Let’s break down this bullshit: A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Jill Stein. The election clerks count ballots marked for Stein and report the vote totals that Stein received. A vote for Jill Stein is literally a vote for Jill Stein.
The statement that a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump is, of course, metaphorical. It’s asserting that a vote for Stein is morally equivalent to a vote for Trump by the speaker’s moral reckoning. It’s a rhetorical shortcut. This shortcut rests on the notion that either the voter would have voted for Harris, or that it is a moral imperative to stop Trump above all else.
That’s a moral judgement call. Other people may judge differently. Flatly stating that a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump so vehemently and absolutely elides any possibility of discourse and clearly tells the Stein voter that the speaker will not listen to or consider any of their views, or reasons to vote for Stein.
Fine, you believe that, but when has telling people more or less directly that you do not have any intention of considering their political beliefs won them over to your side? How is that a good tactic? If it worked, then why not employ it on Trump supporters? Go ahead, tell them that the party you support will ignore what they think and want, and demand they vote for your candidate.
If it doesn’t work on them, why should it work on Stein voters?
I mean doyee?
No one’s voting 3rd party because they think they’ll win, they’re just throwing away a vote for Harris. Their statement is that they have no issue with another 4 years of Trump because their demands aren’t being met anyway (cough genocide).
You can argue all day about the rationality and lack of utilitarianism, but it won’t change anything.
If MLK were alive, he’d probably vote Democrat because he believes there is a solution in comprise over time, and keeping Republicans out is beneficial to that. (He generally favored the more progressive party).
If Malcolm X were alive, he’d probably be protesting just like the uncommitted group, but choose not to vote if his major demand wasn’t met, because his reasoning would be that any promised or hypothetical solutions would not come to fruition. (The Ballot or the Bullet)
Both have valid reasoning, and it can obviously depend on the situation, but it bugs me that 50 years later people still don’t understand why people choose to vote a certain way.
No one’s voting 3rd party because they think they’ll win, they’re just throwing away a vote for Harris.
Would you prefer people voting 3rd party not vote at all?
If Malcolm X were alive
Why Malcolm X’s Family Is Suing the FBI, NYPD, and CIA 58 Years After His Death
Do you seriously think X was pro-FBI? Why on earth would he support a candidate who was?
We just got finished fighting a year long battle with the tankies on Lemmy that making the genocide in Gaza their singular issue and abstaining from voting for Kamala is like handing Trump the presidency. It should be a duh doie moment, but sadly it isn’t.
Both have valid reasoning
I disagree.
In California, it doesn’t matter because the results are already known. In other states the calculus is a bit different.
Online rhetoric sways voters in swing states. Your vote may not change the outcome, but your words might.
That’s absolutely true, especially for a paper like the LA Times. I am dubious that there is any appreciable effect when it comes to random blogs and so forth.
Right? Imagine believing there are enough conscientious progressives / leftists to flip CA red because of third party voting. Sure, Jan.
Who is this article for?
It doesn’t address the real problem here: That first past the post voting is a broken system and that main party candidates should make more effort to fix this glaring hole in the voting system.
Because fptp is garbage, third parties are little more than a method to undermine a candidates opposition (in the US in 2024 the green party is ironically propped up in part by the republican party)
By leaving out fptp it just sounds like anti democracy drivel.
Most all Harris voters agree things need to be changed.
We also agree that NOW is not the time for that. Just, let’s make sure the orange man stays out of power first before arguing what to change.
first past the post voting is a broken system and that main party candidates should make more effort to fix this glaring hole in the voting system.
The Democratic Party would rather lose to the Republican Party than change the rules to allow for a multi-party system.
That aside, the major parties don’t want to reform the system they have because it’s worked very well for them. Our parties are incredibly old by world standards. The Democrats have been around since the 18th century, and the Republicans have been around since the 1850s.
Some level of election reform will be on the ballot in 9 states this fall. Make sure you vote, if you can!
Also worth noting that these efforts are generally led mainly by democrats, with support from some moderate republicans. In contrast, 10 republican-led state legistatures have passed outright bans on RCV. One of these parties is not like the other!
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/05/nx-s1-4969563/ranked-choice-voting-bans
The democrats supported RCV in my state.
The Democratic Party would rather lose to the Republican Party than change the rules to allow for a multi-party system.
That’s a weird false dichotomy. Why are you painting those as the two options?
The problem is if you believe this entirely then there’s no mechanism to affect parties. Which is easy to disprove.
The overarching reality is that the parties are affected by things: culturally there’s been a long period (150 years) of slowly unrestricting people with lots of resistance. Then there’s also a economic right wing drift for decades, largely along capital accumulation lines.
I buy the idea that the parties are hard to affect but the idea they are impossible to affect seems ahistorical.
Lol there’s definitely a way to affect them.
Two actually.
One is $$$$
The other one you aren’t allowed to propose.
Comments turned off
The genocidal lib fears the well informed Jill voter.
Hilarious. More like they don’t want to deal with the flood of nonsense from trolls, bots, and people that just turned 14.
trolls, bots, and people that just turned 14
-
Jill Stein voters are throwing their votes away.
-
Jill Stein voters don’t exist.
Which is it?
-
Being informed means knowing Stein will not win the election. At least if Harris wins Ukraine can be saved.
deleted by creator
Kiss me.
I don’t get it. What’s that a reference to?
Jill for president. <3
They never have this energy for the millions of actual Trump voters.
Well… That would depend on how many people vote for a third party, doesn’t it?
I mean, I know Americans love telling other Americans that voting third party is a wasted vote, but that’s a self-fulfilling profacy. If everyone believes nobody is voting third party, then nobody will vote third party, so third parties never win, which will lead Americans to say that nobody votes for third parties.
Your first past the post system and your major news agencies who don’t have the decency to pretend to be impartial is really doing a number on your country.
Our voting system fundamentally doesn’t allow for third parties to win the vote.
Even if we said “vote for a third party, there’s a statistically significant chance they might win!” this wouldn’t fix the issue, because Jill Stein doesn’t take votes from both sides equally.
Jill Stein leans left, which means people who are otherwise Democrat voters are going to be the largest demographic voting for her.
Our voting system is first past the post, which means this will actually decrease the chance of a left-leaning victory.
Let’s say Dems get 55% of the vote without Jill Stein, and Reps get 45%. Democrats win.
Then, we add in Jill Stein. A significant amount of voters switch over, even some Republicans. (which, in reality, would probably not at all, because Jill Stein’s policies are even further from their beliefs than even the Democrats are)
Dems get 35% of the vote. Reps get 40% of the vote. Jill Stein gets 25%. Democrats & Jill Stein lose, Republicans win.
If Jill Stein were entirely impartial, and took votes equally from each side, then we could have a vote like…
Dems get 45% of the vote. Reps get 35% of the vote. Jill Stein gets 20% of the vote. Democrats win in the same way they would have whether or not there was a third party.
The issue is that, obviously, Jill Stein isn’t taking equal parts of the vote, so this inevitably just reduces votes for Democrats, without reducing votes for Republicans.
It’s not an ideal system, (which is why we should advocate for Instant-Runoff or Rated voting) but it’s the option that will lead to the most left-leaning outcome, as opposed to a heavily fascist one.
It’s mathematically Impossible to have a 3rd party in the US, when are you people with other systems going to understand that?
It’s mathematically Impossible to have a 3rd party in the US
you’re making that up
If you think casting any ballot is a form of protest you need to learn what real protest looks like.
Hint: It doesn’t involve participating in the system you’re protesting.
Not voting indirectly also is a vote for Trump.
no, it’s not
Yes, it is
if that were true, you could prove it. there is no world in which non votes are counted for Trump
Not voting isn’t a protest either. Disrupting the voting? That would be a protest. But the Greens and Stein don’t have the balls for that.
Your ‘protest vote’ for Jill Stein is really a vote for Donald Trump
And it always has been.
Sometimes the Green Party protest vote is a vote for George H.W. Bush.
she ran during obama as well so it was also, technically, a vote for mccain
So practically speaking, there is no anti-genocide vote. There is no health care for everyone vote. There is no reduction in firearm caused deaths of children and teens vote. There is no anti corporate regulatory capture vote. These things just are not possible to achieve in America by voting.
Yes. This is correct. Kudos to you for reaching the correct conclusion. It’s difficult to admit the system is fucked beyond repair; the fundamental shortcoming of Jill Stein voters. The only hope is to continue voting for the most progressive of the two candidates and pressure the winner to change the system (if that is even possible)
The thing about the “muh genocide!” crowd, is that if they gave that much of a shit about issues within their own country, maybe Americans could get some nice things once in a while, above and beyond the run of the mill bread and circuses.
Accepting that you have limited power, choosing an issue, and acting locally has become a lost art. People would rather bitch about how it should be different.
There is a vote for MORE or LESS of all of the above. It’s not like your vote doesn’t matter. Do you want more genocide, or less genocide? “No genocide” isn’t an option. So do you want more genocide, or less genocide?
Which is which? Like, seriously. Put the recent headlines about Israel’s actions against the other guy’s vague, contradictory statements and demonstrated lack of deep interest in foreign affairs. It’s not clear at all.
OK I want LESS.
I have been wanting less for a long time. Those things I want LESS of don’t seem to be reduced by much since I became eligible to vote. Voting’s not enough.
Stein refused to call Putin a war criminal, so yes. There is no anti genocide vote.
Ahahaha spoken like a true Nazi watching Jews being boarded on a train.
Edit: I dont know what the hell is going on with this person. I am for damn sure not a nazi.
I dont like that voting third party in the US is essentially a non-vote for a party in the “system,” but it is. I voted green party in the past, and ended up regretting it. And relavent to Stein, not a good person, or even party, to vote for now. Folks need to be active, and vote down ballot, and in “off cycle” years. Change takes time, the best way to be heard is through the down ballot when helpful.
The current electoral system has myriad problems, and you’re absolutely right that focussing on local seats is a better path. I’m glad we’ve been seeing more comments like yours that do understand the stakes.
For people who rightly feel their interests aren’t adequately represented, rather than voting for spoilers or not voting at all, the best way to actually help fix these problems is to become an activist for electoral reform – starting now for 2028 and beyond. It usually feels like an afterthought brought up a month or two before the election, which is far too late.
Organisations like FairVote Action have been working to get alternative voting methods implemented in various states, and they’ve had some success.
If we want to escape this unfair and undemocratic voting system that’s shackled us to mediocrity and allowed fascism to gain a foothold, we have to keep thinking, educating, and acting now for the future. It’s doable if we work towards it.
It really does suck. The current voting system not only discourages anything other than a two party system, it basically guarantees it. And then it becomes one of those things where why the hell would one of those two parties, who’s perpetually in charge, ever vote to change a system that would allow for another party (or parties) to come into power? It’s just gonna be a slog to ever get it fully changed to something like ranked choice. But I’d absolutely love to be proven wrong.
many states have initiative systems. Alaska, for instance, implented a solid Ranked Choice Voting system for statewide elections. As we see from weed legalization: eventually ballot measures get soaked up by major parties.
Yeah…. She’s a disaster and always has been. Been saying this for years.
It’s just privilege all the way down. If you’re ok with trump, or not worried about him, you’re just riding the ivory tower
Voting for Jill Stein is only “taking a vote away” from Harris if you assume that the voter would’ve voted for Harris without Stein in the race.
That’s a big assumption and I don’t think there’s any good reason to make such an assumption.
Voting for a minor party in terms of the effect on the outcome is approximately equivalent to not voting.
In reality a not insignificant portion of them would probably vote for Trump to “own the libs” honestly.
A not insignificant portion of them will vote for Donald because they are MAGAs cosplaying about wanting a third party.
Other than history showing more ds vote for greens than GOP???
How dumb are you?
As the other option to them is them simply not voting at all; thus not getting their down ballot votes for amendments and other Dem races. Sure. Great idea.
How dumb are you?
If the DNC wants green/PSL votes so bad… why not… court said vote… at all? Most notable difference being stance on Israel/palestine, and some socialist policies. Instead the DNC is praising Israel and cracking down on immigration to court republicans. So… can’t really blame them for refusing to vote for what is against their views.
Exactly what I’ve been saying. Democrats are clearly making a choice to die on and sacrifice our democracy to the hill of imagined centrist voters that make perfect, unquestioning and loyal followers for their party. If they lose for it then they alone are responsible for their loss and they should be the ones we direct our anger at for leaving voters on the table in what they themselves call a close and existentially important race.
If they would rather lose elections than court progressive voters, if they would like to win without us as they so clearly do; because we are less convenient to their bottom line than the aforementioned loyal centrist; then that should be laid bare for the world to see. We shouldn’t let them pass their strategic failures off on voters for having morals and sticking to them.
To be fair, while I’d be like whoa lets not say centrists don’t exist, someone going “Hm idk Donald Trump’s policy of … lets just let cops go wild and kill anyone they want for one day sounds pretty rational and good lets weigh that with Harris’ policy.” is uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh not a fucking centrist.
I mean those perfectly loyal clown fearing pineapple pizza hating plastic people are clearly here in the comments with us. They would have voted for a dementia addled corporate goon if he hadn’t literally gone silent for 30 seconds during a debate. They will throw our “privilege” in our faces, and claim that we don’t care about minorities so we aren’t doing everything in our power to bend the arc of history away from Trump. Not even realizing that their own cowardly groveling is the fucking reason he ever got a spot on the ballot.
The residents of Ohio and Pennsylvania who are undecided aren’t here. They’re undecided because they can’t be bothered to look. Or they’re so disillusioned with the concept of representative government they ignore it as a defence mechanism.
You think…centrists are imaginary?
My friend, you might be in a bit of a social bubble. Like someone in the deep South who only ever sees Trump yard signs and thinks “everyone” supports Trump.
Based on which party they’re registered as? That doesn’t mean much, it doesn’t mean they’d definitely vote for the D candidate if there wasn’t another option. You’re assuming that the D candidate otherwise has that vote locked down just by being a democrat.
You can’t “steal” a vote because no one owns that vote except the individual voter and the individual voter is not being robbed when they decide to vote 3rd party.
