2
So you don’t like Trump or Harris – here’s why it’s still best to vote for one of them
(theconversation.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19102 readers
2631 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
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
And a generation from now we will still be in a shitty two party system if everyone keeps voting for "the lesser of two eveils."
So if a 3rd party candidate was somehow elected then we would be forever freed from the two party system? I doubt it.
I think if a 3rd party is ever going to become something viable in a national election then it will have to start small at the state level and work its way up from there. And it’ll take a bunch of states doing that to create any kind of momentum needed to create anything viable at the national level.
I still think voting 3rd party in the presidential election is a monumentally poor choice. It’s a worthless protest vote at this point.
Who said that a single win for a third party candidate would be the death knell of the two party system?
My personal goal is to vote for the candidate who vest teflects my values. Always. In every election. At every level. If everyone did this tomorrow we'd be in a much better situation. Obviously that is unrealistic. But so is asking those who vote their heart to compromise their values by voting for a different candidate just because they have a chance of winning. The goal here IS slow generation change. By all means given to us.
Maybe I misunderstood your comment, and I apologize if so. You said we would be voting in a two party system for another generation if we didn’t vote third party. I assumed that meant a 3rd party would have to win to break out of what we have today.
Well, don't get me wrong, a WIN for a 3rd party IS the ultimate goal. But change happens slowly in politics and in life. Slow and steady support for a three party system will eventually result in that end. Continued support for a two party system, by contrast, never will. I, myself, will continue to place votes for the better of those two eventualities.
I think we agree. I’m supportive of a viable third party if it creates more choice, but it’s not going to start with a presidential election. There are billions being spent keeping it the way it is. I’m sorry about it, but it’s the truth. I would encourage you to push for a 3rd party at the local level rather than to simply put up a protest vote at the national level. An example would be what’s happening in Nebraska where a 2 term Republican incumbent is at risk of losing to an Independent who successfully negotiated for striking cereal workers.
Well, i would agree that "it's not going to start with a presidential election" so long as you define "start" as "the first election win for a third party candidate." You shouldn't vote 3rd party in only national elections and expect to be reeping the benefits of a viable third party presidential candidate any time soon.
But there are other ways to define "start". There are goals for voting third party other than to see your candidate win. And there are argumeunts to be made that we are way past the starting phase and are now in strong need of drastic course correction, such as cannot be offered by either party.
For one example, third party candidates move policy. If 5% of the electorate are in favor of something that currently only a 3rd party candidate represents you better believe one or the other of the two parties will attempt to incorporate that thing into into their platform to grab those voters. This may not be a "start" toward a viable third party, but it can be a "start" toward better policy, and that's a win.
At the end of the day though i think there is a strong misconception amongst main party voters that says that 3rd party voters are just offering up limp protest and would be better served by voting against the candidate they hate more. But the truth is different. Neither party serves them better. A 3rd party voter most likely despises both of the two parties and sees the differences between the two as just window dressings on what are two parties both bent on statist, war mongering, imperialistic oppression. Both parties are so very far from what we believe to be possible and right that a distinction between the two parties becomes laughable in comparison to a distinction from the two parties. I am not voting against Trump or Harris when i cast a 3rd party vote. Am voting against BOTH. They are both truly awful and yet i will have to endure one or the other. But at least i did my small part (in elections both big and small) to move things closer to what i belive to be a better situation for future generations.
If everyone did this tomorrow we would have project 2025 and get a fascist dystopia, dumbass. The left would splinter and Trump would easily win.
Dumbass, huh? I'll just leave you alone, then.
Just calling it like it is. You said a dumb thing.
That will be the least of our problems if you let trump win for the sake of protest votes. A generation from now we will be completely fucked with even more stacked federal courts, even worse climate change, continued dismantling of healthcare, a decimated government from project 2025, etc, etc.
"for the sake of protest votes" Not everyone sees a vote for a third party as a "protest vote". Some see it as a real investment now for a better future for the country.
The points you raise do sound troubling, don't they? But can you remeber an election in the last 25 years where letting the "wrong guy" win wasn't posed as the single worst thing possible. The things you mention are bad, yes, but they are also no different than the alarmist rallying cries that have been used every 4 years for the last.. forever.
McCain and Romney I fundamentally disagreed with but no one ever claimed they'd be the death of democracy. This is a claim that is very specific to Donald Trump. We don't just pull it up every single election.
alarmist? Look at the state of the Supreme Court that overturned Roe v Wade. Look at the state of the climate that's wrecking us with heat, massive fires, and hurricanes every single year now. These are real, material issues that we've been needing to address for decades, and we're paying the price for failing to do so.
All of this vastly outweighs any nebulous benefit you think will come of voting for a 3rd party, whatever you want to call it.
So this election cycle it's climate and the Supreme Court for you. That's great. If you feel Harris will help fix those things then have it. The policies I'm voting for will absolutely help with those issues. Every 4 years there are going to be major major things that folks think their particular guy or gal is going to fix. And then they won't. And then there'll be another (or the same) set of things in another four years. I'm gonna go ahead and vote for some real change instead.
you’re voting for nothing friend.
I find it to be quite the opposite.
Throwing a vote away on someone with 0% chance is distinctly less impactful than voting for someone with 50% chance.
That depends entirely on the impact you hope to achieve. I am under no dilusion that my choice will win in 2024. That is not the purpose of my third party vote.
Exactly. Democrats have shown if they aren't held accountable that they will do terrible things. A vote of someone against genocide is statement. If Democrats don't like that anti genocide candidates can run and participate then they are the fascist.
It's like #onejoke but for Russian shills
It's so predictable to be called a Russian shill when you say an inconvenient truth about the Democrats supreme leader.