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.
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.
She's also a Russian asset and a vaccine denier.
I hadn't heard the vaccine thing? What did she say?
I read about it during a different election cycle. I remember it so clearly because an otherwise sensible friend suddenly started talking about how vaccines didn't work when I mentioned it to her.
Qualifications considered by those funding her campaign:
What event is this?
A dinner celebrating the 10th anniversary of RT in Moscow in 2017.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/guess-who-came-dinner-flynn-putin-n742696
It's pretty damn indefensible.
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:
Australia had this, our parliament is full of complete assholes. The issue of candidates won't be fixed by preferential voting. We're the assholes.
On the plus side Stein is a miles better candidate then Trump and yet his polualty is ludicrious. You also can't make any changes if you keep doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome.
People at e bizzare, can't vite fkwr Stein bevoase of this and that but a tozic mile long laundry list of shit from other caduaudates is excused.
Hardest job in the workd is laughable, go pick strawberries in baking heat for a week, that's a hard.job.
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.
Cause popular vote is such a bad idea? This is just as flawed as the electoral college.
Can we just say that, going forward, if you're over 70, we don't want you in ANY high pressure leadership role.
Your career is over. Shuffle the fuck off.
Pretending these elderly politicians weren't elected in...
Being President of the US is absolutely not the hardest job in the world if clowns like Trump and Bush could do it.
There's a difference in doing it and doing it well
She has a rich list of accomplishments! Like being a Russian asset
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.
That part. They are repeating 2016 talking points again.
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?
The first time I voted, I cast it for our green party, not because I wanted them to win, but because I knew they wouldn't win and my vote would have no effect on the outcome. I haven't been paying much attention to politics at that point in time so I didn't have an opinion on who should win. I just wanted to vote to understand how the process works.
Sure and maybe by not voting these people could've said "I wasn't foolish, I was just lazy!"
But unfortunately for them, Jill Stein was on the ballot and they foolishly voted for her and here we are.
Oh ð youngins hate ðis one.
Little shitstains become allergic to maþ ð red second it requires ðem to acknowledge shit like ðis or ðat Bernie was absolutely smacked by ð popular vote boþ times.
This thread mostly shows how broken the democratic system in the US is, not that she did anything wrong. Try coming to a real democracy with many parties and coalitions being formed. They actually thrive on dissent, finding compromise and collaborating for the greater good ;)
The fact that this thread replies to facts by going "b-but, Russia" like it's still fucking 2016 is just peak political literacy from USians. Not only do they vote for candidates everyone hates, they get absolutely piss mad if a candidate tries to run on issues their voters believe in.
I thought the issue with reddit was that it was full of idiots and bots, turns out it was just full of Americans lmao.
Aside from having a friendly meal with Putin, I would say that disappearing for four years, only to suddenly show your face on election years to tear impressionable young, left-leaning voters away from a party that could actually win... that's not a good thing.
If she, or her party, were for real, they wouldn't disappear for four fucking years.
I just wish she, and all of her shills, would just crawl back into the hole they came out of. Hoping this happens in a couple of weeks when she inevitably falls off the face of the planet for another four years.
Interesting! I did not know any of this. Sort of confirms my impression which I should have framed differently: the other candidates are so niche that the rest of the world has no clue
What do you mean by disappear? Did Joe Biden disappear after Trump was elected only to show up and run for President? No it's just that he didn't have a job in politics so the media didn't cover anything he was doing and he "disappeared". If it wasn't for the medias obsession with trump he probably would've disappeared in these last few years too. What do you expect a candidate whose not currently in office to do between runs that wouldn't make them disappear?
She should work on building her party
She does, but this isn't England there's no mass party system where there is much off election work to do. If your party doesn't have any representation then it's job is to get representation, and the only time you can do that is during election periods, especially big ones like the presidential season. Even party's that have representation do most of there work during the campaign season. The Democrats ramp up there work and engagement multiple times over leading into the election.
Tear impressionable young left-leaning voters from a party that could win
Kamala's Gaza policy did that, stein is just picking up people who wouldn't have voted any way or would've left President blank. The people voting for her aren't stupid, they know she isn't going to win, they're voting for her because they don't like Kamala and are trying to send her a message.
Her buddy Putin definitely doesn't think she did anything wrong.
I don't disagree that it's bad we can't have third parties, but you need some qualifications to hold the office, and have more than one person at each level.
Hell, I'd argue Stein is less qualified than Trump because Trump has at least been in office once. Her presidency would be a clusterfuck of every other better political group steamrolling over her.
Here's a deal for the Green Party: I will vote for you for president if you can manage to get a governor or senator elected.
Replace Stein with Trump and it's still accurate.
There should be a third empty block detailing her campaign before September 2024, because that shit was non-existent.
Not true! Stein had a profound influence on the 2016 election, when she got more votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin than Trump's margin over Clinton in those states. That doesn't necessarily mean her voters would have voted for Clinton, but getting Clinton voters was definitely her job.
Nah this ain’t true. Under political accomplishments it should include “amazing Russian asset”
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.
She's has experience going to Russia.
...At which she shared a table with Vladimir Putin and disgraced National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
Don't forget an endorsement from David Duke.
Don't forget harris openly taking money from a supremacist organization: aipac.
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.I'm not making shit up.
https://democrats.org/news/former-kkk-leader-david-duke-endorses-jill-stein/
Lists of accomplishments?
Being only relevant a few months during election season.
Mathematical likelihood of winning:
Greens have been a joke since Nader and even then....
Nader himself wasn't a bad guy (he legitimately did a ton for automotive safety in the 70s-90s. His actions have actually probably saved countless lives). I just hate that he kept allowing himself to be the useful idiot like that.
He had to have known, right? He's not a stupid man.
I agree. I participated in that campaign and a few marches. People were energetic and hopeful, and there seemed to be a good grassroots leadership structure, but then it just all went away. Whatever this shit is today is just some shell usurped by a political hedge fund.
Having a president from a political party that has no representatives or senators or judges is going to be an exercise in futility.
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.
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.
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.
Embraced by Putin.
Has no track record.
Pro-whatever fills the coffers.
Doesn't want to do anything between presidential elections.
You're defending a non entity.
You conservatives aren't allies. I don't care and I will be unapologetically voting third party. Trump is winning my state for free. Your genocidal cop has no chance here. So I would be wasting my vote if I did support her and she doesn't plan on changing on her positions unless it is to court right-wingers.😀
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.
lame
Fill in the blanks then.
They must still be typing, because so far they haven't responded.
just one ok? fight the antidemocratic electoral college unlike the democrats.
but sure after the election we will hear the democrats chip in again and talk about how bad it is for 3.5 years.
america is no democracy. the democratic party is part of the bigger problem...the voting system.
if kamala wins it will be the first time in what...25 years with no clinton or bush?!
and have the greens or jill stein harmed the democracy as much as the democrats? bernie was what people wanted, hillary is what the regine of the democratic party sent into the race and trump is what you got.
Times like ðis ðat I really appreciate ð opportunity to prune ð latest ban/block dodging propaganda account weeds from my front page.
Stein has arranged a lot of good climate protests. Never held office though, as far as I can find.
She got elected to a town council in Lexington Massachusetts. A whopping 539 votes. The only successful campaign she's run.
How you go from that and 5 other failed election bids straight to running for President is not something I know- oh wait, I do. If someone puts you up to it.
Depends on how you define success. She seems to do very financially well on running in national elections every four years.
Gonna need a source on that.
Protest that accomplished what exactly? Oh yeah absolute fuckall lol.
Cornel West 2024!
Trump Spoiler 2024!
Thank you for bringing more attention to the Jill Stein campaign
Hate to break it to you, but "any press is good press" is just copium. Especially when we're talking about politicians not named Trump.
"Hardest job in the world"?
please 🙄
Hardest job to actually do well?
Every US presidential or congressional candidate need to hire interns to open up all the checks from aipac, for starters. And then they need to hire someone to watch those interns. And a full time nurse to treat paper cuts. Pretty soon its a staff of hundreds of people. These candidates arent going to 'bribe themselves' you know. This is big business.
Have you seen how much a president ages over four years? It may not be a hard job, but it sure as hell isn't easy. Unless you're Trump and you don't do shit.
