this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
-4 points (0.0% liked)

politics

19090 readers
3948 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] luciferofastora@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You were shown a simple demonstration of the Spoiler Effect, which may cause Republicans to win the race if a third party manages to draw votes away from Democrats.

You're still endorsing voting third party, saying you don't care.

You're endorsing helping Republicans.

What the other poster is implying isn't that Republicans may vote Green. On the contrary, it's that Democrats may vote Green and split their vote, while Republicans will stand united.

At the end of the day, when the votes are counted, your ideology doesn't matter. Why you voted the way you did doesn't matter. What matters is who wins the election, and if you're consciously proposing an election strategy that may aid the Republicans, you're contributing to their chances of victory.

And if you're helping Republicans, don't be surprised if people call you a Republican.

[–] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Blaming third-party voters for a potential Republican victory is totally misguided. Lemmy has been crying about this in every post that is about third parties.

If Democrats are so worried about the spoiler effect, they should focus on putting forward stronger candidates who can unite their base.

Voting third-party is not an endorsement of Republicans; it's a demand for better representation and a push for real change.

If the Dem Party fails to inspire its voters, the fault lies with their candidates. Blame them, not the people who choose to vote their conscience.

[–] luciferofastora@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So you'd rather have a Republican victory than a mediocre Democrat?

[–] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So you’d rather have a Republican victory than a mediocre Democrat?

I’d rather vote for a candidate who truly represents my values than settle for mediocrity just to avoid a Republican win.

Accepting "mediocre" candidates only perpetuates a cycle of compromise without real progress.

[–] luciferofastora@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's a yes then.

The point is that this isn't just about conscientious voting. There is a strategic element to it. That's the unfortunate reality, and standing on principles alone won't change it.

Support efforts to abolish the FPTP system to replace it with something like RCV, where you could then in good conscience vote Green first and Dem second. Support efforts at proportional representation to have Green members in the Houses. Support anything thay breaks up the two-party monopoly so that voting for a candidate who truly represents your values no longer becomes a political gamble.

But if you're saying "I'd rather split the left-wing votes and risk a Trump victory than vote for Harris", people will rightly call you a Republican muppet, because you'd essentially prefer Trump over Harris.

[–] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I’d rather vote for a candidate who truly represents my values than settle for mediocrity just to avoid a Republican win.

Voting based on principles is essential because it challenges the very system that forces voters into choosing the lesser of two evils. Real change begins when we stop accepting the status quo and demand a system where all voices are fairly represented.

Supporting third-party candidates isn't about splitting the vote—it's about pushing for the reforms necessary to break the two-party monopoly that limits our democracy.

And no, I'm not a "republican muppet" just because I am not voting for your candidate. If I wanted to vote republican, then I'd vote republican.

If Democrats are so worried about the spoiler effect, they should focus on putting forward stronger candidates who can unite their base.

Voting third-party is not an endorsement of Republicans; it’s a demand for better representation and a push for real change.

If the Dem Party fails to inspire its voters, the fault lies with their candidates. Blame them, not the people who choose to vote their conscience.

[–] luciferofastora@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You're repeating yourself.

Supporting third-party candidates isn't about splitting the vote

...but that's the practical effect

—it's about pushing for the reforms necessary to break the two-party monopoly that limits our democracy

...which you expect to happen, if Trump wins?

And no, I'm not a "republican muppet" just because I am not voting for your candidate. If I wanted to vote republican, then I'd vote republican.

I don't think you want to vote Republican. I don't think you want a Republican government. I think you consider it an acceptable alternative to sacrificing principles. And therein lies the issue.

The question at the heart of it all - and try to answer just yes or no - is this:

Do you think Trump is preferable to Harris?

[–] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Do you think Trump is preferable to Harris?

They are both exactly the same to me.

I don't like either one. I won't vote for either one.

[–] luciferofastora@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"The demented felon rapist backed by christofascist authoritarians seeking to abolish democracy is just as bad as the lawyer that promises tax credits to the lower and middle class, banning price gouging and has sued Big Oil in the past, whose running mate publicly endorses RCV which would make additional parties viable"

💀

[–] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago

They are both exactly the same to me.

I don’t like either one. I won’t vote for either one.

And if your candidate is so awesome and is such a hero, then you have no worries about winning the election. So why so mad?