🇳🇱
Just a reminder, third-parties are the only parties do not support Israel's genocide on Palestine and their war of aggression throughout the middle east. Both Trump and Biden have been the biggest supporters of Israel.. Anything other than a third-party vote this year is a vote in favor of genocide.
@freemo Also a reminder, this is what gets Trump elected again.
@hornblower Wrong, voting for Biden is what gets Trump elected because having Biden for the democrat ticket is the reason Trump stands the best chance of winning.
@freemo That makes zero sense. Jill has no chance at all to win, Biden does. Your voting selfishly to feel good about yourself while ignoring the reality. We have the system we have, it's very flawed but it's not changing prior to November. Trump winning doesn't help Gaza, Biden winning may not satisfy your need for a perfect solution but it will be better. Your vote for her would be a terrible for people of color, women, LQBTQ+, immigration, the justice system, judge nominations, the climate...
> That makes zero sense. Jill has no chance at all to win, Biden does
What in the world does that have to do with what you asked... You asked for a solution. The solution is everyone votes for a third party like Stein. **obviously** if everyone votes for her she has a 100% chance of winning. So your point is simply incorrect.
what it sounds like you meant is "what is a solution that involves absolutely no one doing anything different other than you", in which case youd be right, voting for Biden, or Jill, or anyone else wont change anything, because there is no solution that you as an individual can execute.
@freemo That wasn't me
Ok but your responding to me answering that question. So its still relevant what question i was answering.
@freemo I was responding to this:
"Everyone voting for anyone other than Trump or Biden will probably be the most effective single action people could take. A full solution would likely require a lot more, but that will be the closest you get to a solution with a single act."
Right, and your response with:
> Jill has no chance at all to win
Makes no sense. If my solution is that **everyone** votes for her the chance of her winning is 100%, the opposite of no chance.
If the solution i proposed be that **I** vote for her and no one else does anything different then her chance of winning as a result of my vote is effectively 0, the same as the chance of Biden winning as the result of my vote. So your point is equally moot.
@freemo Is this the first presidential election for you as a voter? If so, please look at the history of third party candidates. It isn't at all realistic to think that Stein would get a single electoral vote when she needs 270 to win. Again, a terrible and barely democratic process, but it is the current process.
@hornblower No I have voted many times and am well aware of the 8 times in USA history a third party became a primary party,which are pretty decent odds in the grand scheme.
That said im not sure your relevance.. why would it matter if who i vote for has a high chance or a low chance of winning, the result of my vote is the same either way.
@freemo Cute, when's the last time that happened? Your selfish, sanctimonious need for what you perceive to be perfect has real world consequences for real people. It must be nice to be in such a privileged place.
@hornblower Last time it happened was at the begining of the century before people started beleiving the myth of a two party system. The structure for voting is the same as it was then (first past the post) so what changed, other than people becoming too stupid to realize they have other choices?
As for me being selfish, you have done **nothing** to actually justify why me making a vote for one of the racist two parties that support genocide would somehow make a more positive impact than voting for a third party. You mentioned a third party has a much lesser chance to win, and I even concede that, but do nothing to explain why that should actually mean i shouldl vote for the evil person with a greater chance to win than the not-evil person with a lesser chance to win. You are making no sense.
@freemo I did but you ignored it. Scroll back up. You got confused by the thread
I just did, dont see you making a coherent point anyway.. you argue about chances to win but do not address the point that as an individual there has never been an election in the history of the USA where my vote would have made any impact on the outcome directly. Ergo your argument that I must vote for a popular choice, when doing so would have no impact, is just nonsense.
@freemo Your vote has the impact of 1 vote. Use it wisely so we don't end up with the worst possible president. The day after that, help the Green party win an election higher than small town mayor and begin building it into a viable alternative, and push for IRV in your state elections. All of that is better than popping up every 4 years smugly complaining about the presidential election candidates from your place of privilege.
> Your vote has the impact of 1 vote. Use it wisely so we don't end up with the worst possible president.
Exactly, and since that one vote has the same effect on the outcome no matter how popular your candidate is you should always use it to vote against evil like Senile Genocide Joe or single digit IQ Racist Trump.
You keep assuming voting for an evil popular candidate is somehow a better use of that 1 vote and completely fail to make that point in anyway.
> The day after that, help the Green party win an election higher than small town mayor and begin building it into a viable alternative, and push for IRV in your state elections.
Thats not how FPTP vote works. When third partys take over the transition is always abrupt and during a single election. So the dynamic you describe is ignorant of the mechanics. There is no two party system but there is an illusion of one caused by this effect.
> All of that is better than popping up every 4 years smugly complaining about the presidential election candidates from your place of privilege.
While IRV would be an improvement it isnt needed as third parties are completely possible and common under FPTP voting.
@freemo You struggle to understand the reality of that illusion.
No, that seems to be you. The illusion does have an effect, which I described, but not at all resembling what you think.
Moreover, you have still failed to make any attempt at justifying why my vote would have more value on a primary party even if it did work the way you said.
@freemo I did and it does, you just refuse to see beyond your fantasy of Stein winning. I'll check back with you in November when she gets 0 electoral votes and 1-3% of the popular vote. </this>
Your statement doesnt just not reflect my stance it is complete opposite of what I actually said. Which goes to show, no, you most certainly are not following along or understanding my viewpoint at all.
I've said it a few times now but you seem to refuse to listen to what I say and just repeat your talking points..
I **expect** stein to get 0 electorial votes and 1% to 3% of the vote.
My point is so what? How is voting for someone who gets 2% of the vote and loosing any different than voting for an evil person who gets 48% of the vote and looses, or even voting for another equally evil person who gets 51% of the vote and wins? How is you voting for someone you dont want to win, who wins somehow better than voting for someone you do want to win who looses? Thats the part you have failed to answer and just completely ignore in the discussion. The outcome is exactly the same with regards to who wins no matter who i vote for, so what even is your argument for me to vote for someone I dont want.. you have none.
@freemo you're leaning heavily into a strawman argument here, a very common one.
A vote is an expression of a stance. What you're proposing is that we should take various stances and just funnel them all into one stance that will in many cases be completely opposite to the voters' own positions.
For example, I won't vote for either Biden or Trump because I believe both parties need to nominate better candidates. They must if they want my vote. So many others share my position.
We hope that the parties, particularly the losing party, will take that position to heart in the future.
BUT as different people will frame our position as support for either candidate, instead of rejection for both, is to get our position exactly backwards AND miss the call to change, to put forward a better nominee.
The strawman argument of voting for something instead of rejection substitutes what we actually believe for something completely backwards of what we believe, missing the call for a solution in the process.
@niclas well that's obviously false.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
No ritual, funny clothes or words written on a piece of paper can elevate the rights of some people to violently abuse the rest of the populace. Voting is a ritual to think that you have a say. It is more of a tally to see how many people support the idea of being partials slaves.
I feel sorry for you that you can't break free.
@volkris
Voting is nothing more than "Agreeing to be subjugated by a ruling class."
Whether the jackboot sits on the right or the left foot is a distraction to keep people from realizing what he game is really about.
#stopvoting
@freemo @hornblower