I don’t always clearly word it because lemmy is dem leaning but I hope you vote for whichever major party better represents you - if you’re a republican and vote third party you’re still voting against your interests. Please just participate in a meaningful way - even if I disagree with you.
the narrative of vote splitting presumes i would ever vote for your candidate. i wouldn’t. if any splitting is happening, it’s that you won’t vote for my candidate, and when i phrase it like that you will see how silly it is.
only a vote for a candidate helps that candidate. a vote for any candidate is a vote against all other candidates.
Yes. Yes indeed. People doing not voting out of disdain for Hillary is what got Trump elected in the first place. You cannot sit back and assume that one candidate or another is strong enough to win without your vote.
Besides, you should be voting in your local elections anyways.
No, in a system that has been gerrymandered and uses the electoral college system to favour a party (Republicans) that wins power while losing the popular vote, voting outside the two parties favours that party.
Real fascism is what you’ll likely get by allowing Trump back in.
I’m not allowing anything. I’m just voting with my conscience. These two ineffective octogenarians are not suitable leaders, and the two parties simply MUST know that.
Last reply because I sense you either don’t see the threat, don’t want to see it, or trust in the system to self correct.
If it were a truly equal system, you would be right. I completely agree that tactical voting should not be needed and I wish your ideological standpoint was effective in sending messages to these guys.
Fact is they do not care how many people vote outside the top two if they still win. You might be trying to send a message but they won’t hear it. Unless you can convince 60 million people to follow you of course.
The Republicans particularly know that the protest votes are typically subtracted from the democrat tally.
PR is the only solution that provides the type of government you want but you don’t have it yet and if you want it, what you plan to do is probably reducing the likelihood you’ll ever get it .
It is a sad fact that a vote for anyone but the two biggest parties (in almost every country) is essentially wasted.
When you have PR vote your conscience all the way. With it you may even have more choice because there would be less pressure for candidates like to firm an alliance with a large party. Until then the very real threat to democracy is far more pressing. Donald Trump tried to take the white house by force 3 years ago. This proved he cares more about his own power than the will of the people. He expended a lot of energy trying to use the system against itself to overturn the results when the capitol riots failed. For decades, the Republicans have repeatedly gerrymandered and tried to prevent certain groups from voting, typically minorities. Lately some Republicans at CPAC called for the end of democracy.
I’m not saying the Democrats are saints that can do no wrong, but at least they are not openly trying to rig the system.
If Trump is legitimately elected this time, your protest vote may mean even less next time than it does this time, because democracy in the United States might look more like Russian “elections”. 87% going one way. No politician is that popular. Side note , I’m surprised those guys don’t choose more realistic numbers to make their “election” more credible, but their ego won’t let them.
But, you do you, just don’t complain about the outcome when one of those octogenarian politicians is in power.
“I didn’t vote for him” won’t do you much good when it hurts your wallet, or worse your freedoms.
Not voting or voting third party isn’t sticking it to the man and saying you don’t like either candidate. It’s saying you like them both equally well and you are indifferent to who wins.
Well, I don’t support him in the least. But you think I do, so there’s that.
By not voting you’re helping to elect whoever you prefer less. Voting for a realistic candidate is one of those shitty adult responsibilities.
It is a narcissistic childish presupposition that there is assumed opportunity cost for my vote.
“Of COURSE you would have voted Democrat! Why WOULDN’T you?”
I make a fair bit of money. Like them or not, Republicans are kinder to my income level.
Don’t just assume I’d vote Democrat.
I don’t always clearly word it because lemmy is dem leaning but I hope you vote for whichever major party better represents you - if you’re a republican and vote third party you’re still voting against your interests. Please just participate in a meaningful way - even if I disagree with you.
only votes for a candidate help elect that candidate.
Demonstrably untrue, splitting the vote always helps the other party despite casting no additional votes for their candidate.
the narrative of vote splitting presumes i would ever vote for your candidate. i wouldn’t. if any splitting is happening, it’s that you won’t vote for my candidate, and when i phrase it like that you will see how silly it is.
only a vote for a candidate helps that candidate. a vote for any candidate is a vote against all other candidates.
That is simply not the political reality we find ourselves in.
it’s the only way voting can work.
So your belief in Biden’s ability to win is THAT fragile?
Yes. Yes indeed. People doing not voting out of disdain for Hillary is what got Trump elected in the first place. You cannot sit back and assume that one candidate or another is strong enough to win without your vote.
Besides, you should be voting in your local elections anyways.
I don’t think you support him intentionally.
So a vote for “not your guy” is a vote for their guy.
Sounds vaguely…fascist. Weird.
No, in a system that has been gerrymandered and uses the electoral college system to favour a party (Republicans) that wins power while losing the popular vote, voting outside the two parties favours that party.
Real fascism is what you’ll likely get by allowing Trump back in.
I’m not allowing anything. I’m just voting with my conscience. These two ineffective octogenarians are not suitable leaders, and the two parties simply MUST know that.
Last reply because I sense you either don’t see the threat, don’t want to see it, or trust in the system to self correct.
If it were a truly equal system, you would be right. I completely agree that tactical voting should not be needed and I wish your ideological standpoint was effective in sending messages to these guys.
Fact is they do not care how many people vote outside the top two if they still win. You might be trying to send a message but they won’t hear it. Unless you can convince 60 million people to follow you of course.
The Republicans particularly know that the protest votes are typically subtracted from the democrat tally.
PR is the only solution that provides the type of government you want but you don’t have it yet and if you want it, what you plan to do is probably reducing the likelihood you’ll ever get it .
It is a sad fact that a vote for anyone but the two biggest parties (in almost every country) is essentially wasted.
When you have PR vote your conscience all the way. With it you may even have more choice because there would be less pressure for candidates like to firm an alliance with a large party. Until then the very real threat to democracy is far more pressing. Donald Trump tried to take the white house by force 3 years ago. This proved he cares more about his own power than the will of the people. He expended a lot of energy trying to use the system against itself to overturn the results when the capitol riots failed. For decades, the Republicans have repeatedly gerrymandered and tried to prevent certain groups from voting, typically minorities. Lately some Republicans at CPAC called for the end of democracy.
I’m not saying the Democrats are saints that can do no wrong, but at least they are not openly trying to rig the system.
If Trump is legitimately elected this time, your protest vote may mean even less next time than it does this time, because democracy in the United States might look more like Russian “elections”. 87% going one way. No politician is that popular. Side note , I’m surprised those guys don’t choose more realistic numbers to make their “election” more credible, but their ego won’t let them.
But, you do you, just don’t complain about the outcome when one of those octogenarian politicians is in power. “I didn’t vote for him” won’t do you much good when it hurts your wallet, or worse your freedoms.
soundl like voter suppression tactics.
Not voting or voting third party isn’t sticking it to the man and saying you don’t like either candidate. It’s saying you like them both equally well and you are indifferent to who wins.
no, voting for someone else is saying i want someone else.