Really not that complicated. If a person who would otherwise vote Democrat instead votes 3rd party, it helps the Republicans. So the Democrat politician says it to that person. Likewise, the Republican says it to those that would otherwise vote Republican. Both parties now claim that it helps the other, but whom it really helps depends on who would otherwise be voted for.
From my outside, proportional representative having-position, 3rd party voting only becomes viable if it is discussed outside of the 6 months before an election. And not in the general “3rd party” term, but with an actual party name attached.
The error there is that it assumes Democrats are entitled to Leftist votes, despite not representing Leftists in any conceivable manner. It’s why we see Muslim-Americans flocking to Jill Stein, for the majority of Muslim-Americans genocide against Palestinians is a hard no entirely.
Nothing I said implies Democrats are entitled to any votes, just basic statements about options and their outcomes.
Because of the terrible voting system, all those voting for Jill Stein will not affect the outcome. Voting 3rd party is barely better than not voting at all. If they would have otherwise preferred the Democrats, this helps Trump.
I also don’t think voting 3rd party will make Democrats adopt more leftist policies, as that risks losing centrist voters and their big business sponsors they rely on.
It’s a shame, but the best vote is one for Harris. Even when it comes to the Palestinian Genocide. If you want more 3rd party options, try to win a local election first and build momentum from there, don’t start with nothing 6 months before and try to win the federal election from there.
Nothing I said implies Democrats are entitled to any votes, just basic statements about options and their outcomes.
So then you don’t have any problems with Leftists voting for Claudia De La Crúz, rather than the Dems.
Because of the terrible voting system, all those voting for Jill Stein will not affect the outcome. Voting 3rd party is barely better than not voting at all. If they would have otherwise preferred the Democrats, this helps Trump.
So you do believe the Dems are entitled to Leftist votes for being ever-so-slightly less far-right. Leftists hate the dems and the reps, but now you are saying they help Trump by voting for their interests.
I also don’t think voting 3rd party will make Democrats adopt more leftist policies, as that risks losing centrist voters and their big business sponsors they rely on.
If the Dems lose votes to Leftists, and they wish to regain those votes, they have to move leftward. They won’t ever be Socialist, correct, but they move to where they lose votes.
It’s a shame, but the best vote is one for Harris. Even when it comes to the Palestinian Genocide. If you want more 3rd party options, try to win a local election first and build momentum from there, don’t start with nothing 6 months before and try to win the federal election from there.
No, voting for genocide is not the best for Palestinian Genocide, unless you support the Genocide.
Additionally, the idea that a third party can simply “work their way up” from local elections is absurd. That’s not how the electoral system is oriented in America, any third party that poses a genuine threat to the system would be fiercely combatted by both parties, like how both Republicans and Democrats are collaborating to kick PSL off the ballot in Georgia.
Leftists hate the dems and the reps, but now you are saying they help Trump by voting for their interests.
Correct. You seem to know all about the voting system, I don’t need to explain to you why that is.
If the Dems lose votes to Leftists, and they wish to regain those votes, they have to move leftward. They won’t ever be Socialist, correct, but they move to where they lose votes.
They will move in the direction they think they can get more votes. The past has shown that even when they lose, they prefer to move “center” rather than left.
No, voting for genocide is not the best for Palestinian Genocide, unless you support the Genocide.
Please explain how voting for your alternative 3rd party candidate, sitting at 0.3% at the polls if I’m not mistaken, will help.
The part of them fiercely fighting any 3rd party was a good point though. Still, the Momentum isn’t there.
Voting 3rd party is not and will not lead to revolution.
Correct. You seem to know all about the voting system, I don’t need to explain to you why that is.
You do. You said Dems are not entitled Leftist votes, but then said Leftists are helping Trump by voting for Cruz. By your logic, Libertarians and Non-Voters are also helping Trump. It’s nonsense.
They will move in the direction they think they can get more votes. The past has shown that even when they lose, they prefer to move “center” rather than left.
Depends on where they lost their votes from.
Please explain how voting for your alternative 3rd party candidate, sitting at 0.3% at the polls if I’m not mistaken, will help.
Because refusing to support the genocidal system is a good thing. Kamala and Trump are united on Gaza, voting for either will only result in more death and destruction.
Voting 3rd party is not and will not lead to revolution.
Revolution will come regardless. An increase in votes for Socialist candidates shows the public the strength Socialists are building and presents an alternative.
By your logic, Libertarians and Non-Voters are also helping Trump.
Whomever they think is the bigger evil, they help by not voting for the lesser evil. For why, see my first comment.
Depends on where they lost their votes from.
Disagree.
Kamala and Trump are united on Gaza, voting for either will only result in more death and destruction.
And voting for neither will also result in more death and destruction. You are refusing to explain how your choice would help, and I can make some damning assumptions why.
First objection. Why would the people in power change the voting system that got them in power? Well, the spoiler effect has cost both Dems & Reps a major election before. Getting rid of that glitch would be a win-win for major and minor parties!
This inference is completely defective. Of course a system has a cost, but the cost to a major party of changing to rcv is in many cases to completely hold decades-long strangleholds they previously had. It’s like saying, uh, “Right now Hugh cooks his food, but that sometimes results in him burning himself, so of course he’d be glad to sign on to eating food raw!”
This is it right here, the Dems (and even the Reps!) sometimes allow RCV at small scale to make it look like there’s even a chance of it at large scale, but materially will never allow it to happen.
The runoff voting downside is incorrect, the “drag the voters up to yellow and watch how it makes red win” example. This is not “see how making yellow more popular makes yellow lose”. It’s actually “see how making red more popular than yellow makes red win”. The movement of the voters is not for yellow, but for red and yellow in a way that gives more voters to red.
There is no way for yellow to be the only candidate to get a boost of voters in the demo. If there were, it would only demonstrate further that yellow would still continue to win.
Right on. Once the republicans have enough of a majority they will deal with all these voting problems.
Both parties say third party votes helps the other side. I have a feeling, it actually just helps 3rd party. Especially if both sides don’t want it.
Really not that complicated. If a person who would otherwise vote Democrat instead votes 3rd party, it helps the Republicans. So the Democrat politician says it to that person. Likewise, the Republican says it to those that would otherwise vote Republican. Both parties now claim that it helps the other, but whom it really helps depends on who would otherwise be voted for.
From my outside, proportional representative having-position, 3rd party voting only becomes viable if it is discussed outside of the 6 months before an election. And not in the general “3rd party” term, but with an actual party name attached.
The error there is that it assumes Democrats are entitled to Leftist votes, despite not representing Leftists in any conceivable manner. It’s why we see Muslim-Americans flocking to Jill Stein, for the majority of Muslim-Americans genocide against Palestinians is a hard no entirely.
Nothing I said implies Democrats are entitled to any votes, just basic statements about options and their outcomes.
Because of the terrible voting system, all those voting for Jill Stein will not affect the outcome. Voting 3rd party is barely better than not voting at all. If they would have otherwise preferred the Democrats, this helps Trump.
I also don’t think voting 3rd party will make Democrats adopt more leftist policies, as that risks losing centrist voters and their big business sponsors they rely on.
It’s a shame, but the best vote is one for Harris. Even when it comes to the Palestinian Genocide. If you want more 3rd party options, try to win a local election first and build momentum from there, don’t start with nothing 6 months before and try to win the federal election from there.
So then you don’t have any problems with Leftists voting for Claudia De La Crúz, rather than the Dems.
So you do believe the Dems are entitled to Leftist votes for being ever-so-slightly less far-right. Leftists hate the dems and the reps, but now you are saying they help Trump by voting for their interests.
If the Dems lose votes to Leftists, and they wish to regain those votes, they have to move leftward. They won’t ever be Socialist, correct, but they move to where they lose votes.
No, voting for genocide is not the best for Palestinian Genocide, unless you support the Genocide.
Additionally, the idea that a third party can simply “work their way up” from local elections is absurd. That’s not how the electoral system is oriented in America, any third party that poses a genuine threat to the system would be fiercely combatted by both parties, like how both Republicans and Democrats are collaborating to kick PSL off the ballot in Georgia.
The only path forward is Revolution.
Correct. You seem to know all about the voting system, I don’t need to explain to you why that is.
They will move in the direction they think they can get more votes. The past has shown that even when they lose, they prefer to move “center” rather than left.
Please explain how voting for your alternative 3rd party candidate, sitting at 0.3% at the polls if I’m not mistaken, will help.
The part of them fiercely fighting any 3rd party was a good point though. Still, the Momentum isn’t there.
Voting 3rd party is not and will not lead to revolution.
You do. You said Dems are not entitled Leftist votes, but then said Leftists are helping Trump by voting for Cruz. By your logic, Libertarians and Non-Voters are also helping Trump. It’s nonsense.
Depends on where they lost their votes from.
Because refusing to support the genocidal system is a good thing. Kamala and Trump are united on Gaza, voting for either will only result in more death and destruction.
Revolution will come regardless. An increase in votes for Socialist candidates shows the public the strength Socialists are building and presents an alternative.
Whomever they think is the bigger evil, they help by not voting for the lesser evil. For why, see my first comment.
Disagree.
And voting for neither will also result in more death and destruction. You are refusing to explain how your choice would help, and I can make some damning assumptions why.
this should be required reading before anyone is allowed to leave a comment on Lemmy about voting
This inference is completely defective. Of course a system has a cost, but the cost to a major party of changing to rcv is in many cases to completely hold decades-long strangleholds they previously had. It’s like saying, uh, “Right now Hugh cooks his food, but that sometimes results in him burning himself, so of course he’d be glad to sign on to eating food raw!”
This is it right here, the Dems (and even the Reps!) sometimes allow RCV at small scale to make it look like there’s even a chance of it at large scale, but materially will never allow it to happen.
The runoff voting downside is incorrect, the “drag the voters up to yellow and watch how it makes red win” example. This is not “see how making yellow more popular makes yellow lose”. It’s actually “see how making red more popular than yellow makes red win”. The movement of the voters is not for yellow, but for red and yellow in a way that gives more voters to red.
There is no way for yellow to be the only candidate to get a boost of voters in the demo. If there were, it would only demonstrate further that yellow would still continue to win.
Runoff voting is the way.