646
Joe Biden wins primary election in New Hampshire despite not even being on the ballot
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
646 points (96.4% liked)
News
23014 readers
10 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The vote is to elect a president. If you are not going to vote for someone who has a chance of winning, what is the point of voting at all?
I will happily vote for a third party candidate that has a chance of winning. I have asked for a name many times and have yet to be given one.
I live in a state that is not even close to be competitive. Why should I not vote for the Green Party candidate?
Why bother voting at all?
In my state, the two major parties keep changing the rules to make it harder for other parties to get ballot access. If a party gets a certain number of votes in the general, they can keep their ballot access without needing to jump through a bunch of expensive hoops designed to keep them out. I vote to have more choice in future elections. Because that is all I can vote for.
Okay, that is, at least, a reasonable explanation of why to vote third party without having to name a candidate. You're literally the first person who has done this even though I have asked people who tell me to vote third party for a name for months now.
Here is another reason: because I would rather try for long-term improvements than to accept gradual worsening.
Voting for conservative Democrats will not improve anything. They do not want increased accountability for the rich. They do not want universal healthcare. They do not want to get away from fossil fuels (in the time frame required). They do not want to fix our car-centric infrastructure. They do not want to stop genocide. They do not want affordable housing. They do not want affordable education. They actively fight against those who do.
Voting for conservative Democrats is not about making things better, it is about stopping things from getting worse. The Democratic Party is not a big tent, it is a hostage situation: the liberals are told "stay with us and vote for us, or the fascists will kill you."
Long term, will voting 3rd party force the Democrats left? If the Democrats shift further right instead, will there be enough time for a liberal party to emerge and challenge before the county fails? I do not know.
I am not mad at anybody for voting for the lesser of two evils. It is a reasonable, defensible choice. I understand that many of the people making that choice are victims of our system, not the perpetrators. If their strategy works, and we keep getting the lesser evil, I cannot fault them for it.
But I would rather try for a long-term improvement than to accept gradual worsening.
I see, so if something that is almost certainly not going to happen happens, a Green candidate who you have not named has a 99% chance of beating Trump.
That's not what I asked. I didn't ask for special, very unlikely circumstances.
Name the third party candidate who has a good chance of winning as things stand now. Just give me a name.
Your wild guess percentages based on zero evidence are not a name. You still have not given me a name. Who am I supposed to vote for if you won't even give me a name?
I asked for a name that has a reasonable chance of beating both Trump and Biden. I see that West has 2% support. That is not a reasonable chance, so that name is not the name I asked for.
Also, you have contradicted yourself, because Cornel West is not a Green party candidate. Therefore, based on your previous post, he won't have that (evidence-free) 99% chance of winning.
Odd that this name for a candidate that can win is so hard for you to come up with.
Nope, this is what I have asked you for multiple times:
If there is no candidate that has such a chance, why bother voting?
That didn't happen with Perot or Nader. I find it very hard to believe that would happen this time.
Why can't you just admit that you can't give me a name?
I didn't say anyone should stay home.
I said:
You have not given me a good reason. Your reason so far is not supported by history. Neither Perot nor Nader changed a thing. Unless you can give me a good reason why that will be different this time around, you are grasping at straws.
If you want to vote, fine. Go ahead. I just don't see why you're bothering when you can't even give a good reason. Seems like a lot of effort for nothing.
"candidate X would easily win if everybody voted for them"
No shit, now who are they and how do you propose convincing people to vote for them?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election
18.9% wasn't enough either
Again I ask you, who do you propose we vote for instead?