Jill Stien only had 2% of the vote in 2016. That is nothing. Most of those people would have stayed home. The reason Hillary lost was because she was a bad canidiate who was unable to resonate with young 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
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 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.
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.
Considering Lemmy’s market share, these memes only exist to harass third party voters.
As if Lemmy, which has a small userspace spread out over the world, can influence the election. Yet, here we are with a overly active Democrat and Israeli brigade making sure dissenting opinions cannot exist.
But, if the goal isn’t necessarily to win the election, only to absolve yourself of blame if you lose the election, then blaming 3rd party voters is the stance for you.
Could it be a poor political platform, or just not even campaigning in the state? Maybe it’s just not being appealing enough to the 40% of the electorate that doesn’t vote. Couldn’t be.
I feel like all the hate for 3rd parties is the same as the hate for immigrants. It’s all redirection and obfuscation.
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.
Agreed. Hopefully Democrats put more effort into earning their votes.
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.
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
We have seen exactly zero indications that the republicans might start nominating better candidates anytime soon. The next candidate will probably be “Trump, but less incompetent at implementing his agenda”. It makes sense to want to stall as long as possible, but needing a democrat victory every single election from here out is not going to be a winning strategy longterm. If Trump winning is guaranteed global chaos, then there aren’t votes we can cast that will do anything other than slightly delay that.
Nonvoters suck too.
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.
Yes it’s the fault of people who voted for a third party. Not the people who didn’t vote. Not Trump. Not Clinton. It’s the people who voted for a third party candidate.
The duopoly got us here. Third party or bust.
You know, your right. At first I was thinking that blaming Trump voters is like blaming stupid people for being stupid. But then I thought at least the trump voters have a shot at getting Trump elected. The 3rd party voters don’t have a shot at getting their candidates elected. So 3rd party voters are even dumber than Trump voters. So you really are just too dumb to blame.
The 3rd party voters don’t have a shot at getting their candidates elected. So 3rd party voters are even dumber than Trump voters.
The 3rd party voters aren’t trying to get their candidate elected. They’re trying to raise awareness for third parties so more people support them. Eventually they’ll get some candidates into the Senate, onto the debate stage, and can slowly pick up steam from there.
What I’m saying is you’re actually correct to a certain degree - the 3rd party voters who are voting because they actually believe their candidate will win are probably dumber than Trump voters. But that’s not the point of voting 3rd party (at least not yet)
Those whose preferred ordering of candidates was third party clinton Trump contributed to the outcome they did not want with zero chance now, in the last 100 years or in the next 100 years ever electing a third party.
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.
You are right. The people who are saying that Jill Stein is a fascist clearly know nothing about her or her platform.
Im genuinely curious. I still haven’t seen a single person come up with any kind of argument as of now.
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.
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
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.
Third parties that can never win can in turn not make policy decisions.
Did people who voted for Stein get what they wanted by electing Trump?
Did Democrats get what they wanted by running Clinton?
No, she didn’t win. Did that sound like a cool comeback in your head?
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”
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
There you go again. Blame third parties for your own failure. Keep doing it, tell yourself it’s true.
Ranked choice voting eliminates the concept of spoiler candidates/parties.
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)
You are correct. Also, OP is correct.
