politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
That's fine, I'm not interested in changing your mind. To everyone else, Socialist's point here is silly. There is no mechanism for obtaining significant legislative power by voting 3rd party in a FPTP system. It might feel good and you can then write a wall of text about how awesome and moral you are, but you can only affect this election in one of two ways by voting for a specific candidate. You are either benefiting the 1st or 2nd place candidate no matter what you do. This is a mathematical fact when dealing with a FPTP system, like ours. I strongly support changing more elections to a RCV (or STAR) style system which would completely change the calculus here, but only one party has even come close to supporting those changes on a wide scale (guess which one).
This fact alone negates everything 3rd party people claim. It's been pointed out so many times on Lemmy it should make you question why they continue to push this stuff while claiming they want the exact change they are knowingly fighting against. The path forward and the power needed to pass real progressive change is through the Democratic party, not against it. I'm not giving up the largest tool we have to stop the GOP because you would rather throw a temper tantrum. If someone has a better strategy than "well if everyone just voted for a 3rd party!" I'm all ears, but I'm not holding my breath.
The idea that voting third-party is a wasted vote in a FPTP system overlooks the broader impact that third-party votes can have on the political landscape.
Every vote sends a message about what policies and values are important to voters, and this can influence the platforms of major parties in future elections.
Sure, it’s true that our system is designed to favor two major parties, but dismissing third-party candidates entirely ignores the historical fact that significant social and political changes often start with minority voices pushing against the status quo.
Counting on the Democratic Party to implement progressive change assumes that the party will prioritize those changes, which history has shown that they are not doing. They've had PLENTY of time where they were in charge to implement major changes, but they so need need to change the status quo.
Voting your conscience isn’t a temper tantrum; it’s a commitment to pushing for a political system that truly represents a wider range of views.
Well, you do realize that almost half of the country won't vote for your candidate, right? Are they ALL wrong and only you are right? The fact that HALF OF THE COUNTRY doesn't want your candidate to be president, should make you question things as well.
Real change requires challenging the status quo, not just reinforcing it.
Explain, in detail, how voting 3rd party leads to positive change in this general election for President of the United States. Tell me how "challenging the status quo" here is an effective use of resources and risk when swing states are being declined by 10s of thousands of votes? There's no mechanism for the change you're suggesting will come from voting 3rd party this election.
All you can do is write a wall about how bad the Democrats are, because that's the only message you care about spreading, and why I don't find engaging with you to be worth my time typically. Have a nice Sunday, I'm done with this one!
ETA: Everyone notice below, they just repeat the same exact talking points over and over. They will never backup any of the claims they are making. It's all fluff.
Voting third-party sends a clear message that there’s significant dissatisfaction with the two major parties, pushing them to address issues they might otherwise ignore.
It might not lead to an immediate victory in a general election, but it helps build momentum for future elections, strengthens the visibility of alternative platforms, and can influence the policies of major parties as they try to recapture lost voters. In swing states, every vote is critical, but voting for the candidate who aligns with your values isn’t a waste—it’s a demand for better representation.
There's no guarantee that voting for a major party will lead to positive change either, especially if they feel secure in your vote without earning it.
Engaging in this process is about long-term strategy, not just the immediate outcome of a single election.
The whole thing about, "Oh good ideas, but let's not do that THIS election.. THIS election is too important!" has been said for the last 50 fucking years.
For the last 50 years, people keep saying variations of "Not THIS election!" and "But THIS election isn't for that.." and "But, but, what if xxxxxx wins? THIS election to too important!"
Dude, 50 years. So guess what? No more waiting.
I'm voting third party now. And in the future, until something changes. Because every fucking year you will keep crying, "But not THIS election..."
I don't vote out of fear of who MIGHT win. I vote my values. Green Party this election for me. :)
I actually despise Republicans as much as the Democrats. You all have become the same party.