• Baron Von J@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    You’re happily reducing the number of votes that the major party candidate who you think will do the most harm needs to receive in order to win your state.

    • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      2 months ago

      Every vote for Harris is stealing a vote from third-party candidates who represent real change. By sidelining those voices, you’re indirectly helping Trump win!

      If you really want to avoid a Trump win, supporting a viable alternative outside the two-party system is the only way to push the conversation forward.

      • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Every vote for Harris is stealing a vote from third-party candidates

        Sorry but that’s an absolute shit take. I didn’t mention any individual candidate or party. I didn’t say voting for a third party is a vote for opposite major party candidate. It’s just basic math that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in a state wins that state. If you think there is a state where any third party candidate has a chance of winning please show me the polling that backs it up. Otherwise, just admit that the winner will be the nominee from one of the two major party candidates, and admitting that acknowledge that basic math says the more 3rd party votes are cast, the fewer votes there are between the 2 major party candidates for one of them to overcome. You can be pissed off about it all you want, but it’s reality.

        If you really want to avoid a Trump win, supporting a viable alternative outside the two-party system is the only way to push the conversation forward.

        Unfortunately that is just idealist naivete. I vote in the major party primaries to try and get either the least crazy republican (gerrymandered districts) or the most progressive democratic candidate on the ballot. The only thing that will break the duopoly is to get RCV in every state, and the presidential election has fuck-all to do with accomplishing that.

        • barsquid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think they’ve switched candidates they’re voting for a few times, since they don’t have any values other than getting MAGA in office and their preferred candidates don’t have any values other than receiving foreign money.

          They’re mad every time they get called out on campaigning for MAGA. So of course we get “no u” style responses, whether or not it makes any sense whatsoever.

        • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s the very duopoly you’re stuck with that makes real change impossible without challenging it. While ranked-choice voting (RCV) is important, dismissing third-party voting as useless only keeps the system locked in place. Voting for a third party is part of pushing for bigger reforms like RCV—it’s a step towards showing there’s demand for alternatives outside the same old two-party narrative.

          • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            It’s the very duopoly you’re stuck with that makes real change impossible without challenging it.

            Indeed. But no 3rd party candidate has received a single EC vote since 1968. Voting 3rd party for president in the general clearly isn’t doing a god damn thing to shift the parties.

            While ranked-choice voting (RCV) is important, dismissing third-party voting as useless only keeps the system locked in place.

            I never said it was useless. But it’s true that voting for a less popular left-leaning is going to reduce the number of votes that the most popular right-leaning candidate needs to receive to beat the most popular left-leaning candidate.

            Voting for a third party is part of pushing for bigger reforms like RCV—it’s a step towards showing there’s demand for alternatives outside the same old two-party narrative.

            I don’t think you will get the ear of the Democratic party by skipping the primaries or voting in a 3rd party primary. They don’t know how you vote in a general, so you showing up in their primary is the only way they know reliably that you have opinions for their direction. Bernie succeeded in shifting the Democratic party left by running in the Democratic primary. Lets do that at the local levels, especially for primary candidates who support RCV. There’s pretty much no chance we can get RCV as a federal law, SCOTUS would absolutely knock it down as unconstitutional, so that fight has to come through the state legislatures.

            • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Bernie succeeded in shifting the Democratic party left by running in the Democratic primary.

              And look how bad they screwed him by choosing Hilary. How’d that work out?! lol

              I liked Bernie and would have voted for him too.

              But I am not listening to the duopoly any longer. I’m voting third party. Proudly.

              • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                2 months ago

                And look how bad they screwed him by choosing Hilary. How’d that work out?! lol

                She won more votes. There was non super-delegate rat fuckery thwarting the popular vote. Put that on the voters. But his campaign was popular enough that the party platform adopted some of his campaign goals:

                What did he win? Included in the new platform is his call for a $15 per hour minimum wage, Social Security expansion, a carbon tax to price its impact on the environment, tough language on Wall Street reform and antitrust, opposition to the death penalty, and a “reasoned pathway for future legalization” of marijuana.

                Also after his campaign we saw more progressives running and winning around the country. Just because he didn’t win the nomination doesn’t mean he utterly failed to achieve anything. And that’s what I’m talking about with winning state races in the Democratic primaries to fight for RCV and force the party left.

                • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  There was non super-delegate rat fuckery thwarting the popular vote. Put that on the voters.

                  Fair point!

                  But I don’t think after a Harris win we are going to magically have RCV. How many fucking years have they had to change the system? I just don’t share your faith they will.

                  So I’m not voting for them.

                  • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    But I don’t think after a Harris win we are going to magically have RCV

                    I never claimed electing Harris will get us RCV. I’ve said pretty consistently that the presidential election is in no way connected to us getting RCV. We will only get RCV from a bottom-up effort to shift individual state legislatures.