It’s nonsense to assume that every vote for Stein in 2016 would have voted for Clinton. Most exit polls showed that people who voted for Stein or Johnson would not have voted in the first place. Hillary was a losing candidate from the start.
Nobody ever claimed “everybody”, just the “enough”, and the data actually reflects that. Even if they didn’t vote, Clinton would’ve won.
I voted for Stein for 2016 (before we knew what we know now), and I voted for Howie Hawkins in 2020. But then I lived in New York, and I knew my vote wouldn’t matter, so I could vote my conscience without threatening the concept of democracy. This year I am in Florida, and I damn well fucking know I’m gonna vote for Kamala Harris and a straight democratic ticket below that. Because I understand the consequences of my actions.
Let us salute this brave soul who has moved to Florida.
God speed.
It was family stuff. I absolutely hate living here, I wanna get back to New York as soon as possible.
That sucks, mate.
Hope you are able to move back soon.
Anybody who cares about Green policy should vote against Trump.
Logically, yeah.
But if these voters were logical they would realize the issue with FPTP voting systems and not fuck with 3rd parties in the first place.
Nader is a mich better example. If 99% of the Florida Nader voters had stayed home and the remaining 1% voted for Gore, he would have won even with the Supreme Court’s decision to stop the recount.
But then I hear so many Trump voters would have voted for Bernie. So who is the real spoiler?
Imagine supporting a political party so unappealing to a majority of the population, that you resort to blaming them when you don’t win.
Trump was appealing enough to win. Was it that he was actually good or are a good portion of voters just fucking idiots?
It is harder to get the bothsidesing done if you think of Repubs as having agency and responsibility for their actions, instead of believing only Dems do. Dems as a collective are also all as bad as their worst member, whom they are all actively colluding with. Repubs are just a few bad apples so we can interpret their actions individually.
Weak ACA is the Dems’ fault, Citizens United is the Dems’ fault, Donald is the Dems’ fault, Dobbs is the Dems’ fault, Chevron is the Dems’ fault.
That part. They are repeating 2016 talking points again.
This tbh, if we don’t want Green votes, make better reasons to them to vote the way you want them to vote. They vote green because they don’t agree with the other candidates. They should fix that instead of complaining about it.
Somehow “not facism” isn’t enough for some people
Bro the overly repetitive usage of that word won’t guarantee you the votes, and worst, may even deter people from voting
By most definitions (some require national malitia backing) it’s fascism. Why mince words or pretend the current rhetoric isn’t following the exact same route as previous iterations?
Funding genocide is fascist.
I agree. Voting for Jill will fund the trashcan with one ballot. So I guess I’ll have to take the advice of Uncommitted and vote Harris because I am against Donald instead of for Harris.
Why do you think you had to resort to mental gymnastics there?
Why do you think Donald “finish them” “best King of Israel” “Biden is trying to hold Netanyahu back, he should be doing the opposite” Trump would be better for Gaza, or how do you think anyone other than Harris or Trump could become president, or how do you think that letting Trump win absolves you of complicity? Inaction is a moral choice, and it’s not like you haven’t been warmed that Trump is today the most fascist candidate this close to the presidency in our lifetimes.
The mental gymnastics of… listening to what Uncommitted has asked voters to do?
Fascism is fascism, not sure what you are on about. A vote for Trump or Jill is just a vote for genocide here with the rhetoric the right is currently spouting. But I guess fuck trans rights, immigrants, the climate, and the economy because your hill to die on is peace in the Middle East. JFC
It’s literally not actually. All political ideologies are capable of genocide when taken to extremes, and many have done so. Colonial America, Stalinist Russia, too many absolute monarchies to count…none of those were fascist, but they were genocidal. We associate genocide with fascism because of the Holocaust, but they’re two different concepts.
Qualifications considered by those funding her campaign:
For political accomplishments, she did managed to get invited to meeting with putin. You can’t be just anybody. You have to give it to her.
As for the qualifications, trump showed us that you can do it at your own leisure, nobody will fire you if you won’t do it.
If the US had a single transferable vote system then you could comfortably vote for a third party, if you wanted to, without helping out the opponent you dislike the most.
You just rank the candidates, so you could rank Jill Stein as 1 if you want, then Harris as 2, and Trump below that. So then if Stein has fewer votes than Harris and Trump each have (likely) then her votes would transfer to whoever her voters ranked 2nd.
Under this system, a third party candidate is more likely to win (maybe you don’t like Jill Stein, but conceivably a third party could produce a good candidate). The ballot under this system looks like this:
Arizona Prop 140 is trying to implement this exact system. I hope it passes.
And Colorado proposition 131
The ballot example is bad, but I definitely think this is an improvement on the current system.
As with every system; someone will eventually find flaws and then it’ll need updated. Which is how democratic countries should work.
If someone tells you the system is good enough already, you can guarantee they benefit from some inequality.
We’ve already found the flaws in RCV and STV.
Ranked Choice has some serious flaws.
The first and strangest is the monotonicity criterion.
Ranked Choice is the only system that fails it. What it means is that you can actually improve a candidate’s chance of winning by lowering their ranking on your ballot.
Oh yeah, it also still has the spoiler effect, where a third party can fuck over an election. It’s just slightly harder to achieve. But the mechanism that forces two parties remains.
It’s also hard to count and thus more susceptible to malicious actors.
Some of us have been screaming about these flaws for years.
There are better options. Approval is one. It’s dead simple. The ballot instructions are as such. Do you approve of the candidate, mark yes or no next to any, all or none of the candidates listed.
Candidates with the highest approval win.
Approval is immune to the Spoiler effect. It would be a direct improvement vs anything being done in the world today.
And it’s still not the best system out there.
That’s likely to be STAR.
Immune to the Spoiler effect and also protected vs clone candidates and such, while allowing the voter to show clear preferences.
It also is constructed in such a way that it gets around some of those “one person one vote” laws put in place by the anti-voting reform people.
Approval voting absolutely sucks. Not for any mathematical reason, it may very well give us the best results mathematically, but for psychological reasons. If you give approval to both the safe (popular) candidate and your preferred one, then you won’t feel you have expressed your preference once the popular candidate wins. If you only approve your preferred candidate and an opposing (very undesirable) candidate wins, you again regret not voting tactically. In either case, you justifiably have no confidence in the results.
Also, as a candidate, how do you get people to not mark other candidates in addition to you? The answer is you don’t run on your own positions but attacking opponents. Not very healthy for democracy.
I need to think more on STAR.
Gives a much better breakdown than I could.
Cause popular vote is such a bad idea? This is just as flawed as the electoral college.
She’s has experience going to Russia.
…At which she shared a table with Vladimir Putin and disgraced National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
Twisted mediocre bitch achieved everything she set out to do in 2016.
She must be very smug and proud of herself.Putin agrees.
How is Stein connected to Putin?
Don’t forget an endorsement from David Duke.
thats… not how endorsements work. Endorsements dont imply any relationship.
I’m not saying that she isnt a peice of shit, she seems to be but we dont need to be making stuff up.yes and no. this guy endorsing her is because he realizes she is their best shot at getting Trump to win.
deleted by creator
It does not make sense for a career racist to publicly endorse someone at all. Maybe I don’t have the right brainworms.
Even Donald. Repub voters are all bigoted as their primary motivation, so a racist endorsing Donald likely improves their opinion of him. But they already know Donald is a racist, so that’s not new information. All it does is add a small speedbump to pretending he isn’t racist.
I’m not making shit up.
https://democrats.org/news/former-kkk-leader-david-duke-endorses-jill-stein/
That doesn’t address what they said at all.
Their last line is “we don’t need to be making shit up” and the above poster showed that it was factual. It does address one part.
Not the first part about the mechanics of the endorsement but the final part, implying it’s a lie that David Duke endorsed Jill Stein for president.
Greens have been a joke since Nader and even then…
Hardest job in the world?
Given how big a shitshow the US is, it feels like it’s a much easier job than most leaders of state. I’d go as far as to say that if your platform isn’t one of complete reform (it never is) it’s probably one of the easiest jobs.
The US being a shit-show is exactly why this job is so hard. You’re constantly having to deal with political crap from Congress or the Supreme Court, state governors suing your administration whenever it does something they don’t like, opposition pundits calling for your impeachment, and that’s not even mentioning America’s foreign affairs. There’s a reason people call the president of the United States the “leader of the free world”.
The US has a geopolitical position to defend and it’s a never ending queue of foreign leaders clogging up your phone line and calendar book either threatening you or grovelling to you. And then there is the unique military position of being the commander-in-chief of the most powerful army in the history of mankind. So the president also has to attend military briefings, decide how to maintain and achieve the USA’s foreign policy objectives using that army, whether to intervene in foreign wars, and so on. The US just has their fingers in so many goddamn pies that the job of president is unbelievably stressful. Yes, you’re the most powerful man (or hopefully next year, woman) in the world, but with that immense power comes a humongous amount of responsibility. You could change the course of human history by merely scrawling some words on a piece of paper. You have the power to fuck up millions of people’s days across the world with a stroke of a pen or by shouting some words down a phone.
You have to contrast this role with the leader of a country that is comparatively geopolitically irrelevant—their foreign policy is probably limited to dealing with the regional counterparts and/or the leaders of the USA, China, or Russia. The President of the United States has to deal with every country in the world because if there’s one lesson we Americans will never learn, it’s to mind our own goddamn business.
Just look at Obama—the man turned from a young energetic candidate to a ready-to-retire late middle-aged man after just eight years in office. Meanwhile, the prime minister of a country like Singapore governed two decades and is still in good condition to continue a career in politics.
Third party? More like ten or twelve! I was gobsmacked when I saw how many presidential candidates were on my ballot who I haven’t heard of.
Having a president from a political party that has no representatives or senators or judges is going to be an exercise in futility.
Various political parties could compete to displace the Republicans with more representative electoral systems. voters could choose their preferred candidates while still counting their votes against the Republican party, even if their choice doesn’t win, all without the spoiler effect. Since voting methods are determined at the state level, federal reforms aren’t necessary; some states have already implemented changes. For example, Alaska recently opted for a more moderate conservative over Sarah Palin thanks to ranked-choice voting.
Who would oppose multiple opportunities to weaken Republican influence? The Democratic Party. In blue states, they could replace the First Past The Post system with one that eliminates the spoiler effect. Yet, time and again, Democrats remain inactive on passing state-level electoral reforms in the states they control.
Meanwhile, Republicans are working to safeguard FPTP voting in red states. Why do Democrats continue to use a system favored by Republicans? Why arent they searching for an alternative to FPTP voting? It’s not that Democrats are unaware of the flaws in the voting system. Mentioning a third-party candidate to any Democrat will quickly reveal their in depth understanding of these mathematical flaws in the voting system. particularly concerning the Green Party apparently.
If Democrats understand the problem with the voting system, but refuse to address it, it suggests they prefer a tenuous balance over a potential rise of authoritarianism rather than genuinely competing for our votes. They seem more willing to allow the country to drift toward authoritarianism than to engage on an even playing field.
It appears to be party over country, regardless of the consequences.
I swear I’ve seen this same thing, word for word, by a different username.
Takes a real and TRULY out of touch individual to drop “monotonicity paradox” with ZERO attempt at offering context to the reader - either this is an actual thing (in which case you’re an asshole) or it’s a full on fabrication (which would make you a liar).
Behavior, like what you’ve demonstrated here, is a phenomena all too easily explained by the Hammersmith Bongo Reversal, it’s supercilious proxy darvents and various derivative hyper dogmas.
Embraced by Dick Cheney.
Tough on the border
Pro-Police
Wants the most lethal fighting force in the world
Committed to Israel. (Genocide)
Wants a Republican in their cabinet
You don’t hate the Republicans as much as you pretend you do. I’ll be voting third party. I don’t support Republicans, including ones with (D) next to their name.
What about those named “Jill Stein”
Yes, wants the most lethal fighting force in the world…attacking Ukraine into submission. She would do her best to get this done as president.
Stein has arranged a lot of good climate protests. Never held office though, as far as I can find.
