otherwise voted Harris basically just hands support to the voter’s least liked candidate.
It’s a well-known phenomenon, see the Spoiler Effect.
Don't worry about it, very few people will vote for this Russian stooge and those who do were never going to vote for Harris anyway.
So then, you have nothing to worry about. :)
Correct, she's the last thing I'm worried about.
Agreed.
And I'd say that 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.
In the end, I personally refuse to be intimidated into voting against my conscience. Democracy thrives on diversity of thought.
If that’s how you feel, then why vote for a particular party at all?
Why not just write in whoever you most desire to be the president? There’s nothing against that, after all…
Voting is a fundamental American right, and every citizen has the right to vote for the candidate they believe in. 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'm supporting a platform that aligns with my values, particularly on issues like environmental sustainability, social justice, and democratic reform.
By supporting puppets you throw your voice away. Voting as a right isn’t being debated here and your desperate plea for “rights” shows how little you know of them.
When your only argument is “I have the right” you are confessing that you don’t really have a reason. You don’t know why… instead you are telling everyone that you don’t think you just act. Apparently because you just can… or because someone spoke a line and you felt so compelled.
First, I don't belive she's a puppet. Second, I am not throwing my voice away. I'm voting for who I want to be president. And right now, for me anyway, that's Jill Stein.
I have stated my reasons many many times in this community. Right now she is the candidate that best aligns with my values.
I support you voting for who you want, and I would expect that you would support me voting for who I want. As is our right.
Maybe the issue is what you want to accomplish not who you’re told “represents” that…
You can tell yourself that you don’t “believe” she’s a puppet… all while she sits with Putin, his puppets and soils the vote. At that point what will your “beliefs” accomplish? Without accomplishing shit what value does believing in an asshole accomplish?
But any actual result of you voting 3rd party is to end up with a fascist president who has plainly stated his intent is to make sure you will never vote again.
Then maybe your party should have a stronger candidate if you are that afraid of 3rd parties having an impact. People get to vote for who they want to, even if it's not who YOU want. Welcome to democracy.
You’re ridiculously naive. We go to war, or the polls, with what we have. And if you don’t make the best use of the best candidate to get closer to what you’re actually in favor of, you’re a fool.
Also it’s spelled “D E M O C R A C Y”.
Idiot.
Okay, so to anyone who reads this exchange: I’m pretty sure this is a bot.
On top of it being a very botty response to my question, that didn’t even answer my question, they typed out three whole paragraphs with a thesis statement and conclusion, with some bold-face typing…in less than a minute. That’s fucking sketch.
But I’ll respond back at least once more:
Again, if you believe that the “electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate” and you don’t like voting “against your conscience”, then it seems like you value honest voting very highly.
But honest voting goes beyond parties. If you value voting honestly, then you should vote for the person you think is best suited for the presidency. It doesn’t have to be Jill Stein, it can be any of the other hundreds of millions of Americans, as a write-in.
What is your take on that?
Careful, accusing someone of being a bot is against community rules and this user has and will report any perceived rules infringement.
The response in question is a copy-pasted spiel they have employed before to several users - me included. Often repeated verbatim, and sometimes multiple times to the same person such as to me here and here (within minutes of each other).
I'm not sure of any rules being broken, but it doesn't feel like good-faith organic discussion. Might just be able to skirt around the rules though.
Fair enough, thanks for the background. And I didn’t know that was a rule, so thanks.
I did also respond to the user organically in the second part of my post, so hopefully my post stays within the rules.
Oh I have no reason to report anything in this thread. It's just that some users can be very uncivil, which is against the rules.
You thought I was a bot and gave your reasons. And I replied to you telling why that assumption would be incorrect. That's fine.
But I have had some very nasty, very personal, very uncivil responses. And I did have to report them.
And the mods removed them for the toxicity. And those users got REALLY mad about it. One even sent me DM's that he would "follow me around, just to keep an eye on" me. So yeah, creepy stuff.
All because I posted political news story about the Green Party to this political news sub. lol
You have to vote strategically. That is: with an eye to what your vote will actually DO.
Not voting, or voting third party in this election will directly contribute to the installation of a fascist dictator and the destruction of democracy.
Voting is not dating. You're not trying to hook up with The ONE who is "perfect" for you.
Voting is public transport. You grab the one that's going to get you closer to where you want to go.
Its neither. Trump or Harris will win. They both have flaws, but one of them has significantly more including wanting to be a dictator and removing the right to vote going forward. The notion that a 3rd party vote dilutes is based in strategic voting. We have a system that benefits only 2 teams, refusal to work within that 2 team system without first erecting groundwork to actually have a chance at winning is either: 1) removing votes from the main candidate of those 2 teams you'd rather see prevail over the other or 2) not voting against the candidate you'd most like to see fail. It didn't matter which of those is the case, they are both diluting.
They are. The system is erected such that only a member of one of the 2 major parties will actually win the presidency. Therefore only votes for them actually matter.
It's not. First past the post only helps the dominate parties. They are the only ones that stand a chance at winning and they are the only ones who actually win. This results in a majority of the electorate compromising somewhere to settle on a less ideal candidate. Ranked choice voting and proportional representation with a parliamentary system of government is significantly better at representing the diverse views of the electorate.
That's fine. Your preferred candidate won't win and you will not be contributing to choosing a candidate that more closely aligns with your views than the other.
No it doesn't. Democracy thrives on having access to the polls. Outcomes of democracy thrive on them being educated, voting critically, and for their best interests, and having proportional representation.
Some people believing women shouldn't have control of their bodies, that they belong naked, standing in the kitchen without the right to vote, some people believing women should have autonomy and suffrage, some people believing women should have autonomy, but not the right to vote, and some people believing that a man should have 1 vote for him and all his dependents are a diverse selection of thoughts. But those thoughts and the people that hold them are not causing democracy to thrive.
All told there are tons of problems with our electoral system from the EC to paid ballot access for minor parties, first past the post, unlimited money, 2 year campaign cycle, the people that actually get nominated, strategic drawing of maps, culling voters from registrations, states leaving ERIC, and more, but those problems benefit a 2 party system and refusing to participate in that does not benefit your cause. What voting a 3rd party does do is get them closer to the 5% cutoff for access to federal Presidential Election Campaign Funds in their next election and signal a vehement opposition to some policy. However, that signal is easily ignored with such a low turnout.
So how do you get a third party presidential candidate to win? By actually building a 3rd party first. Run candidates in local elections, get them on school boards and mayorships. Start locally, build a following and work up to state. Start winning an appreciable percent of state legislature seats and move on to congressional seats. Once the American people are familiar with you as a "party" who actually is involved politically and demands a significant amount of real-estate on the hill and in their states and not simply as a "fringe party" taking a crap shot at power they will start to view your party as actually having a chance to win the presidency, they might actually vote for you in no small part, and you eventually can work your way to an actual victory.
Vote for who you want. If it's not one of the main candidates that may be ideological and even admirable, but right now it's ineffective. I'll be voting to reduce the chances of Trump winning office, because I actually want my vote to matter in future elections.
I have no doubt.
Which I don't practice nor believe in.
And, in my opinion, access to more than 2 political parties.
According to YOU. I mean, just accept that some people don't believe the same way you do. And if there are more of them that vote for their candidate, than yours, then that's how the American voting system goes.
I personally disagree with their line of thought, but again, if there are more of them than me, and their candidate wins, then I just continue voting for who I think best alignes with my values.
You have to understand, that they think the EXACT same way as you do. They think that YOU are wrong. Just because YOU believe in all of this, doesn't invalidate the fact that they do not believe you.
If democrats are that scared of Trump winning, then they should pic a candidate strong enough to over come his and any third party votes. Also maybe they shouldn't have waited till last minute to make Biden step down.
Having said that, Harris is going to win anyway, so I personally think you should relax. But it's your right to feel however you want. Also, it's other voters' right to feel however they want.
I will, thank you. And I respect and support your right to vote for who you want.
There's a lot more to my post that you neglected to address, so I'll just stick to your reply. I am writing this followup not in an attempt to convince you, but to seek clarity and understanding; unfortunately my rhetoric is often not perceived that way, though I do mean it earnestly.
Do you have a preference of the two? Are you okay with either of them winning?
What do you mean by that? I practice voting strategically, it's certainly a thing that exists. Are you saying you believe people in general shouldn't or do you really mean you believe there is no such thing? Are you also positing that you still believe it is based in fear?
What are you talking about? I listed a diverse selection of thoughts then stated truthfully that they were diverse. Is your fault found in my understanding that those thoughts are not causing democracy to thrive? People living under dictatorships, authoritarian regimes, and week democracies do not necessarily think in unison. People the world over have different thoughts and opinions even within their own communities and ruling structures. That doesn't cause democracy to spontaneously arise or even thrive. The distinction between democracy and other ruling structures is the ability of the people to vote. If you want democracy to thrive then the people need to actually be able to vote, not just think differently.
I fully understand that not everyone believes the same things I do, that has nothing to do with the ability for a 3rd party candidate to win.
I fully 100% agree. I just also expect that people will vote in their best interests, but recognize they don't necessarily, and I don't understand why that is. Voting for a 3rd party candidate does nothing for you, while voting for a major party candidate possibly can do something for you. I am a gay leftist atheist. One of the major candidates doesn't want me to be able to vote (or potentially live) the other one isn't immediately dismissive of who I am and can be reasoned with. If I vote for the former I am contributing to active oppression against me. If I vote for the latter I am not. If I vote for someone (or no one) else I am complicit in whatever happens to me. I don't know you. I'm sure there is some category that means a lot to you and that you see Dr. Stein recognizing, but she will not be able to act on that, whereas a major candidate will.