I dont like that voting third party in the US is essentially a non-vote for a party in the "system," but it is. I voted green party in the past, and ended up regretting it. And relavent to Stein, not a good person, or even party, to vote for now. Folks need to be active, and vote down ballot, and in "off cycle" years. Change takes time, the best way to be heard is through the down ballot when helpful.
It really does suck. The current voting system not only discourages anything other than a two party system, it basically guarantees it. And then it becomes one of those things where why the hell would one of those two parties, who's perpetually in charge, ever vote to change a system that would allow for another party (or parties) to come into power? It's just gonna be a slog to ever get it fully changed to something like ranked choice. But I'd absolutely love to be proven wrong.
many states have initiative systems. Alaska, for instance, implented a solid Ranked Choice Voting system for statewide elections. As we see from weed legalization: eventually ballot measures get soaked up by major parties.
Your 'protest vote' for Jill Stein is really a vote for Donald Trump
And it always has been.
Sometimes the Green Party protest vote is a vote for George H.W. Bush.
And George W. Bush.
And Donald Trump (the first time).
If the Green Party wasn't a thing, there would be a lot of elections that the Republicans wouldn't have won, because the margins were just that thin.
I wish we'd yell at the non-voters at least as equally as the 3rd party voters.
I wish we'd yell at democrats for failing to appeal to voters, which is really one of the most basic responsibilities of a politician.
It's impossible to appeal to everyone. 6 in 10 Americans believe Israel has a right to continue it's fight with Hamas. 6 in 10 Americans are also sympathetic to both sides of the conflict. The Dems are attempting to thread that needle. And while I don't agree with the unconditional support of Israel. The US is heavily invested in partnership with Israel and foreign policy has always shifted painfully slow. Despite all the death in the world, the US is involved in the least death it has been involved in since the WWII. We've been constantly at war since WWII. And shifting from the US being constantly at war to only arming our allies is at least some improvement.
One things certain, if Trump wins authoritarians will be emboldened worldwide and the amount of death will increase much much more, including here.
Exactly. It's the apithetic and doomer non-voters that are the real issue in US elections. Voter turn out is usually abhorrently low.
People can have all the fights they want about third party votes for president and other high offices, but third parties have great potential to make local/regional change. Sometimes it feels like people forget there is more than just a president in this country.
Who is this article for?
It doesn't address the real problem here: That first past the post voting is a broken system and that main party candidates should make more effort to fix this glaring hole in the voting system.
Because fptp is garbage, third parties are little more than a method to undermine a candidates opposition (in the US in 2024 the green party is ironically propped up in part by the republican party)
By leaving out fptp it just sounds like anti democracy drivel.
first past the post voting is a broken system and that main party candidates should make more effort to fix this glaring hole in the voting system.
The Democratic Party would rather lose to the Republican Party than change the rules to allow for a multi-party system.
That aside, the major parties don't want to reform the system they have because it's worked very well for them. Our parties are incredibly old by world standards. The Democrats have been around since the 18th century, and the Republicans have been around since the 1850s.
Some level of election reform will be on the ballot in 9 states this fall. Make sure you vote, if you can!
Also worth noting that these efforts are generally led mainly by democrats, with support from some moderate republicans. In contrast, 10 republican-led state legistatures have passed outright bans on RCV. One of these parties is not like the other!
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/05/nx-s1-4969563/ranked-choice-voting-bans
The democrats supported RCV in my state.
I mean doyee?
No one's voting 3rd party because they think they'll win, they're just throwing away a vote for Harris. Their statement is that they have no issue with another 4 years of Trump because their demands aren't being met anyway (cough genocide).
You can argue all day about the rationality and lack of utilitarianism, but it won't change anything.
If MLK were alive, he'd probably vote Democrat because he believes there is a solution in comprise over time, and keeping Republicans out is beneficial to that. (He generally favored the more progressive party).
If Malcolm X were alive, he'd probably be protesting just like the uncommitted group, but choose not to vote if his major demand wasn't met, because his reasoning would be that any promised or hypothetical solutions would not come to fruition. (The Ballot or the Bullet)
Both have valid reasoning, and it can obviously depend on the situation, but it bugs me that 50 years later people still don't understand why people choose to vote a certain way.
"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens’ Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection" - MLK
If you think casting any ballot is a form of protest you need to learn what real protest looks like.
Hint: It doesn’t involve participating in the system you’re protesting.
Not voting indirectly also is a vote for Trump.
Not voting isn't a protest either. Disrupting the voting? That would be a protest. But the Greens and Stein don't have the balls for that.
Yeah…. She’s a disaster and always has been. Been saying this for years.
Sigh. Sorry deleted by moderator for replying with same thing they said which was I feel necessarily aggressive but it’s understandable.
Anyways;
A vote for Green Party/PSL/etc. is better than the alternative for those voting third party: not voting at all.
Those voting 3rd party will still vote dem down ballot often and will also support dems on amendments and ballot measures.
It is not worth losing the vote across the board, so just chill out and let them vote.
IF the DNC actually wanted those votes it would court those votes. Biggest difference in PSL/Green and DNC is stance in Israel/palestine and some socialist policies. (Well and PSL wants to nationalize the top 100 companies, but that’s probably too much of an ask). Instead of any of that they’ve decided to praise Israel and crack down on immigration. So… sure if you want to court republicans go for it but don’t cry when leftists refuse to vote for you.
Also… people complaining trump supporters don’t vote 3rd party: 80% of third party votes in 2020 were right (libertarian+constitution at 1.22%) 20% were leftist (Green+PSL at 0.31%) so… yeah… 4x more right wing than left wing 3rd party voters.
Edit: updated numbers using 2020 data.
Those down ballot victories wont mean much in an environment where we have carved out the heart of our democracy and replaced it with dictatorship. Also the problem with the policy positions that would allow Democrats to win n green voters are also such that adopting them would cost >n moderates which is why people haven't adopted those positions mercenary though they are.
The green voters should adopt a pragmatic strategy whilst pushing for stuff like ranked choice voting or some such at the state level which would allow them to actually win federal office something they haven't done in 40 years!
I don't really see the appeal of Jill Stein but going after the few thousand people voting her is a ridiculous plan. It's not like they are going to vote for third party or Republican senators. If they are going to vote third party, they are doing it for key issues; no point in shooting yourself in the foot so that they become nonvoters and you Congress seats.
Ah yes, I remember how protest voting went in 2016
That wasn't the reason why democrats lost in 2016.
Voting for Jill Stein is only "taking a vote away" from Harris if you assume that the voter would've voted for Harris without Stein in the race.
That's a big assumption and I don't think there's any good reason to make such an assumption.
Voting for a minor party in terms of the effect on the outcome is approximately equivalent to not voting.
Let's break down this bullshit: A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Jill Stein. The election clerks count ballots marked for Stein and report the vote totals that Stein received. A vote for Jill Stein is literally a vote for Jill Stein.
The statement that a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump is, of course, metaphorical. It's asserting that a vote for Stein is morally equivalent to a vote for Trump by the speaker's moral reckoning. It's a rhetorical shortcut. This shortcut rests on the notion that either the voter would have voted for Harris, or that it is a moral imperative to stop Trump above all else.
That's a moral judgement call. Other people may judge differently. Flatly stating that a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump so vehemently and absolutely elides any possibility of discourse and clearly tells the Stein voter that the speaker will not listen to or consider any of their views, or reasons to vote for Stein.
Fine, you believe that, but when has telling people more or less directly that you do not have any intention of considering their political beliefs won them over to your side? How is that a good tactic? If it worked, then why not employ it on Trump supporters? Go ahead, tell them that the party you support will ignore what they think and want, and demand they vote for your candidate.
If it doesn't work on them, why should it work on Stein voters?
What a bunch of horseshit.
At best, third party voting has led to splitting votes and Woodrow Wilson winning despite having only 41% of the votes and at worst, it's done absolutely nothing.
This is why a vote for third party is a vote for trump. Because no trump supporter is gonna vote third party. If you're voting third party, it means one less vote for Harris which means less smaller chance of her winning which means higher chance of trump losing. Anyone saying otherwise is either dumb as fuck or is purposefully trying to split the votes to help trump win.
More accurately, a vote for Stein is a vote for whichever major party candidate the voter wouldn't have voted for. In most cases, someone voting for the Green Party would vote for Harris, so it's a vote for Trump.
That isn't a moral judgement, it's the facts of a two party system. -1 vote for Harris = +1 vote for Trump, no other votes matter.
And that's not telling someone you don't consider their political beliefs. Considering their political beliefs, they should vote for the major party candidate that they agree with the most, or they will effectively be voting for the one they agree with least.
That's not the approach with Trump supporters because Trump is the major party candidate they agree with most, by definition. If anything one should try to get Trump supporters to vote 3rd party, Libertarian or for RFK or whoever.
For the editor and anyone else who does not understand math: people voting for Trump means Trump gets a vote.
A vote for Jill Stein means Trump does not get a vote.
Would you rather have someone vote third party or vote Trump?
The whole thing feels like an argument intended to push people away rather than rally support.
If you guys think the spoiler effect isn't real then I've got a bridge to sell you. I voted Green in 2000. Never again.
I voted Green in 2020 because I hated Biden, and after 4 years of a Biden presidency I have concluded that I was a fucking moron and that my vote for Hawkins didn't amount to shit.
I remember what the Trump admin was like, and we're just now concluding the Biden admin, and when I look at the options on the table right now, I have:
Harris is the obvious choice for anyone who actually wants America to improve.
Maybe we should be asking Democrats why they aren't trying harder to satisfy leftist voters instead?
So practically speaking, there is no anti-genocide vote. There is no health care for everyone vote. There is no reduction in firearm caused deaths of children and teens vote. There is no anti corporate regulatory capture vote. These things just are not possible to achieve in America by voting.
Stein refused to call Putin a war criminal, so yes. There is no anti genocide vote.
They say this every single election and then give us genocide joe.
Cornell West 2024.
maybe if they would try to court literaly anything to the left of where reagon was they would not need to worry about people voting there. this is the Dems bed they need to lie in it and not yell at the voters for not longer supporting them
Comments turned off
The genocidal lib fears the well informed Jill voter.
Hilarious. More like they don't want to deal with the flood of nonsense from trolls, bots, and people that just turned 14.
Being informed means knowing Stein will not win the election. At least if Harris wins Ukraine can be saved.
If you live in a state that has even a slight chance to go red, yes, you should vote for Kamala. But if you live in a comfortably Blue or Red state, you should vote for the party that best reflects your ideology. I always vote for the farthest left candidate because I think that if my representatives see a strong third-party showing for a left-wing ideology, it will make them think twice before they pivot to the center.
If you live in a state that has even a slight chance to go red
You can only know that with accurate polling, and accurate polling doesn't exist. As long as we have a two party system, the electoral college, and no ranked-choice voting, voting for the "lesser evil" is the only sane choice. It sucks, but the choice really is binary. A third party vote is a discarded vote, but if you insist on discarding that vote, at least take the time to vote pragmatically down the rest of the ticket...
I think that if my representatives see a strong third-party showing for a left-wing ideology, it will make them think twice before they pivot to the center.
lol, and I cannot stress this enough, lmao.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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