Green Party candidate files to join U.S. Senate race

Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldbanned from sitebanned from site to politics @lemmy.world – -27 points –
Green Party candidate files to join U.S. Senate race
montanafreepress.org
37

Wow, so surprising they would pick one of the most hotly contested senate races in the country with a vulnerable incumbent Democrat. Total coincidence I'm sure, and not at all an effort to help the Republican.

The green party cares about the environment man.

It's just that it's the political environment. Fucking trash.

Well that's YOUR opinion. Which you totally have a right to. As I have a right to my opinion, which differs from yours.

Funny how your opinion only comes around every 4 years and then Disappears back to russia

Funny how your opinion only comes around every 4 years and then Disappears back to russia

I'm not sure what you mean. I vote in local elections too, so not just every 4 years.

And I have been voting for longer than you have been alive.

And Greens are in other elections besides presidential:

Californians have elected 55 of the 226 office-holding Greens nationwide. Other states with high numbers of Green elected officials include Pennsylvania (31), Wisconsin (23), Massachusetts (18) and Maine (17). Maine has the highest per capita number of Green elected officials in the country and the largest Green registration percentage with more than 29,273 Greens comprising 2.95% of the electorate as of November 2006.[68] Madison, Wisconsin is the city with the most Green elected officials (8), followed by Portland, Maine (7).

Also:

https://montanafreepress.org/2024/08/21/green-party-candidate-files-to-join-u-s-senate-race/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/3127249/eight-green-party-write-ins-will-run-in-the-general-election/

And I have been voting for longer than you have been alive.

Wish I was wrong. I voted for first time in 1988. You?

Wish I was wrong. I voted for first time in 1988.

If that's true, it just makes your advocacy seem even more politically ignorant.

It's not my problem if you don't believe my age—I know when I started voting, and I’m confident in my choices.

What possible reason would I have to admit that I am in my mid-50's?! Dude, I'd trade what I have for your age any day of the freakin' week, brother.

But anyway, voting with my values doesn’t make me politically ignorant; it makes me true to what I believe in. And there is no reason to get personal just because you don't agree with my opinions. I respect and support your right to have your own opinions, please respect mine.

There's a bit of a history of the Republicans in Montana funding the Green Party to serve as spoilers.

The way first-past-the-post elections work makes this pretty much inevitable.

Let's look at 3 scenarios:


Scenario 1:

  • Tester (D) 1001 votes
  • Sheehey (R) 1000 votes
  • Green Party: 0 votes

Tester wins


Scenario 2:

  • Tester (D) 1000 votes
  • Sheehey (R) 1000 votes
  • Green Party: 1 vote

Tie between Tester and Sheehey, forcing a special election (Montana rules; other states use games of chance)


Scenario 3:

  • Tester (D) 999 votes
  • Sheehey (R) 1000 votes
  • Green Party: 2 votes

Sheehey wins


This means that voting for a minor third party instead of the Democrat actively harms the ability to elect somebody who is better-aligned with your views.

Vote your heart in the primary. Vote strategically in the general.

None of that matters to me. I'm still voting green this election.

Exactly what a Republican would say.

Exactly what a Republican would say.

I don't really know much about that.

For me personally, if I were Republican, I'd say so. And probably vote Trump. But I'm not either of those things.

So were you implying that I personally am a Republican, or just that some republicans may vote Green Party?

You do realize that the majority of my postings are for socialism causes, right? https://lemmy.world/c/socialist

Looks like a Republican engaged in cosplay

Nah, you know if someone wants to be a Republican, they can just be Republican, right? No need to cosplay.

There's a lot of stuff exactly like what you do designed to trick people into doing things that benefit Republicans

There’s a lot of stuff exactly like what you do designed to trick people into doing things that benefit Republicans

I have every right to share news and opinions about third parties, just as you have the right to share your views.

Disagreeing with my posts doesn’t mean I’m part of some grand conspiracy; it simply means we have different perspectives.

In a democracy, diverse viewpoints are essential to healthy debate, not something to be feared or dismissed.

Exactly the argument a Republican would make

I wouldn't know, because I'm not a Republican.

Most of my posting history is for Socialist causes, so not sure if you are implying I am a Republican or not.

If so, that would be laughingly disconnected from reality.

You have a 16 day old account created in the midst of an election season filled with propaganda bots.

Your posting history is simply not valid evidence. Your logic sure seems disconnected from reality.

You have a 16 day old account created in the midst of an election season filled with propaganda bots.

Yep, there does seem to be plenty of Democrat propaganda bots.

You have a 16 day old account created in the midst of an election season filled with propaganda bots. Your posting history is simply not valid evidence.

It’s funny that you point out the age of my account as evidence for your argument, yet you ignore my posting history, which actually provides stronger evidence for mine.

So is there a particular time limit, after joining Lemmy, that I have to wait to start posting my views? I didn't see that disclaimer when I signed up. How long did YOU wait to post after signing up?

I came here from reddit when the rumor of them starting to charge starting taking effect, so I didn't come here based on any magic election timing.

Nice that you decided to look up my profile, but unfortunately I haven't looked yours up, because I don't care that much.

Voting out of fear rather than conviction only perpetuates a system that fails to represent all voices; real change starts when people vote for what they truly believe in, not just what seems strategically safe.

2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...

You were shown a simple demonstration of the Spoiler Effect, which may cause Republicans to win the race if a third party manages to draw votes away from Democrats.

You're still endorsing voting third party, saying you don't care.

You're endorsing helping Republicans.

What the other poster is implying isn't that Republicans may vote Green. On the contrary, it's that Democrats may vote Green and split their vote, while Republicans will stand united.

At the end of the day, when the votes are counted, your ideology doesn't matter. Why you voted the way you did doesn't matter. What matters is who wins the election, and if you're consciously proposing an election strategy that may aid the Republicans, you're contributing to their chances of victory.

And if you're helping Republicans, don't be surprised if people call you a Republican.

Blaming third-party voters for a potential Republican victory is totally misguided. Lemmy has been crying about this in every post that is about third parties.

If Democrats are so worried about the spoiler effect, they should focus on putting forward stronger candidates who can unite their base.

Voting third-party is not an endorsement of Republicans; it's a demand for better representation and a push for real change.

If the Dem Party fails to inspire its voters, the fault lies with their candidates. Blame them, not the people who choose to vote their conscience.

If the Dem Party fails to inspire its voters, the fault lies with their candidates. Blame them, not the people who choose to vote their conscience.

That's bullshit. The spoiler effect is a result of the relative position of candidates, not the strength of inspiration.

Total voters: 765
The winner was favorable to 56% of voters
lachlan - 427
emma - 338

Total voters: 765
The winner was favorable to 44% of voters
emma - 338
lachlan - 312
omalley - 115

Any party or candidate can fall victim to this, no matter how strong or inspirational they are. This is simply the result of everybody voting for the candidate closest to them.

So you'd rather have a Republican victory than a mediocre Democrat?

So you’d rather have a Republican victory than a mediocre Democrat?

I’d rather vote for a candidate who truly represents my values than settle for mediocrity just to avoid a Republican win.

Accepting "mediocre" candidates only perpetuates a cycle of compromise without real progress.

That's a yes then.

The point is that this isn't just about conscientious voting. There is a strategic element to it. That's the unfortunate reality, and standing on principles alone won't change it.

Support efforts to abolish the FPTP system to replace it with something like RCV, where you could then in good conscience vote Green first and Dem second. Support efforts at proportional representation to have Green members in the Houses. Support anything thay breaks up the two-party monopoly so that voting for a candidate who truly represents your values no longer becomes a political gamble.

But if you're saying "I'd rather split the left-wing votes and risk a Trump victory than vote for Harris", people will rightly call you a Republican muppet, because you'd essentially prefer Trump over Harris.

I’d rather vote for a candidate who truly represents my values than settle for mediocrity just to avoid a Republican win.

Voting based on principles is essential because it challenges the very system that forces voters into choosing the lesser of two evils. Real change begins when we stop accepting the status quo and demand a system where all voices are fairly represented.

Supporting third-party candidates isn't about splitting the vote—it's about pushing for the reforms necessary to break the two-party monopoly that limits our democracy.

And no, I'm not a "republican muppet" just because I am not voting for your candidate. If I wanted to vote republican, then I'd vote republican.

If Democrats are so worried about the spoiler effect, they should focus on putting forward stronger candidates who can unite their base.

Voting third-party is not an endorsement of Republicans; it’s a demand for better representation and a push for real change.

If the Dem Party fails to inspire its voters, the fault lies with their candidates. Blame them, not the people who choose to vote their conscience.

You're repeating yourself.

Supporting third-party candidates isn't about splitting the vote

...but that's the practical effect

—it's about pushing for the reforms necessary to break the two-party monopoly that limits our democracy

...which you expect to happen, if Trump wins?

And no, I'm not a "republican muppet" just because I am not voting for your candidate. If I wanted to vote republican, then I'd vote republican.

I don't think you want to vote Republican. I don't think you want a Republican government. I think you consider it an acceptable alternative to sacrificing principles. And therein lies the issue.

The question at the heart of it all - and try to answer just yes or no - is this:

Do you think Trump is preferable to Harris?

Do you think Trump is preferable to Harris?

They are both exactly the same to me.

I don't like either one. I won't vote for either one.

2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...

"I want republicans to continue to kill environmental regulations, and bring about more climate destruction. But trust me bro, I'm really a leftist".

2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...