You are not in Europe my friend. Why do Americans not even understand their own voting system.
The Green Party is a thing in America.
Republican and Democrat are the two biggest parties by a large margin, but a few other smaller parties exist. Plus, some people run as an Independent. They're not affiliated with any party at all.
Edit: I never meant to imply the other parties had any chance at winning an election in a meaningful way, which is what these replies seem to think I was saying. (They don't have a chance, honestly.) But other parties do exist, including a party in which you can "vote green". That is all I'm saying.
In a first past the post system of districts with single representative candidates, it almost always resolves to two viable parties. That's the way it's been for basically all of American history.
The parties can change, but the shape of the system remains constant: a vote is only effective when cast for the largest opponent of your least desired candidate. It's unintuitive and discouraging.
The parliamentary systems used in much of Europe, for all their flaws, do allow for more robust and diverse representation.
Greens in America aren't in a position to govern. Even if Stein got enough electoral votes through the work of 30-60 literal miracles, she'd be totally unable to govern effectively. You need a deep bench and more of a base in the other branches of government to form a party that can effect changes and run this country
There's more to federal elections than winning. It's always hilarious when people that don't understand how fucked our system is try to teach others.
Teaching civics is part of the "a republic, if you can keep it" that Franklin was talking about
I love how you exactly proved their point without realising. Please go look up the spoiler effect with first-past-the-post voting.
Then we can use third party candidates to determine who the power actually goes to. At the end of the day. America is so bipolar split tlboth parties are now completely at the mercy of anyone who can garner 10% support. RFK Jr at this point can literally be the decider or who becomes president and who doesn't. Maybe we can use that as a tool of power to force the 2 parties to open the voting system up or have their power cockblocked from them every election cycle.
No, this is not how it works. Please look up the spoiler effect.
I can't vote because I don't live there, but am in the imperial core of countries, so it would be very nice to not have fascists in charge, considering we literally have prosecuted whistleblowers reporting on warcrimes at the behest of the US government. We're your little bitches whether we like it or not.
Y'all really do need to be hyper-focused on pushing for sweeping electoral reform, for sure.
In the meantime though, voting for a 3rd party under your system is basically a vote for the person you don't want.
Vote Biden if you would dislike having Trump more. If you don't want to do that, then yeah, you're basically admitting you're cool with the outcome of Trump presidency.
Please don't waste your vote, your vassals beg you.
I don't want Biden OR trump. that's why I'm voting for a so-called third party
As an outsider it's really annoying when someone just doesn't understand the reality they find themselves in.
A third party isn't in the cards, it never is, but it especially isn't right now. The only way to get a third party elected is to change your voting system, but that's a process that takes years, decades even. It's really not as easy as wasting a vote with a third party, it takes a lot more effort. And the only way to start or continue that process right now is to vote Biden because if Trump wins you might not even get another election to vote in.
And Trump has a good chance of winning because the republicans aren't having such discussions. They know what to do, and come election day they'll all march in and do their job, like they do every time. Remember that he only won last time because people like you felt icky about voting for Clinton.
If you allow me a moment of catharsis, I'll just add that if you Americans once again subject the world to more Trump insanity, I really hope you get to feel the worst of it.
he only won last time because people like you felt icky about voting for Clinton.
he won because people voted for him. I voted against him, and I'm going to again. and I'm voting against biden just like the last time. you're characterization is patronizing and dismissive of real concerns.
really hope you get to feel the worst of it.
why the fuck would you wish that on anyone?
Look up the spoiler effect. Please! This vassal is begging you.
The question under your system (please inform yourself about first-past-the-post) isn't who do you want to win, it's who you do you want NOT to win.
If you vote for your third-party candidate, it's equivalent to not having voted at all, if they have no chance of winning.
You're going to get Biden or Trump with how people vote (spoiler effect, look it up), one of those is going to win, make your peace with that.
So, which would you rather?
I am happy to spell out in greater detail why voting for a third party candidate is a waste of time under your system, happy to chat if there's still any confusion about it.
Look up the spoiler effect.
i have. it's not a natural phenomenon, it's a story that the media tells.
My friends, these are troll accounts. 8h old, only commented on this post.
calling me a troll doesn't change whether what I say is true
Please, do go on to explain how the spoiler effect is a myth. I'll wait. I'd like to see your logic on that one. (Inb4 you don't)
first, i think it will be helpful to recall what a myth is: it's a story we tell to explain the world around us. the spoiler effect is one of those stories: it explains, for some people, why clinton won in 1992. but analysis of the facts of that election find that, in fact, perot hurt clinton's margin of victory.
this myth is persistent, and reinforced by multiple media sources and even academics, but there is no way to actually produce a test of the theory of its existence or its mechanisms. so while you might like to tell this story, even if only to yourself, to justify voting for people who do bad things, to pretend that this myth is objective fact, that it is a natural law, is either misguided or dishonest, depending on whether you actually believe the myth.
The question under your system (please inform yourself about first-past-the-post) isn’t who do you want to win, it’s who you do you want NOT to win.
wrong. the question is "who do i want to vote for" and i want to vote for the person i want to win. incidentally, i don't want to vote for someone i don't want to win.
If you vote for your third-party candidate, it’s equivalent to not having voted at all, if they have no chance of winning.
this is election misinformation. my vote is still counted for the candidate, even if they don't win, just as trump votes were counted in 2020.
If you lived somewhere with a decent preferential voting system, you'd be right.
You don't though, and it's not misinformation to say that under a first part the post system, voting for a third candidate that is not going to win is a waste of the influence you have. CGPGrey explains it well
your YouTube video is based on duverger 's "law" which is not a natural law at all but a useless tautology
🤦♂️ It's a "law" in the mathematical/scientific sense. It is a model that explains something.
You're just spouting smart sounding words without actually proving anything.
Please, please, do explain how the spoiler effect is wrong.
Tell me how when you have first past the post and a two party system, voting for a third candidate who won't win isn't just making it more likely the candidate you'd like less to win.
Please, would love to hear you well reasoned and sound argument.
it's not a law. it's an empty tautology.
it argues that a certain type of election system tends to lead to a two-party system. however, from a critical perspective, this theory might be untestable. why? because someone could argue that any outcome can be explained by the theory. for instance, if there are more than two parties, it could be said that the system still favors two but this is just a temporary exception. this kind of reasoning makes it very difficult to disprove the theory, turning it more into a statement that's true by definition than an actual hypothesis based on evidence. similar arguments have been made about economic theories that rely on assuming everything else stays the same. to be more than just a statement, this theory would need a way to be tested with evidence and potentially proven wrong. that way, it could be a useful theory for understanding political systems instead of just an unfalsifiable claim.
Then Ms 8h account with their full name (deeeeefinitelty not a shill, deeeefinitelt a genuine user. Yeah people on Lemmy toooootally use their full name as if it were facebook), I'll just have to conclude you're trying to sway leftists not to vote for Biden, so the world ends up with trump.
Okay 👍 Please do explain your whacky logic though. I came to the conclusion you're a troll because you're not really engaging by explaining your position beyond: "I don't wanna, it's a lie! The media is lying!!"
Go learn maths, go understand the mechanism behind the spoiler effect. Go look at the literal mountains of examples of it in play. Unless you think it's just some massive coincidence that every first-past-the-post system trends towards two parties.
I'm very keen and willing hear to any actual logic you bring to the table to justify your belief.
Go learn maths, go understand the mechanism behind the spoiler effect.
Unfortunately, that would effectively be a vote for Trump.
What are you smoking
Wrong again. Your admitting we dont live in a democracy if thats the case. we dont live in a democracy the only solution is to oust the government.
No, they're right but we live in a flawed democracy.
I believe it's such a broken democracy that it doesn't qualify as a proper democracy.
So, tell me, how does third party voting or abstaining from voting help oust the government?
Why drive to a polling location to throw your vote away then?
1984
lol, you're so free in the freedom land that you taking an un-awful option from the trainwreck gets you hate from the cult on both sides of the mainstream political parties.
Good on you for having a conscience.
Muricah!!!
Yeah, I don't know why I try with these liberal, blue wave fanatics. They just love genocide so much.
I think in my country that's called "Stemmespild"
which basically means wasted-vote.
if a political party wants to enter the parliament, they gotta get at least 2% of the votes. so if you vote for one of the very unpopular parties and they only get ~1.5% you've effectively wasted your vote completely (This is how it works in my country - of course things are different in the US)
Things are even worse in the US. For president you need to get a plurality of the votes (more than any other candidate) nationally (let's ignore the EC for now) which means that any vote not for the two candidates who stand a chance is wasted.
But also in their congressional elections they set up the system so to get in you have to get a plurality in some district where only one representative will be sent each time (FPTP). So even if your party has 15% nationally, unless they can win a plurality in some districts, they won't get any representation.
Thats why 3rd parties are pure vote wasters in presidential elections and in Congress you only have a handful of independent reps who somehow win their districts without party backing.
Cobtrast that with most of Europe (including Denmark(?)) where you have proportional voting for a parliament and then parliament forms a government. You can vote for your green party and while they might not get to be Prime Minister, they might be needed for the parliamentary majority to form a government and get the environment ministry. Win! Or they might just exert slight pressure in parliament directly, which is where laws are made. Not a loss!
The poor 'Mericans, meanwhile, are screwed. The only reasonable choice is between the two major parties at the elections. To turn that oil tanker they have to get involved in those parties and try to affect which candidates are put forth and then the party even skips that step entirely if they happened to have won the last presidential elections.
I don't like the green party, they basically go away except for a publicity campaign once every 4 years.
PSL is constantly putting in work and has been at nearly every student protest.
🤢 I'd rather vote green
You are not in Europe my friend. Why do Americans not even understand their own voting system.
The Green Party is a thing in America.
Republican and Democrat are the two biggest parties by a large margin, but a few other smaller parties exist. Plus, some people run as an Independent. They're not affiliated with any party at all.
Edit: I never meant to imply the other parties had any chance at winning an election in a meaningful way, which is what these replies seem to think I was saying. (They don't have a chance, honestly.) But other parties do exist, including a party in which you can "vote green". That is all I'm saying.
In a first past the post system of districts with single representative candidates, it almost always resolves to two viable parties. That's the way it's been for basically all of American history.
The parties can change, but the shape of the system remains constant: a vote is only effective when cast for the largest opponent of your least desired candidate. It's unintuitive and discouraging.
The parliamentary systems used in much of Europe, for all their flaws, do allow for more robust and diverse representation.
Greens in America aren't in a position to govern. Even if Stein got enough electoral votes through the work of 30-60 literal miracles, she'd be totally unable to govern effectively. You need a deep bench and more of a base in the other branches of government to form a party that can effect changes and run this country
There's more to federal elections than winning. It's always hilarious when people that don't understand how fucked our system is try to teach others.
Teaching civics is part of the "a republic, if you can keep it" that Franklin was talking about
I love how you exactly proved their point without realising. Please go look up the spoiler effect with first-past-the-post voting.
Then we can use third party candidates to determine who the power actually goes to. At the end of the day. America is so bipolar split tlboth parties are now completely at the mercy of anyone who can garner 10% support. RFK Jr at this point can literally be the decider or who becomes president and who doesn't. Maybe we can use that as a tool of power to force the 2 parties to open the voting system up or have their power cockblocked from them every election cycle.
No, this is not how it works. Please look up the spoiler effect.
I can't vote because I don't live there, but am in the imperial core of countries, so it would be very nice to not have fascists in charge, considering we literally have prosecuted whistleblowers reporting on warcrimes at the behest of the US government. We're your little bitches whether we like it or not.
Y'all really do need to be hyper-focused on pushing for sweeping electoral reform, for sure.
In the meantime though, voting for a 3rd party under your system is basically a vote for the person you don't want.
Vote Biden if you would dislike having Trump more. If you don't want to do that, then yeah, you're basically admitting you're cool with the outcome of Trump presidency.
Please don't waste your vote, your vassals beg you.
I don't want Biden OR trump. that's why I'm voting for a so-called third party
As an outsider it's really annoying when someone just doesn't understand the reality they find themselves in.
A third party isn't in the cards, it never is, but it especially isn't right now. The only way to get a third party elected is to change your voting system, but that's a process that takes years, decades even. It's really not as easy as wasting a vote with a third party, it takes a lot more effort. And the only way to start or continue that process right now is to vote Biden because if Trump wins you might not even get another election to vote in.
And Trump has a good chance of winning because the republicans aren't having such discussions. They know what to do, and come election day they'll all march in and do their job, like they do every time. Remember that he only won last time because people like you felt icky about voting for Clinton.
If you allow me a moment of catharsis, I'll just add that if you Americans once again subject the world to more Trump insanity, I really hope you get to feel the worst of it.
he won because people voted for him. I voted against him, and I'm going to again. and I'm voting against biden just like the last time. you're characterization is patronizing and dismissive of real concerns.
why the fuck would you wish that on anyone?
Look up the spoiler effect. Please! This vassal is begging you.
The question under your system (please inform yourself about first-past-the-post) isn't who do you want to win, it's who you do you want NOT to win.
If you vote for your third-party candidate, it's equivalent to not having voted at all, if they have no chance of winning.
You're going to get Biden or Trump with how people vote (spoiler effect, look it up), one of those is going to win, make your peace with that.
So, which would you rather?
I am happy to spell out in greater detail why voting for a third party candidate is a waste of time under your system, happy to chat if there's still any confusion about it.
i have. it's not a natural phenomenon, it's a story that the media tells.
My friends, these are troll accounts. 8h old, only commented on this post.
calling me a troll doesn't change whether what I say is true
Please, do go on to explain how the spoiler effect is a myth. I'll wait. I'd like to see your logic on that one. (Inb4 you don't)
first, i think it will be helpful to recall what a myth is: it's a story we tell to explain the world around us. the spoiler effect is one of those stories: it explains, for some people, why clinton won in 1992. but analysis of the facts of that election find that, in fact, perot hurt clinton's margin of victory.
this myth is persistent, and reinforced by multiple media sources and even academics, but there is no way to actually produce a test of the theory of its existence or its mechanisms. so while you might like to tell this story, even if only to yourself, to justify voting for people who do bad things, to pretend that this myth is objective fact, that it is a natural law, is either misguided or dishonest, depending on whether you actually believe the myth.
wrong. the question is "who do i want to vote for" and i want to vote for the person i want to win. incidentally, i don't want to vote for someone i don't want to win.
this is election misinformation. my vote is still counted for the candidate, even if they don't win, just as trump votes were counted in 2020.
If you lived somewhere with a decent preferential voting system, you'd be right.
You don't though, and it's not misinformation to say that under a first part the post system, voting for a third candidate that is not going to win is a waste of the influence you have. CGPGrey explains it well
your YouTube video is based on duverger 's "law" which is not a natural law at all but a useless tautology
🤦♂️ It's a "law" in the mathematical/scientific sense. It is a model that explains something.
You're just spouting smart sounding words without actually proving anything.
Please, please, do explain how the spoiler effect is wrong.
Tell me how when you have first past the post and a two party system, voting for a third candidate who won't win isn't just making it more likely the candidate you'd like less to win.
Please, would love to hear you well reasoned and sound argument.
it's not a law. it's an empty tautology.
it argues that a certain type of election system tends to lead to a two-party system. however, from a critical perspective, this theory might be untestable. why? because someone could argue that any outcome can be explained by the theory. for instance, if there are more than two parties, it could be said that the system still favors two but this is just a temporary exception. this kind of reasoning makes it very difficult to disprove the theory, turning it more into a statement that's true by definition than an actual hypothesis based on evidence. similar arguments have been made about economic theories that rely on assuming everything else stays the same. to be more than just a statement, this theory would need a way to be tested with evidence and potentially proven wrong. that way, it could be a useful theory for understanding political systems instead of just an unfalsifiable claim.
i refuse to choose between them
Then Ms 8h account with their full name (deeeeefinitelty not a shill, deeeefinitelt a genuine user. Yeah people on Lemmy toooootally use their full name as if it were facebook), I'll just have to conclude you're trying to sway leftists not to vote for Biden, so the world ends up with trump.
I hope you're unsuccessful.
https://start.duckduckgo.com/?q=Victoria+Antoinette+scharleau&ia=web
Okay 👍 Please do explain your whacky logic though. I came to the conclusion you're a troll because you're not really engaging by explaining your position beyond: "I don't wanna, it's a lie! The media is lying!!"
Go learn maths, go understand the mechanism behind the spoiler effect. Go look at the literal mountains of examples of it in play. Unless you think it's just some massive coincidence that every first-past-the-post system trends towards two parties.
I'm very keen and willing hear to any actual logic you bring to the table to justify your belief.
this condescension is really inappropriate.
you asked for the same explanation in three separate comments in succession. perhaps you could wait until you get teh explanation before badgering me.
your insinuations and suppositions don't change the truth of what I've said
There is no viable third party without voting reform.
If you really want smaller parties to have any chance, go help the people within the democratic party who are trying to make that happen.
Unfortunately, that would effectively be a vote for Trump.
What are you smoking
Wrong again. Your admitting we dont live in a democracy if thats the case. we dont live in a democracy the only solution is to oust the government.
No, they're right but we live in a flawed democracy.
I believe it's such a broken democracy that it doesn't qualify as a proper democracy.
So, tell me, how does third party voting or abstaining from voting help oust the government?
Why drive to a polling location to throw your vote away then?
1984
lol, you're so free in the freedom land that you taking an un-awful option from the trainwreck gets you hate from the cult on both sides of the mainstream political parties.
Good on you for having a conscience.
Muricah!!!
Yeah, I don't know why I try with these liberal, blue wave fanatics. They just love genocide so much.
I think in my country that's called "Stemmespild"
which basically means wasted-vote.
if a political party wants to enter the parliament, they gotta get at least 2% of the votes. so if you vote for one of the very unpopular parties and they only get ~1.5% you've effectively wasted your vote completely (This is how it works in my country - of course things are different in the US)
Things are even worse in the US. For president you need to get a plurality of the votes (more than any other candidate) nationally (let's ignore the EC for now) which means that any vote not for the two candidates who stand a chance is wasted.
But also in their congressional elections they set up the system so to get in you have to get a plurality in some district where only one representative will be sent each time (FPTP). So even if your party has 15% nationally, unless they can win a plurality in some districts, they won't get any representation.
Thats why 3rd parties are pure vote wasters in presidential elections and in Congress you only have a handful of independent reps who somehow win their districts without party backing.
Cobtrast that with most of Europe (including Denmark(?)) where you have proportional voting for a parliament and then parliament forms a government. You can vote for your green party and while they might not get to be Prime Minister, they might be needed for the parliamentary majority to form a government and get the environment ministry. Win! Or they might just exert slight pressure in parliament directly, which is where laws are made. Not a loss!
The poor 'Mericans, meanwhile, are screwed. The only reasonable choice is between the two major parties at the elections. To turn that oil tanker they have to get involved in those parties and try to affect which candidates are put forth and then the party even skips that step entirely if they happened to have won the last presidential elections.
I don't like the green party, they basically go away except for a publicity campaign once every 4 years.
PSL is constantly putting in work and has been at nearly every student protest.