Letters to the Editor: Your 'protest vote' for Jill Stein is really a vote for Donald Trump
Letters to the Editor: Your 'protest vote' for Jill Stein is really a vote for Donald Trump
Don't like Kamala Harris' recent comment on guns? The solution is to support gun control, not vote for a Trump-enabling third-party spoiler.
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.
The current electoral system has myriad problems, and you’re absolutely right that focussing on local seats is a better path. I’m glad we’ve been seeing more comments like yours that do understand the stakes.
For people who rightly feel their interests aren’t adequately represented, rather than voting for spoilers or not voting at all, the best way to actually help fix these problems is to become an activist for electoral reform – starting now for 2028 and beyond. It usually feels like an afterthought brought up a month or two before the election, which is far too late.
Organisations like FairVote Action have been working to get alternative voting methods implemented in various states, and they’ve had some success.
If we want to escape this unfair and undemocratic voting system that’s shackled us to mediocrity and allowed fascism to gain a foothold, we have to keep thinking, educating, and acting now for the future. It’s doable if we work towards it.
Yep, I was also a young idiot that voted 3rd party in a swing state in 2016. Regretted it ever since. I admit that I put the way I viewed myself and what my values were were more important to me than anything. What I did was selfish and I'm fully on the Harris bandwagon.
It's just privilege all the way down. If you're ok with trump, or not worried about him, you're just riding the ivory tower
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.
They don't care, they've got corporate cash to spend.
Amen!
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.
I'm not seeing any non-voters in these types of threads.
But yeah, non voters are a bigger problem.
Right?!
Me too. It'd take some of the heat off of me for once! haha
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.
The Democratic Party would rather lose to the Republican Party than change the rules to allow for a multi-party system.
That's a weird false dichotomy. Why are you painting those as the two options?
The problem is if you believe this entirely then there's no mechanism to affect parties. Which is easy to disprove.
The overarching reality is that the parties are affected by things: culturally there's been a long period (150 years) of slowly unrestricting people with lots of resistance. Then there's also a economic right wing drift for decades, largely along capital accumulation lines.
I buy the idea that the parties are hard to affect but the idea they are impossible to affect seems ahistorical.
The Democratic Party would rather lose to the Republican Party than change the rules to allow for a multi-party system.
Exactly! I wish I could upvote you more than once, friend!
Your 'protest vote' for Jill Stein is really a vote for Donald Trump
And it always has been.
she ran during obama as well so it was also, technically, a vote for mccain
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
Change won't come overnight (at least without revolution). Like evolution, it requires constant pressure on the system. Changes that are too radical kill the organism.
A long as people think we can jump from Geoge H.W. Bush to Bernie Sanders in one election it's going to continue to fail.
Votw Harris this time. Vote for the person slightly more liberal than her next time, etc. It's a process.
That's one of my issues though, Harris is less liberal than Obama. It went in the opposite direction.
I advocated that Biden step down and allow a primary. Instead they ran with the VP because the DNC is not interested in actually bringing a more liberal or leftist candidate.
Meanwhile Trump has made Bush look good in comparison, so even if he stops running, an equal or worse candidate will simply take his place, and then we'll be faced with a similar problem.
It would take 20 years to make a grassroots movement work, but if we never start it's never gonna happen.
Fucking well said. And you have my upvote for mentioning my man, Malcom X. Great post!
No one’s voting 3rd party because they think they’ll win, they’re just throwing away a vote for Harris.
Would you prefer people voting 3rd party not vote at all?
If Malcolm X were alive
Why Malcolm X’s Family Is Suing the FBI, NYPD, and CIA 58 Years After His Death
Do you seriously think X was pro-FBI? Why on earth would he support a candidate who was?
Did... did you even read what I wrote....?
My point was that he is exactly against the system and playing it by voting for a major party. His whole speech was literally about utilizing your status as a voter in key swing states to demand change from candidates by threatening your power as a voter to choose, regardless of whether you vote 3rd party or not at all.
Yeah…. She’s a disaster and always has been. Been saying this for years.
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.
I don't get it...why would you even vote for Stein at this point? She's not going to win, she's not going to break the threshold for federal election funding, and I don't see a substantial distinction between her policy and Harris.
Brain worm at least had a 1 in 1000 of breaking the funding threshold. Jill has what, less than a chance of finding the winning lotto ticket in the middle of the desert?
The only result of that vote is boosting Donald's chances.
Why...why would you even vote for her at this point? What's the end game?
Harris platform has exactly zero policies in common with the green party
Are you a paid spokesperson for the Green party? I don't know how you can write something like that with a straight face.
Edit: I went to the green party page to make sure I'm not full of shit...I'm not...it's a slightly more liberal Democrat policy page.
Same focuses on equality, green energy, and inclusion.
I really don't get what you think a green party vote will get you that a vote for Harris won't. Other than another feather in the fedora of stupid mistakes we make when we are young, or you really like Russia. I don't get it at all.
^ Gotta love people downvoting a basic fact.
Well I'm definitely not voting Harris or Trump. So I could see how some people would decide on Stein.
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.
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.
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!
A vote for Green Party/PSL/etc. is better than the alternative for those voting third party: not voting at all.
That's not the only alternative. There is overlap in the spheres of voters of the green party and democratic party.
IF the DNC actually wanted those votes it would court those votes.
The issue is the spoiler effect which is a result of the overlap.
Again, 4x as many third party votes on the right. Spoiler effect ain’t shit to the left. If it was they would’ve actively tried and court progressives past Obama. The overlap exists yes but the DNC has not moved left much in 12 years leaving progressives pretty disenfranchised. It’s pretty obvious why many refuse to vote for a woman who used DNC funds to fight against the progressive candidate in primaries, or an old man who helped write one of the biggest anti-crime bills (which ends up a large anti-minority bill) and said nothing will fundamentally change,, or now a prosecutor who is “tough on immigration” refuses to denounce those actively committing genocide.
Medicare for all, or not supporting a genocide, or plenty of other options available to help attract progressives if they wanted it.
BUT again, rather than not vote at all those can at least vote 3rd party and still help down ballot. A lot better to win house and senate than lose everything.
Edit: updated to correct ratio of 4x based on 2020 data
the supreme court run by the Federalist Society is seeing a serious deterioration in rights and a vast expansion of corporatism. I'd argue the denial of more federalist society court judges is far more valuable (to both americans at home and the international community at large) than literally anything the fringe parties could contribute
likely a green party president would just be impeached if he/she refused to tow the line on israel or whatever - note that trumps first impeachment was on denying ukraine weapons.
While I appreciate the idea that we have a democracy in the US - corporate rule has become far more likely because of a decades long campaign by the far right billionaires to seize control of it
Ah yes, I remember how protest voting went in 2016
That wasn't the reason why democrats lost in 2016.
I remember the dems nominating a canidate who was hardly liked within the party and had no appeal without, and who was deeply concered in learching the party to the right... how about instead of assuming the dems are correct and the voters are wrong lets look at why the voters are disatisfied
Ah yes, I remember the dems nominating someone terrible who strongly deserves to be protested.
It didn't actually have any effect on 2016. Even if every single Jill Stien voter had gone to Clinton, she still would have needed to win over 50% of Gary Johnson's voters to win.. Since it's pretty unlikely that half of the Libertarian party's votes were from disaffected leftists, no, the protest vote did not cost Hillary the election.
I love watching remedial game theory being taught every day on multiple instances. What a delight.
Patronizing ex-Redditors vs paid trolls, who will win? The number of Lemmy's 50k users who are definitely all able to vote in American elections and are unaware enough to be undecided at this point will surely turn this tide.
Bien sûr que je vais voter aux élections américaines!
How much would trolls get paid to freakin' post on Lemmy?! Think about that for a bit...
LMAO
I love watching people think that this is "game theory".
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.
Climate town just did a really interesting video about how the election in 2000 was literally stolen by the Republicans via brothers Bush and Bush and their corrupt secretary of State in Florida. And honestly wouldn't matter if you had voted red, Green blue purple or rainbow.
Yes, it was stolen, however they were only able to do that because the margins were close. Had the green voters instead voted for the candidate closest to them that had a chance (Gore), then it would have mattered.
Green votes were well within the margin that would have triggered the automatic recount. It just would have been an automatic recount for Bush, not gore. Meaning if they blocked the hand recount like they did, it would have gone to gore.
The margins in the swing states legitimately come down to a couple thousand votes sometimes.
Don't be stupid. Vote Kamala. If you hate for some reason fine, but it's either that or...oh dear God.
The dems will never learn a lesson if they lose, they never have
The people who don't vote will far out number those who vote for Jill Stein. Why do we let them off the hook when they would have a larger impact on the election.
Don't get me wrong, Jill Stein sucks, but don't blame her voters. Blame those who don't vote to blame those who blindly vote for trump because of "the taxes"
I am tired of blaming someone who gets 2% for when bad things happen. Blame the 30% who did nothing.
I realize a portion of those who don't vote are due to voter suppression, bring the fire you bring for stein voters to those suppressing votes, it will be a more effective strategy. Stein and her voters are an easy scapegoat.
I blame both
Nope, totally blaming Stein voters. They're idiots, truly stupid, to believe that a protest vote does anything except hurt the major party they're most aligned with. Stein is a useful idiot, funded by fascists to leech votes from Democrats. She got Trump elected in 2016.
Third parties aren't a thing under our system. If we were a parliamentary system, sure, but not under our current system, so take your desires for boosting a third party and boost yourself into a lake.
Blaming Stein voters does nothing to solve any of the underlying issues with our system. She's a useful idiot for the Republicans and a useful scapegoat for the Democrats. Blindly and simply blaming her and her voters is allowing the status quo as much as voting for her, it's a short sighted problematic worldview that is a distraction from calling those currently in power to do anything to change the status quo of our system.
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.
Not voting for the Democrat gives the Democrats all the reason they need to ignore absolutely everything you say.
Voting for Democrats and donating to them gives you persuasive power within the party to help steer it.
LOL, what? Are you high? No, they're not going to listen to you if they have your vote already; why would they work for it if they already have it? And if they only tried to appeal to people who already voted for them, then they wouldn't spend all this time and energy trying to appeal to moderate conservatives, would they? Why aren't they ignoring them, and instead only ignoring the left?
And you think they're going to listen to me if I give them money? How much money do you think I'm giving them? Do you think I have a super pac? What do you think the conversations are in DCCC headquarters are like? "Hey guys, I know that the financial-services sector gave us $462 million in 2020, but @pjwestin just donated $50, and he'd like us to reinstate Glass-Steagall, maybe we should listen to him?" Like, Christ, maybe in deluded for thinking enough third-party votes will scare them, but at least I'm not naive enough to think I can negotiate with someone by giving them everything they want upfront.
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?
For industryStandard and whoever else may not understand FPTP: a vote for Kamala is a vote against Trump
A vote for Jill Stein is not a vote against Trump, and in fact hurts Kamala's chances the same way a Republican voting for RFK hurts Trump's chances
Would you rather have someone vote to stop Trump or throw away their vote?
This is illogical, as it assumes someone voting for stein would vote for Harris, which isn't the case.
In 2016 many Bernie Bro's spite voted for Trump. Stein is leeching votes from Harris but also provides an alternative for what could have turned into spite voters.
Corporate says spot the difference here.
For industryStandard and whoever else may not understand FPTP: a vote for Kamala is a vote against Trump
A vote for Jill Stein is not a vote against Trump, and in fact hurts Kamala
Would you rather have someone vote to stop Trump or throw away their vote?
Exactly! I'll share your downvotes...but you're right.
Bibi marches from genocide to a full-scale war in the Middle East. The donkey glumly follows its master. But they fein suprise when we don't meakly trudge behind.
I don't know why people are so worried, surely all the moderate Republicans you courted by mirroring GOP policy on immigration, the border, the military, aid to Israel, fossil fuels, social services, and the death penalty will be enough to win? I was assured by very confident Dems that they didn't need my dumb lefty vote to win this election 🤷
In California, it doesn't matter because the results are already known. In other states the calculus is a bit different.
Right? Imagine believing there are enough conscientious progressives / leftists to flip CA red because of third party voting. Sure, Jan.
Why don't democrats invest in actually bringing people to their movement instead of wasting their time on shitting on 3rd parties? Let people vote who they want to vote for, and who they feel voices their opinions the best. That's what democracy is at the end of the day.
Why don't third parties get out there and win some local elections and then build their way to the state level instead of wasting their time shitting on democrats? I'm not saying there's not plenty of good reasonsto shit on democrats but if any third party wants to be taken seriously they should start acting like it.
Why don’t third parties get out there and win some local elections and then build their way to the state level instead
Because that's never been how the slaver system works.
shitting on
democratsboth partiesThe people who run the system.
Because people are clearly unhappy with the democratic party, so there's obviously a market for it. People that would've otherwise stayed home instead of voting for the democrats now have a voice. That's what democracy looks like, at least in most European countries that is. It's fairly normal to see smaller parties pop up that better represent a subsection of the electorate than to see huge monolithic parties that try to encompass everything.
Those internal polling numbers from Michigan must be absolutely atrocious.
anyways, votePSL.org
Because I'm sure that LA, in california, is under threat of swinging right if people protest vote too much. I'm sure of it, it just makes sense.
They say this every single election and then give us genocide joe.
Cornell West 2024.
It's funny how America voted for Obama and now has Bush' foreign policy anyways.
Foreign policy is ironically where most dems and Republicans find the most common ground.
Well, at least it was until he-who-shall-not-be-named decided Putins cum tasted so incredibly he would never get off his knees again
There it is again, that funny feeling
I admire your spirit, brother! Good for you for standing up for yourself! I'm voting Rachele Fruit, but I support anyone who isn't supporting the Democrats and Republicans.
They never have this energy for the millions of actual Trump voters.
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.
No, this is absolute bullshit.
Well, now that you put it that way...
Nailed it... Probably gonna catch a lot of down votes from lib shills... But fuck 'em, this is exactly right. Honestly, I think any of these bullshit articles that will clearly push people further away must be part of the plan to help Trump... Or are the libs really still just this stupid? Have learned absolutely nothing from all their time losing
Thanks! I knew what kind of replies I'd get, and did. Essentially, doubling-down on the electoral calculus argument, and not considering that other people have different motivations.
I am soooo happy to see how many people are disagreeing with the "a vote for third party is a vote for Trump!" bs that usually so approved here. This discussion thread has made my day! lol
Great post!
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.
In reality a not insignificant portion of them would probably vote for Trump to "own the libs" honestly.
A not insignificant portion of them will vote for Donald because they are MAGAs cosplaying about wanting a third party.
Well... That would depend on how many people vote for a third party, doesn't it?
I mean, I know Americans love telling other Americans that voting third party is a wasted vote, but that's a self-fulfilling profacy. If everyone believes nobody is voting third party, then nobody will vote third party, so third parties never win, which will lead Americans to say that nobody votes for third parties.
Your first past the post system and your major news agencies who don't have the decency to pretend to be impartial is really doing a number on your country.
Edit: Always fun to see how Americans get so offended about being reminded of such a simple fact. All the excuses and the downvotes are great indications of how you're all doomed to be stuck with what you have.
You are your own worst enemy.
Our voting system fundamentally doesn't allow for third parties to win the vote.
Even if we said "vote for a third party, there's a statistically significant chance they might win!" this wouldn't fix the issue, because Jill Stein doesn't take votes from both sides equally.
Jill Stein leans left, which means people who are otherwise Democrat voters are going to be the largest demographic voting for her.
Our voting system is first past the post, which means this will actually decrease the chance of a left-leaning victory.
Let's say Dems get 55% of the vote without Jill Stein, and Reps get 45%. Democrats win.
Then, we add in Jill Stein. A significant amount of voters switch over, even some Republicans. (which, in reality, would probably not at all, because Jill Stein's policies are even further from their beliefs than even the Democrats are)
Dems get 35% of the vote. Reps get 40% of the vote. Jill Stein gets 25%. Democrats & Jill Stein lose, Republicans win.
If Jill Stein were entirely impartial, and took votes equally from each side, then we could have a vote like...
Dems get 45% of the vote. Reps get 35% of the vote. Jill Stein gets 20% of the vote. Democrats win in the same way they would have whether or not there was a third party.
The issue is that, obviously, Jill Stein isn't taking equal parts of the vote, so this inevitably just reduces votes for Democrats, without reducing votes for Republicans.
It's not an ideal system, (which is why we should advocate for Instant-Runoff or Rated voting) but it's the option that will lead to the most left-leaning outcome, as opposed to a heavily fascist one.
Yep!
LA Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for LA Times:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
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.
Yes. This is correct. Kudos to you for reaching the correct conclusion. It’s difficult to admit the system is fucked beyond repair; the fundamental shortcoming of Jill Stein voters. The only hope is to continue voting for the most progressive of the two candidates and pressure the winner to change the system (if that is even possible)
Stein refused to call Putin a war criminal, so yes. There is no anti genocide vote.
There is a vote for MORE or LESS of all of the above. It's not like your vote doesn't matter. Do you want more genocide, or less genocide? "No genocide" isn't an option. So do you want more genocide, or less genocide?
Looks like I'm not the only one on Lemmy who's not voting for the Duopoly. This is an awesome thread. Thanks for posting, OP!
Comments turned off
The genocidal lib fears the well informed Jill voter.
Being informed means knowing Stein will not win the election. At least if Harris wins Ukraine can be saved.
Truth.
Jill for president. <3
Bruh, I get downvotes just for posting articles about her. I can only imagine the drama you are gonna get for saying this right now. lol
I'm not voting for her, but I like her. So I support your support of her, friend.
And did that selfless doctor use medical billing codes that would charge the least amount to the patient? Does that doctor take a modest pay compared to the other medical staff who also play a vital role in the saving and preservation of lives. And how much time does that doctor spend with patients compared to the rest of the medical staff?
Edit: I am referring to the doctor who wrote the letter to the editor that this entire article is about. There is a hyperlink at the very beginning.
