936
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 18 points 5 days ago

No. It really is. In 2016, 50,000 Pennsylvanians, including myself, voted for Jill Stein because we didn't like Hilary. Trump won Pennsylvania by less than 50,000 votes and won the presidency.

It was fucking stupid and we wouldn't even be discussing this piece of shit today, if we hadn't revenge voted.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

it sucks that Trump won, but your vote was valid and no third party voter was throwing their vote away.

they just lost.

Trump won for many other reasons besides third party voters.

there were a lot of bullshit tactics in 2016 that added up to way more votes lost that had a stronger impact on the election result than third-party voters sticking to their values.

shit, gerrymandering is still legal in the US and your voter registrations have practically no protection from interference. That's insane.

If you voted according to your values, you voted well.

[-] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago

I get what you're saying, because that's what I was saying in 2016, and if more people voted third party, it WOULD make a difference in the future.

But if those third party voters vote for Harris, it would make a BIGGER difference NOW.

[-] asret@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago

If you voted according to your values, you voted well.

Exactly. And while I agree, I also live somewhere that uses a variety of ranked choice voting for some elections.

If someone truly wants to vote their values they should also have some understanding of how their voting system works.

If a vote for the candidate you believe in results in your least preferred candidate getting ahead, shouldn't you consider a compromise vote to get a candidate closer to your values in power?

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

"If a vote for the candidate you believe in results in your least preferred candidate getting ahead, shouldn't you consider a compromise vote to get a candidate closer to your values in power?"

sure, and they probably do.

your statement implies that third party voters are politically illiterate and aren't considering their vote, which doesn't hold any water.

do you think all Harris or Trump voters are carefully considering their options?

many are voting according to a familiar primary color.

from simple logic, third-party voters are likely more politically considerate than primary color voters.

a lot of the arguments against third-party voting are arguments against voting in general.

that is usually my problem, as it is here, with complaining about third-party voting.

it is completely predicated on the assumption that 3rd party voters are making the "wrong" decision in some fundamental way that primary color voters are not, although the hypothetical flaws that could apply to a third- party voter already apply to primary color voters.

If you don't assume that the right to vote is "wrong" for people who don't agree with you in the first place, then your complaints about third party voting fall apart.

third party voters like a different candidate.

and that's good and they should vote for them if they want to.

[-] asret@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago

a lot of the arguments against third-party voting are arguments against voting in general.

Maybe. But with the system in place a vote for a third-party candidate is effectively an abstention. I think you're right that they're more politically considerate and wanting to make a difference. It's the desire to make a difference and effectively abstaining that seems incongruous.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

"Maybe."

absolutely.

3rd party voters don't consider....

neither do primary color voters.

3rd party voters are ignoring...

so are primary color voters.

"with the system in place a vote for a third-party candidate is effectively an abstention."

no.

they are probably not going to win an election, but actively voting is the opposite of abstaining.

"It's the desire to make a difference and effectively abstaining that seems incongruous."

they are making a difference by voting for what they believe in, for the policies they consider most impactful on their lives(aka "voting" in most countries).

you see voting as an abstention even though it's definitively the opposite of an abstention, implicitly based on consideration and values.

they probably see voting differently, maybe as an extension of their political will, or a form of activism, or a civic duty to be performed honestly.

I know I do.

this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
936 points (100.0% liked)

BestOfLemmy

7082 readers
245 users here now

Manual curation of great Lemmy discussions and threads

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS