this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
822 points (86.6% liked)
BestOfLemmy
7209 readers
16 users here now
Manual curation of great Lemmy discussions and threads
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This part is true
Until we are no longer bound by the Electoral College, this is dangerously false. "Not Trump" isn't a candidate, and the single candidate with the most votes get the electoral votes. If Trump gets 49% and the "not Trump" votes get 51% but no single "not Trump" candidate gets above 49%, then Trump wins even though Trump got less votes than "not Trump"
The only way to meaningfully vote "not Trump" is to vote for the "not Trump" candidate who everyone is rallying around rather than throwing a stupid protest vote to a third party candidate.
In the 2016 republican primary, Trump got 44.9% of the vote. Three "not Trump" candidates got 50.2% combined, but it was divided between them.
If it is a protest vote, as goes your assumption without evidence? it's dumb, but it's their right.
most people vote on policy, so they're voting for third party candidates that have a stronger stance on whatever policy there is.
in this particular election, Harris already achieved more effective policy change than third candidate platforms in terms of environmentalism, minority rights, and so on, so it makes logical sense to vote for her if you're a political liberal, but if somebody wants to vote for Stein or anybody else because that candidate is more aligned with their views, that is just as valid as voting for Harris.
they are voting as they should, not as some are hoping they will be scared into voting.
voting sincerely is not "stupid".
If we ever move to some kind of ranked choice or go by the popular vote instead of this gamed Electoral College system? Sure, vote your conscience. Until then, I expect people to rub two brain cells together, see and acknowledge there is a bigger picture, and realize that their moral purity protest vote is counter-productive when everything they want will be impossible if Trump wins.
The system is broken, but that doesn't mean you have to abandon your principles.
their vote is as valid as any other.
it may be less effective because of the adequated US electoral system, but any vote itself is as valid as any other.
"I expect people to rub two brain cells together"
they're not dumb, you're insulting them because they disagree with your perspective.
"see and acknowledge there is a bigger picture"
they probably understand your perspective, there's no reason why they wouldn't .
"and realize that their moral purity protest vote"
again, they see things differently, so you are insulting them for no reason.
people talk about third party votes incorrectly as you are here, but most third-party voters vote for the candidate they most believe in, not purely is a protest against the two-party system .
that is a false narrative constructed by the people who have fallen prey to some moral adherence two-party system.
"everything they want will be impossible if Trump wins."
you are scared of what might happen if Trump wins. third party voters are not willing to compromise their values over their fear.
in this particular election, I don't think there's much argument for any of the third party candidates over Harris, but any of those votes are valid and valuable.
No. It really is. In 2016, 50,000 Pennsylvanians, including myself, voted for Jill Stein because we didn't like Hilary. Trump won Pennsylvania by less than 50,000 votes and won the presidency.
It was fucking stupid and we wouldn't even be discussing this piece of shit today, if we hadn't revenge voted.
it sucks that Trump won, but your vote was valid and no third party voter was throwing their vote away.
they just lost.
Trump won for many other reasons besides third party voters.
there were a lot of bullshit tactics in 2016 that added up to way more votes lost that had a stronger impact on the election result than third-party voters sticking to their values.
shit, gerrymandering is still legal in the US and your voter registrations have practically no protection from interference. That's insane.
If you voted according to your values, you voted well.
I get what you're saying, because that's what I was saying in 2016, and if more people voted third party, it WOULD make a difference in the future.
But if those third party voters vote for Harris, it would make a BIGGER difference NOW.
yup.
Exactly. And while I agree, I also live somewhere that uses a variety of ranked choice voting for some elections.
If someone truly wants to vote their values they should also have some understanding of how their voting system works.
If a vote for the candidate you believe in results in your least preferred candidate getting ahead, shouldn't you consider a compromise vote to get a candidate closer to your values in power?
"If a vote for the candidate you believe in results in your least preferred candidate getting ahead, shouldn't you consider a compromise vote to get a candidate closer to your values in power?"
sure, and they probably do.
your statement implies that third party voters are politically illiterate and aren't considering their vote, which doesn't hold any water.
do you think all Harris or Trump voters are carefully considering their options?
many are voting according to a familiar primary color.
from simple logic, third-party voters are likely more politically considerate than primary color voters.
a lot of the arguments against third-party voting are arguments against voting in general.
that is usually my problem, as it is here, with complaining about third-party voting.
it is completely predicated on the assumption that 3rd party voters are making the "wrong" decision in some fundamental way that primary color voters are not, although the hypothetical flaws that could apply to a third- party voter already apply to primary color voters.
If you don't assume that the right to vote is "wrong" for people who don't agree with you in the first place, then your complaints about third party voting fall apart.
third party voters like a different candidate.
and that's good and they should vote for them if they want to.
Maybe. But with the system in place a vote for a third-party candidate is effectively an abstention. I think you're right that they're more politically considerate and wanting to make a difference. It's the desire to make a difference and effectively abstaining that seems incongruous.
"Maybe."
absolutely.
3rd party voters don't consider....
neither do primary color voters.
3rd party voters are ignoring...
so are primary color voters.
"with the system in place a vote for a third-party candidate is effectively an abstention."
no.
they are probably not going to win an election, but actively voting is the opposite of abstaining.
"It's the desire to make a difference and effectively abstaining that seems incongruous."
they are making a difference by voting for what they believe in, for the policies they consider most impactful on their lives(aka "voting" in most countries).
you see voting as an abstention even though it's definitively the opposite of an abstention, implicitly based on consideration and values.
they probably see voting differently, maybe as an extension of their political will, or a form of activism, or a civic duty to be performed honestly.
I know I do.
Sincerity doesn't preclude stupidity. Voting to maintain an aesthetic while knowing it's causing greater harm is stupid.
"Sincerity doesn't preclude stupidity."
nor does sincerity require it.
bland sort of statement, isn't it?
"Voting to maintain an aesthetic"
is that how you vote?
try not to project your insecurities onto others.
It is their right and it's our right, if not duty, to call them out for exercising their right to the extreme detriment of the very constitution that grants them that right.
"if not duty"
definitely not duty...
"for exercising their right to the extreme detriment..."
...since this isn't happening.
"...that grants them that right."
a right you are trying to bully them into not exercising because they won't do what you say.
interfering with somebody's right to vote is not as jingoistic as you hope to perform.