If you’re an unhappy voter and want other unhappy voters to hold their noses and vote for the major candidate they least dislike, think about the Golden Rule.
It has been said a gazillion times over the last few months, but is it getting through to those who need to hear it?
This article is the most logically corrupt piece of statist drivel i have read today. “No, no, don’t vote for who you feel best represent your values. Instead, pretend like everyone else who shares those values is going to team up and vote for the same one of the two people they dislike.” Because, in essence, the “logic” used in this article only works if you assume that all of the third party voters are pulling from one candidate.
The electoral system in the US is broken. In this system there’s a 100% chance that Trump or Kamala will win. That’s not even a question, it’s undeniable fact. So, in this electoral system, if you actually want to have a say in which of these two wins, then vote for that one. Otherwise you’re likely to get the other one. Helping some other candidate get 10% does absolutely nothing to help your values.
As long as first past the post and electoral colleges are a thing in the US, that’s just the reality of the situation.
I disagree. Third party votes do quite a bit to move political platforms. No one wants to leave 10% of the vote on the table when that’s all it takes to seize victory. So they move their platforms to encompass what the 10% are voting for.
if you actually want to have a say in which of these two wins,
That’s just it. I, and many others do not value having a say in which of these two gets elected as highly as we value promoting 3rd parties, speaking our hearts with our votes, and edging towards a better political situation for the next generation.
But yes, the electoral system is broken. And ending first past the post will be the single biggest savior of US politics.
That’s just it. I, and many others do not value having a say in which of these two gets elected as highly as we value promoting 3rd parties, speaking our hearts with our votes, and edging towards a better political situation for the next generation.
And if one of these 2 hasn’t made it clear that they want to erode the integrity (if not right eliminate) all future elections that would be a valid argument. If the Republicans actually had a reasonable law abiding candidate then there would be no problem with people voting 3rd party.
I mean, i’d like to believe that you make that case in good faith. But you have to realize that third party voters are admonished by the status quo voters every single presidential election. Every one. So, while this may be the first time you personally have argued that a third partier should vote for your candidate, third partiers have heard it over and over again. You know all those other elections that didn’t have a Trump in them? Yeah, we heard it then too. So, i’m sorry but the whole “this is the most important election in history” schtick just doesn’t warrant any consideration when you’re hearing it for the umpteenth time.
Trump has repeatedly stated he would be a dictator on day 1 and refuses to walk it back when asked about it. He encouraged and supported what happened on January 6th.
There has never been a candidate that was openly and fundamentally against democracy like this.
When was the last time there was a presidential candidate who literally said they’d be a dictator, who says there won’t be any elections in the future, who fails to recognise the previous time he lost, who incited a civil uprising, who says he might murder his political opponents?
“this is the most important election in history” schtick just doesn’t warrant any consideration
Holy fuck. When I was younger I used to wonder how the Nazis ever managed to gain power. I don’t anymore.
It doesn’t matter how many candidates third parties pull from.
If no candidate gets 270 votes, the election is decided by the House. That’s at the electoral college level, but see jordan lund’s breakdown above and how a majority “not Trump” votes will be split among candidates but Trump still wins the state because the “not Trump” voters couldn’t get their shit together and coalesce around a single candidate.
And if the election goes to the House, Assuming Republicans maintain control, take one guess who they’re going to elect?
And why is everyone assuming that all of the third party voters would be Harris voters if they were forced to choose between the two main candidates? This is where the logic goes south. It assumes that the third party voters are some homogenous bloc of disenfranchised “not Trump” voters.
Thats not how this works. The one making the claim provides some evidence.
The article makes an unsubstantianted claim that the 3rd party voters are all Harris > Trump. I asked for some sort of proof of this. And you have responded by asking me for proof refuting their claim. Burden of proof is not on me. I am just asking you, or anyone else to back up these claims, because the authors did not
You’re not paying attention at all. I am not the one making an argument. This article is making an argument. This article makes no attempt to support it’s claims with any evidence. I am bringing that deficit to light and asking that you, the article authors, or anyone else provide some backing for the claim it makes. That’s just how logical debate is done. There’s an awful lot of people in this thread ready to argue, throw mud, brush me off…pretty much everything except provide the proof i have asked for.
If anyone is blindly following an argument without any logical backing then i’d implore them dig a little further. If you feel that there is some obvious support for the claims the article makes that i am simply ignoring, then, by all means, shut me up by pointing towards the data.
This article is the most logically corrupt piece of statist drivel i have read today. “No, no, don’t vote for who you feel best represent your values. Instead, pretend like everyone else who shares those values is going to team up and vote for the same one of the two people they dislike.” Because, in essence, the “logic” used in this article only works if you assume that all of the third party voters are pulling from one candidate.
The electoral system in the US is broken. In this system there’s a 100% chance that Trump or Kamala will win. That’s not even a question, it’s undeniable fact. So, in this electoral system, if you actually want to have a say in which of these two wins, then vote for that one. Otherwise you’re likely to get the other one. Helping some other candidate get 10% does absolutely nothing to help your values.
As long as first past the post and electoral colleges are a thing in the US, that’s just the reality of the situation.
I disagree. Third party votes do quite a bit to move political platforms. No one wants to leave 10% of the vote on the table when that’s all it takes to seize victory. So they move their platforms to encompass what the 10% are voting for.
That’s just it. I, and many others do not value having a say in which of these two gets elected as highly as we value promoting 3rd parties, speaking our hearts with our votes, and edging towards a better political situation for the next generation.
But yes, the electoral system is broken. And ending first past the post will be the single biggest savior of US politics.
And if one of these 2 hasn’t made it clear that they want to erode the integrity (if not right eliminate) all future elections that would be a valid argument. If the Republicans actually had a reasonable law abiding candidate then there would be no problem with people voting 3rd party.
I mean, i’d like to believe that you make that case in good faith. But you have to realize that third party voters are admonished by the status quo voters every single presidential election. Every one. So, while this may be the first time you personally have argued that a third partier should vote for your candidate, third partiers have heard it over and over again. You know all those other elections that didn’t have a Trump in them? Yeah, we heard it then too. So, i’m sorry but the whole “this is the most important election in history” schtick just doesn’t warrant any consideration when you’re hearing it for the umpteenth time.
Trump has repeatedly stated he would be a dictator on day 1 and refuses to walk it back when asked about it. He encouraged and supported what happened on January 6th.
There has never been a candidate that was openly and fundamentally against democracy like this.
When was the last time there was a presidential candidate who literally said they’d be a dictator, who says there won’t be any elections in the future, who fails to recognise the previous time he lost, who incited a civil uprising, who says he might murder his political opponents?
Holy fuck. When I was younger I used to wonder how the Nazis ever managed to gain power. I don’t anymore.
It doesn’t matter how many candidates third parties pull from.
If no candidate gets 270 votes, the election is decided by the House. That’s at the electoral college level, but see jordan lund’s breakdown above and how a majority “not Trump” votes will be split among candidates but Trump still wins the state because the “not Trump” voters couldn’t get their shit together and coalesce around a single candidate.
And if the election goes to the House, Assuming Republicans maintain control, take one guess who they’re going to elect?
And why is everyone assuming that all of the third party voters would be Harris voters if they were forced to choose between the two main candidates? This is where the logic goes south. It assumes that the third party voters are some homogenous bloc of disenfranchised “not Trump” voters.
Aren’t they though?
No.
Got any evidence of all these right-leaning 3rd party supporters?
Thats not how this works. The one making the claim provides some evidence. The article makes an unsubstantianted claim that the 3rd party voters are all Harris > Trump. I asked for some sort of proof of this. And you have responded by asking me for proof refuting their claim. Burden of proof is not on me. I am just asking you, or anyone else to back up these claims, because the authors did not
Lol okay then I’ll assume you’re pulling this whole argument from your ass. Rofl. “Burden of proof” lol what a copout.
You’re not paying attention at all. I am not the one making an argument. This article is making an argument. This article makes no attempt to support it’s claims with any evidence. I am bringing that deficit to light and asking that you, the article authors, or anyone else provide some backing for the claim it makes. That’s just how logical debate is done. There’s an awful lot of people in this thread ready to argue, throw mud, brush me off…pretty much everything except provide the proof i have asked for.
If anyone is blindly following an argument without any logical backing then i’d implore them dig a little further. If you feel that there is some obvious support for the claims the article makes that i am simply ignoring, then, by all means, shut me up by pointing towards the data.
Better than throwing your vote in the garbage!
That vote has the power to make a difference. But not if you throw it away on someone with no chance of winning.