496
Even Bernie didn't vote third party when it counted.
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
496 points (90.1% liked)
Political Memes
5357 readers
2803 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
A third party has literally no chance to win in our system, and nobody gives a single fuck about the miniscule amount of votes they do get - you're not moving any metrics, or sending any messages, or taking any stands. All you're doing is helping the worse option win.
So, if you truly hate Palestinians, then by all means vote Stein. If you want to see Ukraine taken over, then please vote Stein. If you want to see our country start murdering every version of queer people, then you really should vote Stein. That's all you're going to get for it.
Whether you like to see the truth or not, a vote for a third party is still a vote for genocide.
If that's true then why do you care? It's a miniscule amount that's not moving anything.
Let's build some towers out of blocks and see whose is biggest!
The Dem tower is 48 blocks tall. The GOP Tower is 49 blocks tall. The 3rd party tower is 3 blocks tall. That 3 block tower isn't enough to win, but if they stacked onto the Dem tower, that's the difference between 4 years of status quo and 4 years of fascism.
You're funny if you think it will be 4 years of fascism. It will be the new status quo.
That was the intended implication. Fascism is not known for reservation.
Aren't there other blocks that could be stacked on the Dem tower?
Where?
At the undecided pile.
That's the 3 blocks
The Green votes are as much votes—i.e. are as decided—as the Democrat and Republican votes.
The undecided pile has 10s of blocks.
The undecided voters who keep finding reasons that the appeasement isn't good enough?
I suppose for some of them, yes.
Most of the ones I've interacted with.
Seems to me that the 48 blocks could also be moved to the 3 blocks, and that might be less convenient but then it wouldn't just be 4 more years of the same deteriorating status quo that produced Trump in the first place.
Bit of an understatement there, don't you think? That convincing 80 million people to switch their vote to an inexperienced and unproven spoiler candidate with questionable motives and vague policy proposals, with 2 weeks before the election, might be less convenient than convincing a rounding error of voters to vote strategically according to their own stated goals? It would be fair then to say that planets might be a bit bigger than protons, and WWII may have been a bit of a kerfuffle.
Don't get me wrong, I've been known to indulge, recreationally, in impossibly improbable fantasies. I think we all do from time to time. I'm no lover of the status quo, I yearn unironically for fully automated luxury gay space communism. It's certainly titillating to imagine the people collectively gaining class consciousness and walking to the polls arm in arm to vote "The Proletariat" for President in a landslide. Buuut...
I've worked various customer service roles, I believe anyone who has can corroborate the surprising prevalence of, shall I say, simpletons in the general population. As valid as your policy positions may be, the average American has the attention span of a TV ad and the political depth of a celebrity tweet.
Do you have an actionable plan to spontaneously educate and persuade 80 million people in under 2 weeks? If so, why have you waited until now to suggest it? We could've had the revolution years ago.
As fun as the fantasies are, there are lives at stake. In serious circumstances, I prefer not to gamble on historically unsuccessful schemes. Identify the options available to you and their consequences. What levers of power do you hold, how long are they and where is their fulcrum?
It's not enough to just try stuff that sounds good and hope it works, well-intended actions have unintended consequences. What evidence suggests converting half the voting population in 2 weeks is remotely conceivable?
In two weeks, no, it's not conceivable. But in the long term, there are only three possibilities: the democrats move left to meet us, or, people move to a new party, or, the system decays into fascism. The democrats will never move to meet us if we support them unconditionally, so the way I see it, voting third party works towards both of those aims at once.
The country is in decline and has been for quite some time. The policies that I advocate for are necessary to stop that decline. As long as Democrats both paint themselves as defenders of the status quo and refuse to do what's necessary for the status quo to actually work for people, it's a losing proposition, and one that will only get worse over time. And that's a problem, because the biggest faction that positions itself as critical of the status quo, and is therefore posed to take advantage of deteriorating conditions, is a right-wing one. Therefore, to accept merely clinging to the status quo as the only option is the same as accepting defeat - it isn't a viable approach. Building a third party is unlikely to win this particular election, but at least it is part of a strategy that could theoretically work to stop fascism.
In any case, I will not be moved from my position by any amount of words. Either the Dems can give the concessions necessary to move me, or the 80 million can join me over here, or they can win or lose without me. Am I being obstinate? Yes. But I am being obstinate for a reason, because my positions have to happen, or we'll all be fucked regardless.
Correct! Now let's consider these possibilities, from the perspective of a person who wants to accomplish a goal with their actions:
A new party is the best option, but it will take time to build. That's gonna look like several election cycles of local and state elections.
I'm the meantime, there is the immediate threat of the system decaying into fascism. If that happens, the new party is doomed anyway, so we need to delay the fascism as much as possible while we get members of the new party elected to lower offices so they can build the experience, skills, and connections necessary to implement their superior policies.
Naturally, we come again to the only rational strategy for a disgruntled leftist: vote Dem every election to buy time until the new party is viable. Jill Stein is not a serious candidate and very possibly an deliberate spoiler bankrolled by Russia. West is not a serious candidate. De la Cruz seems sincere, but she lacks the experience to be a serious candidate; try Governor or Congress first before applying for President.
I didn't see it the way you see it, in fact I think you might have something in your eye because there is no evidence that voting third party accomplished any stated goal, and in fact makes the problems worse.
I sympathize, but your strategy does not implement your policies faster, it in fact pushes them further away. You're right that we need a new party, but it's too late this cycle, and the fascists winning may mean it never happens. A vote for Harris is a vote for 4 more years of status quo while we do the real work locally.
Yikes. I'm glad your life is stable enough to gamble with fascism to appease your own obstinance, but however noble your reasons, this strategy is counterproductive. People will suffer so you can say you were stubborn in the face of overwhelming evidence against your strategy.
Time is not on our side. In four years, no matter who wins, the rich will be richer, the poor will be poorer, the climate crisis will be worse, and more and more money will be funneled into the military. "Buying time" is not a valid goal, especially not when it comes at the expense of efforts to actually build an alternative. In four years, anyone looking to build an alternative is going to face the exact same criticisms you're using now, it will again be "the most important election of our lives" and there's a good chance that the republican candidate will be worse than Trump, and more people will have turned to the right out of dissatisfaction with deteriorating conditions. Why on earth should we put off building an alternative when future conditions will just make it worse and harder without removing any of the issues that make you say that right now is "an inconvenient time?" When will it be the right time to start building a third party?
Of course not, because they haven't been built yet. That's like saying that there's no evidence that liberalism could ever work when monarchy was all people knew. What we do know is that the people in power are fundamentally unwilling or unable to address the problems that are leading to the rise of fascism, and therefore must be replaced.
Stable enough to gamble with fascism? No, it's the opposite. It's precarious enough that I insist on taking a strategy that has a nonzero chance of actually stopping fascism rather than accepting it as an inevitability.
Correct!
That logic does not follow. Buying time is an imperative intermediate goal.
Yes, that's the meme. The time to be talking about third parties is not 2 weeks before the election, it's the day after the election, and consistently for the next 3 years. Anyone trying to build an alternative in 4 years deserves the criticism they get. Build the alternative the whole time.
No one said to put off building alternatives. The current alternatives aren't viable, and voting for them not only doesn't help, it hurts. Again, as per the meme, the right time is any time except right before an election without any viable third parties. Buy time in 2024, build in 2025-2027, buy time in 2028, build in 2029-2031, repeat until we have a candidate with Governor/Senator experience and enough of Congress to get past gridlock.
Incorrect unfortunately, your strategy's chance of stopping fascism is much closer to zero than mine. In fact, the strategy you insist on taking actually has a much higher chance of enabling fascism than stopping it.
I didn't start supporting a third party candidate 2 weeks before the election. If you spend the next three years building a third party and then ditch them at the last minute, then what was the point? That makes absolutely zero sense, it's even less coherent than just unconditionally and uncritically supporting the democrats forever. Why would I tell other people to vote for a third party for three years and then suddenly change my messaging and vote for the democrats and then switch back to telling people to vote third party right after? If you actually think through that at all, what you're saying is incoherent.
Incorrect, my strategy has a low, but nonzero chance of stopping fascism, while yours is zero.
To get a candidate 3 years closer to being viable, you know you don't have to start over every 4 years. It's going to take several election cycles before we have a qualified third party candidate.
That's a silly thing to do, and not something I recommended. Don't do that. Do promote third parties in local races they can actually win, as well as state elections in solid states where they can actually win. Once you have enough of those to have presidential candidates with actual experience, then, with sufficiently positive polling data, start pushing for a popular third party candidate.
That's going to be at least 3 election cycles though, and if you fill around like this every 4 years it may well be a moot point. What good is a third party if the fascists end elections? Any other strategy is incoherent. Unless of course your goal is to split the vote for the benefit of the fascists, then promoting a spoiler candidate is exactly aligned with your goal.
My strategy is to buy time while we build a functional and electable third party that has the means to change the status quo. Your strategy is to throw away views on a non-functional candidate, and in the process accelerating the fascist takeover.
I'm not gonna nuh-uh-yuh-huh with someone who doesn't understand elections, or the trolley problem.
Voting isn't analogous to the trolley problem. That's a thought experiment with a huge number of unrealistic simplifying assumptions that makes it only rarely at all applicable to the real world. To make the trolley problem actually reflect the situation of voting, you'd have to add in so many variables that it wouldn't actually help explain anything.
First off, the comparison isn't valid because it treats the parties as unflinching machines that have no agency. In reality, the electoral process is a negotiation in which the parties attempt to build coalitions, and in a negotiation, accepting the other side's position as ironclad and unmovable is a choice and often a bad one. If the other party is committed to being reasonable, then you can offer them a terrible deal that is only slightly better than what they would get otherwise - it is a position of weakness.
You, as well as the democratic party, want to put people like me into that position of weakness where our decisions are the ones that are most scrutinized and up for critique, but it ought to be the opposite. Democracy is about the will of the voters being exercised on the political process, not the will of a party being pushed onto the voters. If you wanted the trolley problem to reflect this, then you'd have to put someone in the problem who is standing by the alternate track who put the person there on the tracks and is fully able to release them at any time, but chooses not to, while also trying to persuade you to switch tracks, which would also put them in a position of power. Negotiating with that person and demanding they release their victim is a reasonable thing to do which complicates the problem.
The hypothetical also isn't valid because it ignores any alternatives. The reality is that there's more than two tracks that the lever can switch to, and some of them don't have any people on them at all. However, there's not just your lever, but 300 million levers involved. And also, it's not just one trolley problem, but repeated ones over and over, and the results of one trolley problem are used to inform the next one. As I said, when you add in all the meaningful differences between the hypothetical and reality, it becomes just as complicated as reality and fails to be useful.
As for just focusing on local elections - the fact of the matter is that local elections don't get nearly the same level of attention as presidential elections. Promoting third parties in the presidential race is conducive to helping them win local elections because it helps publicize them, and it makes up the vast majority of what people actually talk about. Ignoring the presidential race would mean sitting on the sidelines and ignoring virtually every political conversation, which is not an effective means of advancing a political cause.
Tbh, I'm very skeptical that you actually want anything like the same things that I want. There's this pervasive trend among the democratic party and their surrogates to simply accept whatever values or goals a constituent wants, and to simply focus on how voting democrat will help accomplish that goal - to be everything to everyone, in other words. In this case, what I want is for the democratic party to be unseated and replaced, and you're going along with that while trying to argue that the most effective means of accomplishing that is to vote democrat. I find that pretty absurd. No, the most effective way of advancing the goal of a third party replacing them is to vote for that third party, and that should be extremely obvious to anyone.
I know a lot of hard lefties that would be very upset if they could math right now.
There are only 9 blocks that matter and 6 of them are in the GOP Tower.
Huh sounds like the people who have 3 blocks have a lot of influence. Considering the stakes shouldn't the ones with the big towers be trying to appease the ones with three blocks?
I mean this doesn't sound insignificant at all. I thought they were "not moving any metrics"?
By appeasing the 3 blocks, you've now lost 10 blocks from your own tower. Congratulations!
Sounds more like the people with three blocks know the consequences of a Trump victory and are using their vote as ransom to make demands over a single issue that will get far worse if Trump wins.
So in essence. The people with three blocks are entitled and ignorant and quite possibly purposefully helping Trump win.
Yes, that's correct. And that single issue is genocide, which is absolutely worth taking a stand against. But whether you agree with it or not, that's the situation. We are holding our votes ransom and if they want them then they'll have to give in to our demands. Their choice.
Sure, let's go down this line of reasoning. You appease the 3 blockers, and lose 10 blocks in the process. Now the Dem tower is 41 and the GOP tower is 59. Objectively a bad trade. What incentive does that provide?
so it's, "our way or Hitler 2.0?"
doesn't sound very progressive to me. kinda sounds like....
Isn't "Our Way" the whole Green New Deal to save everyone on the planet from roasting alive due to climate change?
And when your analytics shows that adopting those policies will lose you more voters than you’d gain from the likely third party vote, what then?
Some states/districts have come down to a few hundred or a few thousand votes. I don't agree with the above comment that it doesn't matter. Third parties are spoilers
Its complicated. They only become spoilers after the election is counted. On the days leading up to the election people not pledging their votes to one candidate or another are sought after, and sometimes that seeking takes the form or candidates doing desperate policy changes to bring their poll numbers up. Like we saw with Harris spouting off trying to appeal to gun nuts the other day. If enough Dem voters had stood up and said, "Hey stop it with the weapon shipments and at least be neutral in this because whats going on is not adhering to Who Americans are" then Harris would have felt pressure to stop the shipments, out of a once every 4 year fear that the people might be pissed at her. For the rest of the time our opinions dont matter for shit to party leadership.
But to date she hasnt felt the pressure. The killing continues becasue we let it continue out of fear of trump winning. We dont trust that Harris is smart enough to get a message like, "hey cut that out", from us, but I bet she and her staff are smart enough if we could just come together and send the message. The fault here is on the voters for allowing Harris and Biden to do some flatly evil far right wing shit. We didnt even get bribed-- we're simply all terrified of trump so we let far right evil exist within a left leaning party.
It's crazy that the average American voter doesn't know what the electoral college is.
It's crazy that you used a made up statistic to feel superior lmao.
Crazy how foreign election-meddlers don't even know how obvious they are with their agitprop.
it's crazy the average hard lib is a humorless husk of a human being with zero awareness of what a joke is.