Why would I say that? I’m literally advocating people support a party running against trump.

I promise you I didn’t.

I don’t want to support republican or democrat policies.

Voting for a candidate who is running at the head of either of those parties tickets would be supporting their policies and platforms.

So no, that wouldn’t work.

Don’t worry, I’m gonna vote party for socialism and liberation wherever I can on the ballot too and my distaste for the two major parties softens the more localized the race is, both because the outcomes at stake are unique and the candidates are less doctrinaire.

But no, I’m not gonna vote for a democrat or republican for president but then put the party for socialism and liberation in downticket.

E: wait a minute, if you really thought the down ballot races were what mattered wouldn’t you be positing that I vote democrat at the local level?

What gives? Which one matters, president or everything underneath it?

Votes aren’t sacrificed, they’re cast and counted. The count is public so you know they aren’t tossed into a pit after their hearts are carved out with an obsidian knife or burned on a stake or whatever.

I think the description of pageantry probably isn’t one to invoke when we’re staring down the barrel of three weeks of constant detailed media coverage focused on every detail.

I also think it’s pretty vile to describe voting for a party opposed to genocide as irresponsible. Irresponsible to whomst exactly?

A vote isn’t ceremonial or protest (and if it were protest it would be a lot cooler!).

I just want to take a minute to examine the protest vote rhetoric for a second. People only deploy it to imply that a vote they name protest is not valuable, not effective, immature and other pejoratives.

Why would anyone listen to the input of a person who looked at the history of the last twenty years or even the last century and not just thought “yeah, that’s immature, ineffective and worthless” but then tried to convince the people who are voting third party, overwhelmingly young people, of it?

I am literally asking anyone who would vote for either of the two major parties or a third party to consider the party for socialism and liberation in good faith. I don’t care who it siphons votes from. If a party thinks they need third party voters then they can adopt third party platforms.

She can win if you vote for her.

Really, I think you’d have a really good point if winning were all that mattered.

Election turnout is used to determine all kinds of stuff like funding, ballot presence, event eligibility, media coverage and it does a lot for public awareness.

Plenty of consultants, analysts and workers from the two major parties themselves examine third party turnout when triangulating their platforms and policies.

I don’t think the idea that only candidates who are already in a position to win the presidency should be considered is a very good tack. It’s really hard to defend, relies on some easily disproven misconceptions about the electoral system and if you succeed it just drives people who would vote away from voting at all.

Maybe try a different line of reasoning?

Here goes:

PSL is running Claudia de la Cruz on a platform of Palestinian statehood and an end to arms shipments to israel.

Here’s your chance to not be like the ops meme.