286
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
286 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19103 readers
3027 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
Well, they do have third-party options, so technically it's not an either/or.
Edit: Downvoted, apparently for acknowledging that third parties exist. That's f**ked up.
...which have no chance of being anything other than just spoilers.
Well, third-parties do have a place. If it's a close election and you piss people off, you could lose due to their protest votes.
...assuming their voters would've shown up to vote Democratic or Republican in the first place, if they had no other options.
Maybe not quite the same, but I do believe the strong showing for Progressives in primaries last time around did influence the platform for the moderate that won the nomination for the Democrat party.
That’s arguably similar to voting for a third party and it did make a difference
So many American voters believe that if they vote for someone who doesn't win then they wasted their vote. I really don't get it. Wasting your vote is voting for a candidate you do not support.
...or, to quote the late Eugene V. Debs:
"It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."
If you are voting for someone who doesn't win, that's just the way it goes. Not everyone can win. However, in a first past the post system, if you are voting for someone with no chance of winning you are absolutely throwing away your vote. Until there is voting reform in America we all need to vote for the lesser of two evils. Preferably ones who are open to changing the system.
Nope, this isn't true. If a candidate can get at least 5% of the popular vote for the presidency, they will secure federal funding for their party in the next election cycle. Access to the debates, visibility, and legitimacy—factors that could make people who think like you consider it as a viable option—are all key aspects of how a party gets started. If everyone who didn't vote instead voted third party, well, the third party would probably win. However, 'everyone' is a big stretch, so let's consider people who want to vote but dislike the two major choices. They can get the ball rolling towards becoming an actual option.
Source: https://transition.fec.gov/info/chtwo.htm
Were votes for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein worth it in the 2016 election? Neither candidate secured 5% of the vote. So nobody got funding and the nation got Trump as president.
In my opinion those votes were thrown away. They will continue to be thrown away until we get rid of first past the post voting.
You still don't get it. Unfortunately most voters think like you and that's why we are stuck.
Yes if EVERYONE was able to vote 3rd party knowing there was a chance it would help we could be out of this situation. First past the post doesn't encourage that though. Until we adopt a system of voting that encourages people to actually vote with their heart instead of holding their noses, we will be stuck
for the amount of free salt from democrats, alone, my vote for jill stein was definitely worth it. can you nominate hilary again, please?!