691
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 02 Jul 2024
691 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
44151 readers
1047 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
When they're adamant that voting third party in the United States will be useful in some capacity, I assume they're 13
The youngsters are downvoting you, but what you're saying is sad but true. It's the reason Bernie never ran as an independent, he knew it would hand the victory to republicans on a silver platter.
I don't assume they are 13, but they at least aren't old enough to remember what happened in 2016.
Or any other election year, for that matter. I don't think a third party candidate has gotten a significant voter block in 100 years.
Ross Perot got 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992. While he didn’t get any electoral votes he likely prevented a second HW Bush term.
the analysis shows perot damaged Clinton's margin of victory.
Source on this? I was young but I remember that election. Perot seemed to be like some kind of ultracapitalist "run the country like a business" moron that people respected because he was rich. My grandpa loved him and I rarely heard him talk politics. He was also only educated to the sixth grade for what that's worth.
Seems like the kind of guy to take a bite out of the conservative vote.
I'm gonna fix my ignorance and go look him up right now though.
Edit-- I'm back, learned a lot. I love that he supported electronic direct democracy way back in 1992. He was in favor of gun control and money for AIDS research. Openly supported gay rights in 1996 but notably not until his second campaign when he really had no chance.
He didn't believe trickle down economics worked. Was a billionaire who spoke against greed which is really strange. But me calling him an ultracapitalist is probably misplaced. Also not a moron. He was into taxing the wealthy, starting to like this guy, but balancing the budget by cutting social programs, nevermind do not like.
He opposed outsourcing factory jobs and favored environmental protection. He wanted to decrease the budgets of both the military and NASA. Wanted to cancel the space station.
Quite the complicated guy. I love some of his policies and hate others. Seems like a weird mix when viewed through a modern lens. I think I'd have considered voting for him if I was ten years older in '92. Probably would have voted for Clinton though who notably achieved one of Perot's primary goals, which was to balance the budget.
So I ended up researching Clinton's campaign and it was straight up racist against black people. He also pledged to end welfare "as we know it". I think I actually would have voted for Perot! Maybe there's something to what you're saying about reducing Clinton's margin of victory.
Fair -- outliers might exist, on rare occasion
Yep. A third party candidate hasn't gotten a single electoral college vote since George Wallace, and the only time a third party has done better than either a Democrat or a Republican was with Theodore Roosevelt and his Bull Moose party, which crushed Taft but got absolutely obliterated in turn by Wilson due to the spoiler effect.
Conversely: when they say this is the most important election of "our lifetimes", and the world will end if we lose.
(Doesn't mean they're wrong)
I know a full grown adult that does that in every election. Local elections, sure, I can understand, but he does that with all of them, Basically a card carrying communist that's a useful idiot for right wing politicians.
Almost anyone with an irrational political stance betrays their youth.
Political ideology has always captivated the passions of youth, but isn't successfully implemented or even internalized except by people with age and experience and emotional regulation.
I agree with you. Do you think people become more conservative with age or is it society becoming more progressive and leaving them behind? Obviously ignoring the current regressive times of the last eight+ years there.
To contribute an answer to the original question I offer this post as evidence of age- thinking about how much has changed during my life may have come through above.
I am getting up there in years and seeing this play out over and over.
I think every generation wants to be more progressive than the last, but we tend to carry baggage of fear and insecurity through the generations. Or more specifically, older people tend to gain the political and monetary capital needed to affect policy and shape our societal outlook and attitude. They will always be more conservative than the younger generation who will want more freedoms and personal rights, inherently, and as the ruling class will clash with newer sensibilities, over and over.
What we're asking here, is the conservatism reflected in our elders and leadership now broadly more harmful or helpful? Are we out of the touch or is it the kids who are wrong?
I think it's a mix but mostly it's not our real problem. Our real problem is that no matter what our age, we have greatly misunderstood how our own existence works. Most people have been taught that they have brains designed to exercise logic and reason and that brains are the best thing ever if you use them and make them smart.
No, our brains are not logical tools. We are not a rational species. There was no "age of enlightenment." It's all a hoax. Our brains are tools designed to write a story to explain how you feel. And that's it. It doesn't even have to make sense. When we all learn how our brains actually work we will collectively make better decisions, have more compassion for each other, and likely sink into even deeper despair as we all start to realize we have no free will.
You would need some real insurance that others were commuted to vote 3rd party no matter what. Otherwise the real benifit is just getting to that 5% mark where third parties get some bennies like federal funding and automatic ballot access in some places. Which is minor vs say stopping a campaign of vengeance from a candidate who has acted feloniously already and has abused his position to black bag political opponents before.
Why not vote 3rd party in states that only go one direction? Take NY for instance. What the fuck harm comes from voting 3rd party assholes for president? One time the state elected a republican candidate and it was (still is I think) the largest landslide in history. I'm 36 and have always hated the 2 party system. It's been easier and easier as I got older too with increasing political polarity.
Because if enough people do that, it actually can result in that state not "doing what it always does."
Assuming voting for X is going to result in Y getting elected over Z "anyways" is not a good strategy for getting what you want.
What I want is more than 2 fucking options. What you are assuming is that I wouldn't get what I want if a conservative won NY. For this to happen there would need to be a mass exodus of democrats abandoning their party to vote conservative. So for that to happen either the democratic candidate is God awful or the conservative is a homerun. Either way I dont give a fuck.
I vote for my interests in state and local elections. Presidential elections in NY are the least concerning elections as they should be for every fuckin American.
If you want more than two options vote for Democrats in primaries that support ranked choice voting initiatives. As it stands, you realistically have a binary choice and until you have ranked choice voting that will continue to be true.
This, comments like "Presidential elections in NY are the least concerning elections as they should be for every fuckin American" is how you know someone is a kid. Saying the presidential election is the least concerning election? The guy who appoints Supreme Court Justices that shape our laws and lives? The guy who basically runs the country, don't worry about that one. What the actual fuck lol.
Gave my age in the parent comment of the one you replied to mid-thread. Unless you already saw it and are asserting that my age qualifies me as a child! In that case, my receding hair line is flattered!
Overreacting to comments that don't align with your own doesn't give away age but sure as shit shows your maturity.
Read my parent comments for better context and if you need help understanding the fundamentals of federal, state and local elections, I'm happy to explain further! 🍻
Well first, you can lie, it's the Internet, it's known to happen from time to time. You could be older but I find that idea worrying and a little depressing.
Secondly, me pointing out that saying "presedetail elections should be the least concerning to everyone" is just straight ignorance. I mean you don't even seem to understand the impact of the Supreme Court on every day citizens alone (abortion rights much) and how they are appointed, why would I bother sift through your nonsense comments lol.
Either way, hope you get some good information/education from all the responses people are giving ya! 🍻
So you didn't read the comments that added context lol. Starting to think this is more of a reading comprehension issue lol.
So Ill give you the outline:
I live in NY.
There would have to be like 5 million democrats voting republican to even create a scenario where my voting 3rd party affected the outcome.
NY goes democratic every election no matter what my vote is for. For that reason the presidential election is the least important election.
The quote you keep taking out of context emphasized the importance of voting for EVERY elected official because even with Roe v Wade over turned nothing has changed where I live for how abortions are handled.
Yes, so let me introduce this concept called "swing states" where it is not like NY. There, votes matter. So them voting does matter and have an impact. Either way, even if you know your state will go one way, the outcome of the election is still very impactful to citizens.
You said the presidential election should be the least concerning election for everyone. That's just wrong. Swing states have power and the president can impact everyone. It is very consequential to multiple people.
If you're upset that NY is always blue blame republicans who are against getting rid of the electoral college and having rank choice voting.
Or you can just keep insulting me because I disagree with you, that's a very Republican move.
But sure, over turning Row v Wade hasn't impacted you directly so it doesn't matter. No one should be concerned about the president because big changes to law haven't impacted you so they shouldn't matter to anyone. Jfc... Some people were impacted you know, you are aware of that right? And that was a direct result of the president that was elected selecting a conservative justice. But hey, it didn't effect you so it shouldn't matter to anyone right?
"Presidential elections in NY are the least concerning elections as they should be for every fuckin American."
You can say I have a comprehension issues all you want, but you seem to think all voters shouldn't care about the presidental election because it won't impact you in NY, big lol.
they did it it Britain i guess since the lib dems are growing