Will you always pick the “better” of the two parties? If not, how bad does it need to get before you vote third party? I like to ask it this way: where’s your red line?
The entire point of third parties in US presidential elections, right now, is to syphon votes away from the main parties. They are otherwise entirely useless.
They need more office down ballot…way down ballot…to start making any sort of progress towards the possibility of ever winning a presidential election.
It’s not about “sending a message”. Nobody is listening there. You want to send a message, put it in a letter or a picket sign. Not a ballot box.
I use Perot 92 as a counter example, because if the significant influence that campaign had on the ultimate fate of nafta and how it turned out not to have acted as a spoiler.
Why would you say your feelings in a protest or a letter to your congressman but not in your ballot where it literally gets counted?
92 Perot had enough votes to allow Clinton to win Ohio, California, Pennsylvania, and likely several others, had the majority of his voters gone to the more closely aligned GHWB.
If you consider yourself conservative, Perot is likely the reason Clinton won the electoral college in a landslide, while he himself received exactly 0 EC votes.
Progressive people, especially those concerned about the environment, can say the same for Nader in 2000, and only have to look at Florida.
Back in ‘99 there was a paper that showed Perot had the most impact the opposite direction, reducing Clinton’s margin of victory. I remember it because back then it made the news that what everyone thought to be obviously true (the businessman from Texas’ campaign spoiled the republican vote) was wrong. It’s even cited in the Wikipedia article about Perot 92!
Florida literally went against bush jr in the recount and his brother who was the governor of Florida at the time had a significant impact on calling it before the recount came in.
Now once again: why would you make your feelings known in a protest, but not when they can actually be counted?
Personally it wasn’t the genocide that put me off ever voting Biden, but I wouldn’t describe a person for whom that’s a bridge too far as cheap.
It’s also not throwing your vote away to vote third party. If it were there wouldnt be an effect to it, and of course there clearly is. A third party vote means that party gets more funding, airtime and media exposure.
There are powerful examples of third parties in the us exerting significant pressure on policy while also not being spoilers.
So how much would be too much for you? our children dying in our streets by us weapons?
I’m a disabled single father. I have a daughter. We are an atheist household. I know game theory. I also know about the massive disinfo
campaign to try and stop as many democrat votes as possible. To republicans, I’m a satanic enemy of humanity.
I’m voting a straight blue ticket, I have convinced a dozen others to do the same. I am doing the thing I need to do to stop your little hypothetical. What would it take? Democrats would have to act as openly fascist, cruel, and hateful as the Republican party. They do not. They aren’t fucking perfect because such a thing will never exist, but they are far from republican filth. A straight blue ticket is the best chance at an admin that will be open to change. Anything else helps republicans win and you know that pretty goddamn well. It’s why you’re here with that bullshit line of yours.
The democrats candidate is using his executive power to send arms to israel so they can perform war crimes. How much more openly fascist, cruel and hateful does he need to be? How much worse can a candidate get than the alternative when they’re literally doing something terrible that the alternative didn’t?
Voting for the administration that’s encouraging a crackdown on antiwar protests and supplying a genocide because you want to make sure it’ll be open to change.
I don’t have to want trump to win to see the absolute absurdity of that position.
I’m not saying all that to demean or belittle you, but instead to hopefully illustrate that we can’t build a just world by voting for Biden.
Third party candidates are not viable this election. Every poll that can be trusted to any degree is proof of this. Trumps base is going to vote for trump and the Republican party at large will very likely follow. Nearly the entire Republican party is openly fascist at this point and admitting that they plan to disassemble the government to suit their wants. They are open about allowing Israel to finish their genocide.
It is also well known at this point that disinformation campaigns really lean on trying to get any non Republican vote to either not vote at all, or vote third party. You have no logical arguments, no game theory, and no deeper understanding of everything on the table in this election. You mostly just use the appeal to emotion fallacy as if it’s some magic gotcha. It is not, it is instead a signpost that you are not arguing in good faith.
Liars screamed “vote third party” last election too. Trump still lost, and we’re working to ensure that stupid fuck loses again. Not only am I totally unswayed by your bs, I’ve ensured others will be voting straight blue as well. Youll maybe whine about it, but it won’t change a thing.
Defend your pont using what was already said in this discussion. No appeal to emotion. Use current polling to help show that third parties stand any chance in hell. Essentially, prove you aren’t one of the many many disinfo bots/agents.
I’ll be carefully paying attention to any sources so sticking to generally trusted would be best
Okay: if the only vote acceptable to you is one that results in a win for that candidate or could feasibly result in a win for that candidate, you’re discounting a good portion of the outcomes of even the flawed American electoral system and how they effect the future.
Vote tallies are used to determine funding, ballot presence, debate opportunities, media representation and of course, public awareness.
It’s also important to recognize that we are not given the opportunity to vote against one or more candidates. There is no bubble on the scantron form that will indicate “I’m only doing this to keep the other guy out of office” or “I only support your platform on guns”.
We are given only the ability to voice support for candidates, their platforms and actions, with no room for nuance or debate.
Candidates and their teams and administrations aren’t shown weather or not you protested the arms shipments, spoke in defense of abortion or moved resolutions condemning the genocide forward in your local governments.
They will only see your vote.
Your vote for Biden is not a vote against trump, it is a vote of support for Biden and his fascist policy of genocide.
I am not making an appeal to emotion with that last sentence and hopefully the time and text spent to raise it to the level of logical and utilitarian shows that.
If you took all emotion out of your decision in November and purely cast your ballot based entirely upon utility, your analysis could very easily conclude that there is no acceptable option to support between the two major parties and that it’s better to be counted supporting a third party you would like to see more of in 2026, 2028 and beyond.
I’ve talked about red lines over and over in this thread and while I like the phrase because it’s something everyone can understand, I’m afraid it evokes the constantly shifting goalposts of our politicians own red lines and that limits its effectiveness. Instead of describing the hypothetical or real actions of candidates as red lines, I’ll use other phrases here to hopefully get the point across more clearly.
When giving support to either candidates platforms and actions is beyond the pale, a bridge too far, simply unacceptable to you using whatever methodology is appropriate to you, the only reasonable utilitarian, logical choice is to lend your counted and measured support to a party, candidate and platform you want to see next time.
If you can’t support the actions of the current regime or its opponent than this election is lost to you.
Now if we look beyond the actual votes themselves to the effect peoples discourse has on politicians platforms before the elections themselves it becomes even more difficult to defend saying “vote blue no matter who” or that you’ll be marking a straight ticket or whatever.
If we assume the pollsters and political parties are paying attention and using our discourse to modify their own platforms and actions in order to get support then it’s more utilitarian and logical to be posting about how you’ll never vote for the platform of genocide or that the democrats should dump Biden at the convention than it is to be speaking in opposition to those views because an administration that sees lots of people saying they need to change course or lose those votes come November is more likely to actually change course than one who sees lots of opposition to those voices in the form of “voting against trump”, “vote blue no matter who” or “harm reduction”.
Will you always pick the “better” of the two parties? If not, how bad does it need to get before you vote third party? I like to ask it this way: where’s your red line?
The entire point of third parties in US presidential elections, right now, is to syphon votes away from the main parties. They are otherwise entirely useless.
They need more office down ballot…way down ballot…to start making any sort of progress towards the possibility of ever winning a presidential election.
It’s not about “sending a message”. Nobody is listening there. You want to send a message, put it in a letter or a picket sign. Not a ballot box.
That’s not true.
I use Perot 92 as a counter example, because if the significant influence that campaign had on the ultimate fate of nafta and how it turned out not to have acted as a spoiler.
Why would you say your feelings in a protest or a letter to your congressman but not in your ballot where it literally gets counted?
92 Perot had enough votes to allow Clinton to win Ohio, California, Pennsylvania, and likely several others, had the majority of his voters gone to the more closely aligned GHWB.
If you consider yourself conservative, Perot is likely the reason Clinton won the electoral college in a landslide, while he himself received exactly 0 EC votes.
Progressive people, especially those concerned about the environment, can say the same for Nader in 2000, and only have to look at Florida.
Back in ‘99 there was a paper that showed Perot had the most impact the opposite direction, reducing Clinton’s margin of victory. I remember it because back then it made the news that what everyone thought to be obviously true (the businessman from Texas’ campaign spoiled the republican vote) was wrong. It’s even cited in the Wikipedia article about Perot 92!
Florida literally went against bush jr in the recount and his brother who was the governor of Florida at the time had a significant impact on calling it before the recount came in.
Now once again: why would you make your feelings known in a protest, but not when they can actually be counted?
How cheap are you to get to toss out your vote so fascism can sweep up come November? Pretty fucking cheap by the looks of it.
Personally it wasn’t the genocide that put me off ever voting Biden, but I wouldn’t describe a person for whom that’s a bridge too far as cheap.
It’s also not throwing your vote away to vote third party. If it were there wouldnt be an effect to it, and of course there clearly is. A third party vote means that party gets more funding, airtime and media exposure.
There are powerful examples of third parties in the us exerting significant pressure on policy while also not being spoilers.
So how much would be too much for you? our children dying in our streets by us weapons?
I’m a disabled single father. I have a daughter. We are an atheist household. I know game theory. I also know about the massive disinfo campaign to try and stop as many democrat votes as possible. To republicans, I’m a satanic enemy of humanity.
I’m voting a straight blue ticket, I have convinced a dozen others to do the same. I am doing the thing I need to do to stop your little hypothetical. What would it take? Democrats would have to act as openly fascist, cruel, and hateful as the Republican party. They do not. They aren’t fucking perfect because such a thing will never exist, but they are far from republican filth. A straight blue ticket is the best chance at an admin that will be open to change. Anything else helps republicans win and you know that pretty goddamn well. It’s why you’re here with that bullshit line of yours.
The democrats candidate is using his executive power to send arms to israel so they can perform war crimes. How much more openly fascist, cruel and hateful does he need to be? How much worse can a candidate get than the alternative when they’re literally doing something terrible that the alternative didn’t?
Voting for the administration that’s encouraging a crackdown on antiwar protests and supplying a genocide because you want to make sure it’ll be open to change.
I don’t have to want trump to win to see the absolute absurdity of that position.
I’m not saying all that to demean or belittle you, but instead to hopefully illustrate that we can’t build a just world by voting for Biden.
Third party candidates are not viable this election. Every poll that can be trusted to any degree is proof of this. Trumps base is going to vote for trump and the Republican party at large will very likely follow. Nearly the entire Republican party is openly fascist at this point and admitting that they plan to disassemble the government to suit their wants. They are open about allowing Israel to finish their genocide.
It is also well known at this point that disinformation campaigns really lean on trying to get any non Republican vote to either not vote at all, or vote third party. You have no logical arguments, no game theory, and no deeper understanding of everything on the table in this election. You mostly just use the appeal to emotion fallacy as if it’s some magic gotcha. It is not, it is instead a signpost that you are not arguing in good faith.
Liars screamed “vote third party” last election too. Trump still lost, and we’re working to ensure that stupid fuck loses again. Not only am I totally unswayed by your bs, I’ve ensured others will be voting straight blue as well. Youll maybe whine about it, but it won’t change a thing.
If you would prefer a logical, utilitarian argument for voting third party I’ll happily oblige.
What are the prior assumptions your argument for voting for Biden rests upon? It’s easiest for me to work from what you already hold true.
Defend your pont using what was already said in this discussion. No appeal to emotion. Use current polling to help show that third parties stand any chance in hell. Essentially, prove you aren’t one of the many many disinfo bots/agents.
I’ll be carefully paying attention to any sources so sticking to generally trusted would be best
Okay: if the only vote acceptable to you is one that results in a win for that candidate or could feasibly result in a win for that candidate, you’re discounting a good portion of the outcomes of even the flawed American electoral system and how they effect the future.
Vote tallies are used to determine funding, ballot presence, debate opportunities, media representation and of course, public awareness.
It’s also important to recognize that we are not given the opportunity to vote against one or more candidates. There is no bubble on the scantron form that will indicate “I’m only doing this to keep the other guy out of office” or “I only support your platform on guns”.
We are given only the ability to voice support for candidates, their platforms and actions, with no room for nuance or debate.
Candidates and their teams and administrations aren’t shown weather or not you protested the arms shipments, spoke in defense of abortion or moved resolutions condemning the genocide forward in your local governments.
They will only see your vote.
Your vote for Biden is not a vote against trump, it is a vote of support for Biden and his fascist policy of genocide.
I am not making an appeal to emotion with that last sentence and hopefully the time and text spent to raise it to the level of logical and utilitarian shows that.
If you took all emotion out of your decision in November and purely cast your ballot based entirely upon utility, your analysis could very easily conclude that there is no acceptable option to support between the two major parties and that it’s better to be counted supporting a third party you would like to see more of in 2026, 2028 and beyond.
I’ve talked about red lines over and over in this thread and while I like the phrase because it’s something everyone can understand, I’m afraid it evokes the constantly shifting goalposts of our politicians own red lines and that limits its effectiveness. Instead of describing the hypothetical or real actions of candidates as red lines, I’ll use other phrases here to hopefully get the point across more clearly.
When giving support to either candidates platforms and actions is beyond the pale, a bridge too far, simply unacceptable to you using whatever methodology is appropriate to you, the only reasonable utilitarian, logical choice is to lend your counted and measured support to a party, candidate and platform you want to see next time.
If you can’t support the actions of the current regime or its opponent than this election is lost to you.
Now if we look beyond the actual votes themselves to the effect peoples discourse has on politicians platforms before the elections themselves it becomes even more difficult to defend saying “vote blue no matter who” or that you’ll be marking a straight ticket or whatever.
If we assume the pollsters and political parties are paying attention and using our discourse to modify their own platforms and actions in order to get support then it’s more utilitarian and logical to be posting about how you’ll never vote for the platform of genocide or that the democrats should dump Biden at the convention than it is to be speaking in opposition to those views because an administration that sees lots of people saying they need to change course or lose those votes come November is more likely to actually change course than one who sees lots of opposition to those voices in the form of “voting against trump”, “vote blue no matter who” or “harm reduction”.
That is of course if you’re against the genocide.