Many voters are weary about a Biden-Trump rematch in 2024. Third parties hope they can fill the gap
stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to 
mainichi.jp
PHOENIX (AP) -- The 2024 presidential election is drawing an unusually robust field of independent, third party and long shot candidates hoping to capitalize on Americans' ambivalence and frustration over a likely rematch between Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Donald Trump.
Don't vote for a third party. That's just voting for Trump with extra steps.
I think a lot of people thinking about voting third party are going to need reasons TO vote for someone, not reasons to not vote for the other guy. Telling them “it’s just voting for Trump” isn’t going to convince them.
And no, I’m not planning on voting third party. But finger-wagging won’t convince anyone already looking elsewhere.
If a Trump presidency doesn't scare the shit out of them at this point, then they were already looking for excuses to support him, and "I want someone to vote FOR" is just a stupid excuse.
Like, I want a gazillion dollars and a private island, but I also don't smear shit on the walls of the public library when I wake up and don't get those things. Anyone who does, just wanted to smear shit on the walls.
Yup. It is basically the same as how Romney and Cheney are "good republicans" because they want all the same shit trump does but want to pretend they are classier than that
I haven't seen Dark Brandon in a while. Like, months.
I vote FOR Dark Brandon. I'll give Biden my vote over Trump. Those are different things, even if the objective measure looks the same.
I'd like to vote for DB and get him.
Hey man, the dude has enough sense to understand that between the situations in Ukraine and Israel, the world is in a fucked up place at the moment. He's a lifelong statesman, and he's probably telling his more aggressive political advisors to back the hell off so we can figure out what the hell is going on and maybe get our hostages to safety. I respect him for that, and I'm not entirely convinced that being combative or bellicose would be even remotely helpful right now, despite the fact that it would make you feel better in the here and now.
So you don't get Dark Brandon exactly when you want him? And you have to wait....checks notes....a few months? Tough shit. If you have to wait months for him to come out, imagine how many decades you're going to wait for the institutions of this country to recover from this. If "I had to wait months for Dark Brandon" is enough for you to waffle on the gravity of your decision in 2024, then you were already lost before this conversation started.
To be fair to OP, I've seen "Dark Brandon" more as a meme to vex conservatives, used when Biden accomplishes a one of his policies, and particularly when fighting to get student loans forgiven.
This.
Dark Brandon gets policy wins, judges in seats, he moves things. He gets funding for Ukraine.
I haven't seen as much of that.
Israel isn't something I agree as much with him on, but that's not what I was talking about.
It's been a few days so this thread should largely be inert.
I'm not sure who you were replying to because it wasn't me.
I said nothing about Israel. I said I'd give him my vote. Your tone was dismissive to someone who wrote what you wanted to read, but I did not say or imply.
Not interested in a flame war, only discussion. If you respond with hostility or more bad faith, you'll get the last word - I'll not reply.
Joe Biden and Dark Brandon are the same person. You're splitting rhetorical hairs for the sake of argumentation, based largely on a meme, and there's no need for me to substantially respond to what is largely a meaningless assertion. You just refuse to give Biden credit for Dark Brandon's accomplishments, which is insane.
I used a rhetorical device to easily distinguish what excites me about him being president versus what's meh. It worked and works.
Most people know they aren't going to see a DB meme for the Israel topic *that you introduced from... Somewhere? *
He's chalked up wins and I know he'll end up with L's. But I prefer seeing him using his political capital on the economy, green energy, trust busting, courts... The virtuous things Roosevelts did.
You keep implying I said something I didn't and your post history is argumentative. Smart, but too many elbows. This will be my last reply.
You made an assertion that amounts to little more than "I like him when he does some things, but not when he does others."
No shit, sherlock. That's how all of this works. You want a cookie?
Anyone not terrified of a Republican and/or Trump presidency has a shitton of privilege and needs to fucking check it. Cishet, white and men are prominent demographics for "he won't hurt me too badly" and by the time the redcaps come for those not in lockstep it'll be far, far too late.
In other words lots of people have an incredibly childish attitude about voting and are completely prepared to throw a little tantrum in the voting booth even if it means fascists get to take over the whole federal government. I'm becoming pretty convinced that people like that are just incapable of rational decision making.
It’s crazy how people view voting. In life we have so many situations where we look at realistic options and choose the best thing, or even the least bad thing, from those options.
But then with voting people feel like making their vote should be like wishing on a birthday cake. It’s totally irrational, as you say.
If we don't accept that irrational people exist and do what we can to get their votes, we risk the return of Trump.
But it's way more fun to shout at them.
One can't cater to or court the irrational. We can however stop humoring them and giving them undeserved respect. That might lead more rational people to mistakenly consider them.
Republicans keep doing it. They beat Clinton in 2016 by doing it.
Centrist Democrats would rather lose than debase themselves by moving one Planck length to the left.
And it's coming back to bite them in the ass. Further, condoning and catering to those views only speeds up the rotting brain mush that is the current American political psyche. Making it easier for fascist strong men to take over. On undeliverable promises of candy mountains and soda pop swimming pools. As a socialist largely opposed to Democrats neoliberal economic plans. I can still support them, as our best current possible option. But they absolutely do need to promote themselves better.
But Republicans have cornered the market on those who enjoy being lied to at infinitem. And it is simply not a viable tactic for democrats to even try to steal that group from them.
So first it'll never work, and now it works but it's biting Republicans in the ass by... giving them control of the House and the Supreme Court. When you're finally done moving goalposts, please return them.
Yeah, I can support them too. That doesn't mean I need to shut up when I think they're making stupid mistakes, particularly since they're gonna blame me for the results regardless of who I vote for.
Yes, in a long-term scope it will never work. The statements are not contradictory no matter how hard you try to imply that they are.
Love that straw man though. Why that's even non sequitur. The thought process to contort from someone pointing out that they're a socialist and disagree with Democrats. To claiming that critiquing democrats is inappropriate after immediately critiquing democrats. That's such an odd claim that I'm inclined to ask if you were reading off the wrong script.
That said, in the context of presidential elections. One should NEVER consider 3rd party candidates until one of 2 things happen. First past the post voting is replaced with something better. Or said 3rd party has a presence in state or federal legislature of 10% of US states.
Criticize Democrats all you want. I sure do. In the meantime primary them, push them left. But don't split the vote letting the ideal be the enemy of reality when it's important. And it's very important Trump never gets back in. Well important if you like even having an illusion of voting.
So, first you said it can't work. I provided an example of it working. Then you moved the goalposts and said it's biting Republicans in the ass. I pointed out that they gained power, not lost it. And now you've moved them again and said it can't work long term. I didn't say it needs to.
If it's vital to the very continued existence of Democracy that Trump loses this next election, why are we not trying to get every vote we can, even from people who you consider irrational? It certainly never stopped the Democratic Party from moving to the right to court the few remaining irrational moderate Republicans who stay with that party even after what it's become. Why is it always the left that has to think about the short term when we're being screamed at to vote for the candidate who will maybe consider temporarily forestalling fascism because eventually the party will totally start listening to anyone to the left of Manchin? Why does the party never have to think about the short term and court people who it considers beneath their contempt so that they can forestall fascism?
At no point have I suggested voting for a third party. To the contrary, I think the Democratic party should work to get those votes back, because it needs them. But for some reason, that never works because of wherever you decide to put the goalposts this time.
Sure, if you happen to like wild accusations.
If you're at a restaurant and they don't have anything you want, you can go to a different restaurant.
In this case I'm tied to a chair and forced to pick a douche or a shit sandwich while people tell me I'm a bad person for not wanting either.
An apt analogy would be: you are diagnosed with cancer, and you can choose to (a) go through treatment and have a high chance of survival, or (b) let the cancer run its course and die.
Voting third party in this country is equivalent to saying “I’m going to go to a faith healer instead”. You think you’re choosing a more appealing option but you’re actually just choosing option b.
Nah, fuck that. A restaurant doesn't serve cocaine-laced cupcakes that give you an orgasm, yet you still down the bacon cheeseburger because the latter tastes good and the former simply isn't an option. Anyone who walks in and refuses to order from the menu because they can't get a blowjob and a back massage with it, is a fucking moron.
You don't walk in an order from the menu. You're born in the restaurant, tied to a chair, told it's the greatest restaurant ever created, and given two horrible choices.
And then people like you yell at me for pointing this out.
A group of people walks into the restaurant, and you all agree to vote for a family meal so you can eat together. The choices are chicken, beef, or pork. When the rest of the group votes for chicken, and you walk out because you didn't get what you wanted, you are the asshole.
Don't like it? Move the fuck somewhere else and bitch to them about how you still can't get what you want in their electoral system. Your need for instant gratification is destroying this country.
Except I don't agree, and it's not voluntary. I'll be force-fed the shitty dry chicken and can't leave or not eat it. I'd happily sit there and have the salad if they voted to have chicken, but that's not possible here.
I would love to move somewhere else. Except even then the government of the US will have an influence on me. And it costs a ton of money to do that which I don't have, in part because our government is broken as fuck.
And it would be awesome to have literally any gratification after 24 years of voting. Two and a half decades and the planet is still dying, education and health care are still too expensive, and the rich assholes keep getting richer at everyone else's expense.
At some point I had to concede that voting will not provide any gratification at all, let alone instant gratification. I get shitty dry chicken, shitty dry pork chops, or shitty dry beef, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it.
Oh I'm sorry. I missed the point where someone held you at gunpoint and forced you to vote for a Democrat? Because from where I sit a shitload of them got together and agreed to hold a contest. The winner made it out, and the group threw their support behind the winner against the dude the other team put up. And he won.
Don't like it? Join the fucking Republicans and vote for Trump! Go ahead! He'd love to have your support! Don't like them either? Join the Greens! Don't like them either? Join Cornel West! Don't like him? Join No Labels! Don't like them? Start your own fucking political party and register as a candidate. Don't want to do that?
Then sit the fuck down and let the rest of the adults in the room take care of business while you suck your thumb. There's 80 goddamned million of us who decided Biden's the one who checks most of our boxes, for better or worse, and those of us not stuck in la la land will vote for him again, because we're not too keen on that whole fascist hell-hole scenario thing.
I'm convinced people like you have never sat in a room with more than 4 people and had to come to a consensus decision on anything. I can only assume it's because you've been shoveling movie theater popcorn and were never responsible for making any meaningful decisions, or you're a tyrannical man-child who runs a small business like a tiny little fiefdom, or you've never actually had a job and have spent your whole life expecting people to give you what you want. You're probably the dude who shows up to the fried chicken restaurant and complains that they don't serve sushi.
Don't want to vote? Fucking DON'T. None of the rest of us will give a shit.
So we've gone from "vote blue no matter who" and "Trump is a fascist we need to beat at the polls" to "Nobody will care if you don't vote."
I'll admit it's a refreshing change.
Be fair. Centrists preceded "vote blue no matter who" with "party unity my ass".
And they'll follow up “nobody will care if you don’t vote” with "we were owed your vote and it's your fault we lost."
"Murcuh. Love it or leave it" -- Trumpist bumper sticker
i would believe you were talking about people voting for republicans or people voting for democrats. everyone else is trying to avoid a further slide into fascism.
Nah, the number one reason to vote lately is to prevent Trump from pissing all over democracy. Even Republicans are joining in.
So voting for the uniparty that picked the candidate for you is democracy?
We’re not a democracy, we’re a republic.
Not that that’s any better, but there is a difference between the two
Things Republicans say when defending voter suppression.
That's not blue, it's aqua! Both are blue Karen!
A Republic has a Consitution that separates power away from a single person.
A true Democracy has no means of protecting against a tyrant.
"That's not a dog, it's a German Shepard."
A republic is a kind of democracy.
That's the common response from shitlibs, 'we need Biden to save democracy'
We need someone to stand up to Trump and protect our nation from a Tyrant. So far Joe Biden is the only individual with the titanium balls to do that. So yes, he is the only person standing between our Republic and a Christian Fascist Theocracy.
Biden has spent his entire career helping build the systems that enabled someone like Trump. Biden isnt fighting fascism, he's enabled it to happen
Still better than having Trump in office
Surely you can at least concede that?
When he kept most of Trumps worst plans in place while expanding the police state and ramped up war, no he isnt. They are both slightly different shades of fascism
Sure
Well, that is a take.
[finger-wagging intensifies]
It's gonna be republicans making a protest vote. Democrats are in lock step for once
I hope your confidence is founded.
Trump might be the biggest reason to vote against him, but Republicans have played all their cards and threatened the American people's rights. Even if he is locked up, Biden would still win.
Republicans are all for third party candidates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election
no, it's not. it's voting against trump by definition.
How about this… don’t take a guy who quietly supports genocide, whose been part of politics longer than I’ve been alive- in fact he’s been a senator for more than twice as long as I’ve been a voter- and make him the canidate.
Because, under your argument, that’s just giving voted to trump!!!
“Vote blue no matter who” is an argument that presupposes a good canidate is in office. Biden is not a good candidate; and the dems need to find somebody else to run him.
We saw the same problem with Hilary. Hilary was not a good canidate and in no way was actually capable of winning. You made the same arguments then as now.
You know Biden is going to lose votes. Why the fuck are you unwilling to consider someone else?
Do whatever the fuck you want to do, bro. When the day comes, you'll have one of several bubbles to fill out, and you'll make the choice you were gonna make anyway. Either you vote strategically for whoever has the best chance to ensure Trump doesn't make it anywhere near the White House, or you vote for whoever makes you feel good, knowing Trump might win. If a second Trump presidency doesn't scare you now, it won't do anything different in a year. If Biden's the nominee, I'll crawl through a mine field covered in broken glass to vote for him. If he's not, I'll do the same for whoever the party nominates to replace him.
Hopefully enough others will vote anyway out of a sense of duty, but non-enthusiastic energy for a candidate will keep some people from going out to vote at all. That is actually a third default choice that takes no energy to do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make. If you told me to swim through a pit of jellyfish to keep Trump away from the White House, I would swim through the fucking jellyfish. Others might chicken out so they can eat cheetos and watch Paw Patrol. Fuck them.
Right beside you, fellow jellyfish-eater. Right beside you.
Others may not, and Biden may lose without them.
I get the worry, but in all honesty if they haven't been absolutely terrified by Trump's rhetoric over the past 7 years, what the fuck else are we supposed to say to convince them? Biden may lose without them. He may also win with them. Your observation seems like an assessment of the wetness of water. It's a statement of fact with little substance.
Ok, just expect the same thing that worked for you to work for everyone.
That's quite literally not what I'm saying, even if you squint REAL hard. Here, I'll repeat the question for those in the back row:
Repeat yourself again. I'm sure that'll work.
I've made this point here in the past. It's a solid point. Wish it didn't lead to down votes.
If a person isn't well off, has poor ballot situations and a kid to tend to... their enthusiasm matters when that next logistical hurdle appears on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
Biden is a good candidate. He hasn't been impeached yet, unlike his competitor during this same time in his term; he hasn't started a coup on his own country, and the fact that he's experienced at the job he's applying to is actually a good thing (displayed by the passing of both the CHIPs act and the IRA despite not having complete control of congress). Hilary was actually a significantly better candidate than Trump(very obvious in hindsight for many), but Trump had the advantage of Russian support and the fact that it was uncertain how he would act as president. Once voters found out how Trump is as a president, they turned away from him in droves as evidenced by the fact that he's the first president to lose reelection in 20 years, and Republicans have lost every election since Trump was voted in.
Biden ain't perfect, but man he's a huge upgrade compared to Trump.
…the bar is in hell.
No,these are just some very simple, and objective comparisons that can be made because the alternative is someone literally below the bar that is in hell.
CHIPS ACT, Inflation Reduction Act, supporting unions are some more important things Biden has assisted with.
Way to ignore the rest of his fucking comment, douchebag.
Yeah he's better than a literal facist who is currently making Nazi speeches and has promised to jail all his political opponents. What an incredibly high bar for Biden to stumble over!
Having your party position be "Bite your tongue and vote for our shit candidate to prevent the end of democracy" is not a winning position. It's a terrible strategy guaranteed to lead to less voter turnout.
People voted for Biden during the primary election. We had Bernie, Warren, Pete and others who LOST to Biden so many Democrats feel he was better than others. Biden is a good candidate minus his age, which becomes slightly irrelevant compared to Trump. Biden has been aggressive in talking about how he has been supporting job creation,unions and getting laws passed despite the current GOP. The "Bite your tongue..." Argument is one of many Biden has (and doesn't like to use because it of course doesn't look as great as others)
lets break that down a bit here. your argument is in 3 parts:
Point one applies to literally every one whose not trump; and even if go so far as to be 'not-trump-like', that would include a fair number of Republicans, too. It's not an argument that should be seriously made when deciding who the Democratic candidate should be... because it's pretty much a given.
Point two... that's also an argument against. He's been in the senate for longer than I've been alive. We need change. we don't need the same washed up and tired ideas. Biden's functional policies have only grudgingly changed. for example, if he wanted to legalize weed, he could have. He could have chosen to not open up Willow Project- like he had (indirectly) promised to not do. further, he's only had what? 12 years experience in the excecutive branch? and 8 as second fiddle. his record there is pretty uninspiring, to be honest. You're welcome to disagree.
point three- has Biden accomplished a lot? compared to trump? absolutely. Trump left this country in a shambles and Biden helped pick up the pieces. Helped- he was far from alone in that. and the CHIPS act is largely a no-brainer bill. same goes for the IRA and the infrastructure act. before trump came to office, all of them would have been hailed as modest bits of normalcy. Big bills? sure. Important? absolutely. but nothing worth bragging about.
It should be noted that most VBNW-type people are only pushing the first argument. Which is intellectually dishonest and a scare tactic. Virtually any one capable of being the democratic canidate is not trump, and is a far cry from trumpism. especially the actual progressives. we can talk about what Biden has done, and his policy decisions and where he's propelled the country to. but from where I sit, most of his accomplishments are full of half measures.
Like, he kept the ship from listing more, and he's bailing his hardest, but, the ship ain't righting and it's still leaking.
If we're talking about candidate for president, then easily Biden is the best choice. Why would the DNC even think about not picking Biden as the candidate when Americans voted him in already, and he hasn't shit the bed? Not only that, this is a literal repeat of the election Biden won, against the exact same opponent with the EXACT same platform and message. I should emphasize, Trump LOST his reelection something that hasn't happened since HW Bush in '92 and yet Trump lost because he was so bad. So here we are a president running for reeelection in which there's a history of presidents mainly winning their reelection campaigns. It seems like a no brainer, run Biden unless he messes up soon (since closer to election time, the calculus becomes harder to figure out).
In regards to my point 2, We tried something new with Trump and it was a train wreck. Having experience for a job is always a plus, when compared to someone that knows nothing/very little. I agree Biden isn't exactly my cup of tea (voted for Bernie), but he's not crap compared to other Democrats, and against Trump there's not contest. But we're passed deciding whether we need to change out Biden, that decision point was back during the primary.
Point three, Neither of those bills are modest and especially not with the current political atmosphere. Some R politicians are literally saying that Biden stole the election and has committed impeachable actions, they've been acting and voting with that in mind. The CHIPs act voted with overwhelming republican disapproval. So doesn't seem like a no brainer decision for Republicans which makes it rather surprising that it passed in general. Same thing with the Inflation Reduction Act which is the biggest spending bill for the environment for US and world history. Republicans overwhelming voted against it in the House and Senate as well.
Seriously, compared to any ex-president other than trump, and at best he's "Meh".
Yep. because they're the party of shitting themselves and blaming democrats. the point being, though, that while Biden did a fair amount of heavy lifting there- he didn't do all the heavy lifting. Those bills aren't exclusively biden's win.
Half of the passengers are actively shooting holes into the ship. I don't think there's a human alive that could right it. There is no Ideal Candidate who can fix all these problems in one term - probably not even in two. So I don't get why we're holding Biden to this impossible standard where conservatives create problems faster than anyone can solve them, but then we hold Biden solely responsible for the both the cleanup and the progress we should have made in the meantime, but then we also won't afford him the benefit of "helping." In your words, "he was far from alone in that," well why should he be?
He shouldn’t be alone, obviously.
The question isn’t whether or not some one is ideal. Or if they could right the ship- you’re right that’s basically impossible.
The question is… can some one do a better job? And I think the answer is yes. Now is not the time to play it safe. Hilary was the “safe” play and she lost. And she wasn’t responsible for supporting a genocidal state. (Well she might have done in biden’s shoes,)
Now is the time to come out swinging, because that’s the only way we’re going to get back to where we should be. Biden isn’t going to lead that charge because he’s as conservative as centrist republicans were 20 years ago, and under him… he’s kept us from getting worse (more or less,). But that’s it.
Is this your first election? Incumbency advantage and name recognition. Anyone who understands that and continues to make excuses to not vote for Biden is a Trump supporter. Either intentionally or through sheer privileged ignorance.
missing the point, and instead going straight to the fucking insults. POINT: Biden as a candidate sucks. nobody is saying Biden is actually their preferred candidate. he's deeply unpopular and becoming increasingly so, and yet, you're sitting here blaming people WARNING you about that... instead of maybe shopping around for another candidate- IN THE FREAKING PRIMARIES?
we're winding up for another repeat of 2016, because people like you won't get off their fucking high horse and actually listen to people. and you have the fucking gall to accuse ME of sheer privileged ignorance. Incidentally, I've had his exact same conversation with people, only about Hilary.
Oh and your point about incumbency... yeah, that's increasingly becoming the millstone about his neck, Biden is far from the best, and he could be using what little positive influence he has now for supporting another candidate- LIKE HE FREAKING PROMISED LAST TIME.
Your choice is between President Biden, who has been a good President or the Antichrist. There isn't anyone else running that is worth my time to look at. Your argument should wait until 2028 when Pete Buttigieg is the top candidate. Probably the most intelligent member of the Federal Government right there.
Appeal to fear is a logical fallacy and marketing gimmick.
We can and should do better. All I hear is “You’ll vote the way we tell you, and you’ll like it.”
To which my only response is “Okay, Boomer.”
The Consitution was written to support a two party system. You can change the game without a Consitutional Amendment.
lol if you think I’ve forgotten about the sewage-chugging fest that was the 45th presidency, you’re out of your fucking mind. I’m not thrilled with Biden’s age, but I am dramatically less fucking thrilled with the conservative’s current shitbag choice. Show me a 3rd party with eye-wateringly powerful support from Democrats, and I’ll certainly consider it. But until then, for as long as conservatives are mouth-frothingly determined to usher in fascism unheralded, I won’t be swayed.
Yup, a bunch of people want to push third party candidates.
They either ignore the fact that under FPtP (First Past the Post), a third party candidate is always a spoiler candidate, or they've been paid off by conservatives to weaken the chances of Democrats doing the bare minimum and holding on to power that they should have been actually using.
Which bring up the second evil of FPtP, as long as conservatives are batshit crazy and openly embracing fascism, all the Democrats have to do, it not be conservatives... And sadly, that's a very high bar for them.
The fix to all of this is, of course, to ditch FPtP voting. My current favorite replacement is called STAR. It's about the single best single winner voting system ever created. (another link)
For anyone else who finds voting systems fascinating, there's an entire wiki devoted to just that. I'll admit to having read most of it over the last few years. I might need better hobbies.
tl;dr Our system of government sucks and math says you need to vote for Biden.
I hate it, too, but them's the facts.
Too bad so many people suck at math.
I blame No Child Left Behind.
I was never gonna vote for him, but if I had considered, genocide is my mine in the sand.
That's the neat part: You get genocide no matter what you choose. Even if you vote third party you'll have a "president" you "elected" that kills people all over the globe. Even Mr. Hope & Change came up with the double-tap.
Welcome to being a citizen of a dying empire. Maybe in a 100 years your children will get to vote for someone they actually like, after this decrepit, undemocratic government splinters and falls on its face like all the other presidential republics in this hemisphere
Republicans are pushing third party candidates HARD. If Biden doesn't get 270 electoral votes the Republican House appoints the president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election
I recall learning about STAR a while ago, and I agree that both that FPtP sucks ass, and STAR is vastly better. All we’d need to do is get it instituted to replace FPtP, which is the real hurdle.
I may be off here because this is the first I'm reading about STAR, but it seems worse than instant-runoff ranked-choice voting because of the "top two candidates based on first results are the final two candidates". It seems like ranked-choice but broken to keep the States in a two party system.
For instance: Let's say there are 4 parties: blue, red, green, and yellow. Let's say the majority of people have red (27%) and blue (26%) as their top pick, so those are automatically #1 and #2. Green is a close third (25%). The remainder (21%) vote for yellow, then green, then red, then blue. STAR would say every other candidate is eliminated except Red and Blue, and then redistribute the other votes. Instant-runoff would say: eliminate yellow and redistribute based off their second choice. In this example, all those votes would switch to green and green would become first. Then blue would be eliminated, those votes redistributed, and then you'd have to see what would happen. Instant-runoff to me allows for the opportunity for a meeting in the middle - everyone potentially agreeing on their second choice; while STAR seems like it will just continue to encourage people to put their primary pick up top.
You actually have it backwards.
Ranked Choice (otherwise known as Instant Runnoff Voting) is the worse system by far.
It comes down to the mechanics of both.
See, IRV is just a bunch of small FPtP elections all on one ballot. This causes issues and extremely odd behaviors, that can result in the Condorcet winner, actually losing the election.
IRV also has spoiler effects and horrible counting procedure.
Did you know that to count an IRV election, you need to transport all ballots to a centralized location? It literally cannot be counted at the polling location due to the way the counting (and recounting) works.
Also, IRV is one of the only voting systems ever invented to fail the Monotonicity criterion, i.e. ranking a candidate lower can sometimes lead to them winning the election. The likelihood of this happening approaches 100% the more candidates you have on the ballot.
In Contrast, with STAR, You rate each candidate independently of the others on the ballot. You can have multiple candidates rated at the same level.
This independent rating removes the spoiler effect completely, because you're never forced to vote A instead of B.
So, you've rated all your candidates on a scale of 0-5, then the counting happens. It can be done at the polling location. Each polling location reports the number of ballots cast, and the total scores of each candidate.
This gives you a lot of data about each polling location. Particularly, you can average out those scores. This lets you know how the total population feels about any given candidate, not just how their direct supporters feel.
Anyway, the total scores for the election are added up, and the top two candidates are then put into an automatic runoff.
This automatic runoff is done ballot by ballot, if A is rated higher on that ballot than B, the final vote goes to A. If they're rated the same, then the final vote is tallied as "No Preference" and here's the important part, the No Preference votes are also reported in the final count.
So in your example with four candidates, You have to ask more. Do Red voters also like Green? Do Blue voters like Yellow? That actually matters in the final count.
It's not just "my top pick didn't win, so now it's down to my less favorite" (Although that does happen as well).
The best way to look at the results of a STAR election is to average out the scores. So, the candidates with a 3.8 and a 4.1 end up in the automatic runoff, while the candidates who got 2.5 and a 3.6 are dropped from the election.
Then each ballot is checked, and if the candidate with a 4.1 does better on that ballot, they get the vote.
The actual averages will likely be different. Districts that lean heavily one direction or the other might see a candidate with a very high average, districts that are more competitive will see winning averages in the 2s and 3s.
This would also change the strategy around getting campaigning. Less negativity and mud slinging, more focus on issues and driving engagement.
You can't win on just being "Not the other guy".
Big thank you for writing all that out. There's a lot of dynamics here I am not knowledgeable about, so I appreciate you providing links as well. I'll have to read more on this before getting back to you. After your explanation, I have a much better understanding of the intended value of STAR. My gut is still saying that STAR will not allow 3rd parties into a polarized political environment, but I have no data to back that up. I just feel that people will vote 0 for the candidate they least want, 5 for the one they want, and 3 for the one they're ambivalent about and that will devolve STAR to a two-round ranked choice that favors the two biggest political parties. Again, that's definitely possibly me just not fully understanding the system. I'll have to read more, crunch numbers, and see what numbers others have crunched and get back to you. Definitely very interesting and I love the concept of rating politicians independent of each other.
The main reason why STAR and other Cardinal voting systems can help grow third parties, is they don't punish the voter for supporting them.
That 3 rating that you give someone, You can give a bunch of them and not change the 5 rating that you also gave.
One of the most common attacks against a voting system is called Cloning. You take a somewhat popular candidate and run someone who has almost exactly the same platform. Both then suffer from splitting the vote between the two.
STAR and other Cardinal systems are immune to this attack. There's no vote splitting, because the (initial) votes are completely independent of each other.
Things can get a bit odd if two clone candidates make it to the final two, but even then, they theoretically have the same platform, and the voting public should be mostly happy with either one.
But that's where the tallied "No Preference" votes come in, to tell the winner just how little they're preferred over their closest rival.
Or you ditch direct presidential elections altogether, vote for congress with a proportional vote and let them decide who's gonna be president. That way you'll force the (now more than 2) parties to form coalitions and cooperate.
How large is this eye-watering powerful support among Democrats? 50 percent? 80 percent? 100 percent? Who will in the election in those cases?
I don't get this when his opponent is less than 4 years younger than him.
During almost any other election, I'd be all sorts of in favor of 3rd party candidates. But I'm also willing to acknowledge the reality of the situation, and the choices are this:
A Third Party CandidateDonald J. TrumpStay HomeDonald J. TrumpA Write-in CandidateDonald J. TrumpThat's it. Those are your options. Third party candidates have exactly zero chance in our political system in today's hyper-partisan environment. If you are voting for anybody other than Biden, or opting not to vote at all, you're essentially giving your vote to Trump. All of these people refusing to put support behind Biden because he's too old, or because of Israel, or whatever, refuse to accept that the alternative is exponentially worse for them.
It's Biden or Trump. There is no choice C. And in the immortal words of Rush, If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Ok. So you've pointed out the reality of the situation. How do we proceed? How do we get them back? "Trump is worse than Biden, moron!!!!" hasn't done the trick. If we need their votes, how do we get their votes?
If we don't need their votes, we don't get to retroactively need their votes if we need someone to blame for a loss, either.
If Trump wins, you stop investing your money, pull it completely out of the bank, do not buy anything at all beyond basic needs. You want the economy to implode and your investments are safe at home. Beyond that you can't do much else.
In my opinion, the Democrats need to work on broadly popular legislation, like marijuana legalization. Try to push it through, and if it fails, which it probably would in the house, they need to make a stink over it, and then use that for campaign ads, with the promise that if they win all 3 branches next election, they will make it happen. Then they actually need to do that, rather than waffling like they have in the past.
Never claimed to have any of the answers to that.
I have a few ideas. There's been a pattern in the Biden administration. I call it "lose big, win small, celebrate huge."
Example: BBB. We lost big there. Over the course of months, BBB was systematically gutted and then killed. Americans got to watch as things Biden ran on, things that could have improved their lives in tangible ways, the reasons many of them voted for Biden in the first place, get removed, one by one, until the bill was eventually killed, at the behest of a member of Biden's own party.
This was followed up with a comparatively modest win: The Inflation Reduction Act, which has indirect limited benefits to individuals, like Medicare being able to negotiate prices on a laughably tiny selection of prescription drugs. It's something, yes, but we voted for childcare and family leave.
Then Biden's supporters completely ignore the big loss, and instead celebrate the Inflation Reduction Act as though it was a bigger win than passing BBB, with all sorts of puffery about how it's the least pathetic attempt to address the climate emergency so far.
I can provide other examples, but this is the most glaring one.
Now, compare this to how Biden has handled student loans. Biden started with half measures and his supporters acted like forgiving fraudulent loans for select borrowers was huge, even though it was mandated by existing law. Then Biden actually listened to progressives and tried to forgive student loans. Actual, tangible benefit to voters. That was killed by the courts. Crucially, it was not killed by Biden's own party. Unlike childcare and family leave, Biden didn't immediately give up forever. He instead did what he could to forgive what he could. He had a contingency plan and kept going. His supporters could point to the failure, admit it failed, blame those responsible, and show in real terms how Biden wasn't gonna let that be the last word on the subject.
There's other examples of this as well, but as before, this is the most glaring.
We need to keep trying to do what voters voted for, not acting like they won the showcase showdown when they're going home with the consolation prize.
And for the love of god, we can't keep acting like "not trump" is a sufficient argument to get all the voters we need to win. It might be, but the consequences of failure are so dire that that mustn't be our only message. That and we need the administration to step up between now and the election. The administration needs a win between now and then.
And before anyone is like "well, you're not getting one so vote for Biden anyway," I'm already voting for Biden. I'm saying what I think is needed to convince enough people to vote for Biden so that we can be confident about beating Trump.
Yeah the choice you're misrepresenting is its own choice. The choice to not participate, or to protest the incumbent. Unless you tick the box next to trump you're not voting for trump. If Biden wants support he has to earn it like everyone else. Blame all the idiots voting for trump, blame the DNC for shilling trump into the Whitehouse in 2016, or blame the two party system for creating this scenario sure, but blaming the people on the fringe trying to vote their conscious is just reinforcing the system that got us in this mess.
Ex Republican here. We loved people like you. We joked about it constantly. A non voter is seen as a Republican vote because it meant we won in the end. Republican voters sort of understand on some level that they are the minority so they see non or protest voters as a victory.
You vote Republican by not voting if you were planning on voting Democratic. It's that simple, no nuance needed.
I blame you directly if Donald wins this time.
Hahaha well you have a great track record for being absolutely wrong so no skin off my back.
Being wrong when uneducated and indoctrinated is one thing. Continuing to be stupid in the face of overwhelming evidence is significantly worse. You are literally a joke to Republicans.
They are a lot of pig fucking idiots, what do I care what they think? What evidence have you presented, aside from dogma and assertions? I never plan to vote Democrat. Democrats have never won my vote, they have just tried to bully me for it
I just spent a Thanksgiving listening to Republican voters discussing putting liberals and LGBTQ into camps. Stop trying to be righteous. We are living on the edge of the end you fucking idiot.
Thats rich, you're eating with these people, breaking bread and kissing their cheek and telling me I'm the problem.
It's surprising how complicated life is. I've cut off multiple family members but I can't control who is invited all the time dumbass. Stop being dense.
Republicans love you for voting third party. And would put you in the camps with my educated ass.
And its good to know enlightened Democrats will sit and eat with them as they plan to March me into a concentration camp. Thanks for your service, braver than the troops o7
Lol. Pride is your sin.
Oh no, a collaborator called me prideful and sinful, guess ill vote Democrat now!! Its laughable how you spineless fucks rationalize your way through this.
Option 1 - eat pizza. Option 2 - eat burritos. Option 3 - eat burgers. Option 4 - eat shit.
There are 5 people in your family and 2 of them are die hard shit eaters and 1 die hard burger eater. If you vote for a burrito, pizza, or don't vote you are eating shit.
Except the burger is 50% ground shit. You were forced to est shit your whole life. Your best friend was sent far away by shit enforcement to eat shit somewhere else, and your neighbors are eating shit out of garbage can and lighting shit on fire to stay warm. The only time anyone seems to question why we are covered in shit is when the shit eaters win the vote, otherwise they are completely ignoring the shit eating party and are content to blame anyone who is eyeing the ecoli burrito for the fact we are eating shit.
What they are ignoring is that if the orange blob is able to do his worst, their very lives may be at stake.
Third parties should sit it out until trump is convicted and behind bars. If the third party candidates are serious about the country, they'd recognize the danger that orange moron poses and do just that.
People do realize that being behind bars does nothing to stop someone from serving in an elected office, right?
True but it would definitely hinder his ability to hold his stupid rallies and what have you.
It's always funny to me when these articles claim dems are worried about this No Labels group. It's kinda asinine. That's just not the kinda thing that appeals to dems that much. Makes me almost certain it's just someone writing that kinda wants dems to be worried.
We, honestly, kinda like labels. They're terribly convenient. Like, when you run into a Jewish-hating, militaristic, strong ethno-state type individual, it's just really nice if there can just be this one word that can be used to describe that person. Because, y'know, "Jewish-hating militaristic ethno-state individual" is just a pain in the ass to use.
Now, certain types really don't like labels. They like to whine about identity politics for instance. I think they will like this party.
Do they mean weary, or do they mean wary?
Weary means worn down (it's literally the "wear" as in "wear and tear" with a y on the end to make an adjective), usually signifying tiredness or apathy.
Wary means overly aware (it's literally the "ware" as in "aware" with a y on the end to make an adjective*), usually signifying nervousness or apprehension.
Given the context, they could mean either. Or both.
* Though for orthographic reasons, the e is dropped. I see you, fellow pedants.
Democrats need to appeal to people who are considering leaving for third parties before they lose them.
This is a controversial statement.
Simply blame the voters for not feeling oblogated enough to pick your party until you win the elections of course. Taking responsibility for their own choices just cuts too much into our donor base.
Oh, FFS.
Technically correct. They will find the gap in the elevator shaft and vanish forever.
Yeah, no one is voting-in a 3rd party. That's just not ever going to be a thing, sorry. And if through some miracle, they somehow did get elected, what the fuck are they going to do? Not a fucking thing. In spite of Trump's best efforts, presidents are not dictators. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are going to work with a president who isn't part of their little clubs. They probably couldn't get approval for a new brand of toilet paper in the white house bathrooms, let alone do anything meaningful.
People want fine-tuned success when we're still at broad-stroke level of change required.
This go-around, focus on
Later, we can work on the other things we need. You know, allowing for Texit if they build their walls, eminent-domaining prisons back for cruelty reasons, taxing the wealthy, all that. But now, let's just get the absolute basics in.
I kind of think the 3rd party vote for president is a general election really depends on the state you vote in. If your state is a stronghold for a party and has a candidate that has no chance in losing, I think it makes sense to vote 3rd party if that aligns with your politics. But id voting in a contested battleground state, you have to be more strategic about your vote and be willing to compromise or vote for damage control to prevent the other candidate from winning. I think ideally participating in democracy is an ends in itself regardless of whether your candidate wins or not. All participants in an election should be able to look at results and get a feel for what the voice of the people is, and that does mean knowing what the minority voted for and in what numbers.
Many library-goers are worried about ice on the sidewalk to the front entrance due to the extremely cold temperature. A guy pouring his lukewarm coffee on the ground hopes he can help.
Ya don't say!
Im not supporting this political system anymore. Im voting for whoever is promising ranked choice voting, overturning citizens united, outlawing lobbying, and outlawing all elected officials from investing.
You’ll die before you see a political system that isn’t shit. Do your best to endure and then fix the shit-mess we have.
When is "and then"?
I can tell you that it’s not this upcoming presidential election, but I can’t tell you when it will be. Maybe never. Maybe 4 years. I think there’s a good chance that we see a candidate that supports overturning Citizens United AND supports outlawing elected officials from trading stocks within the next decade. Outlawing lobbying is probably the third most likely, but once we do that we’ll be almost on the right track. It’s going to take a large scale societal shift away from Capitalism for that… so maybe 40 years there. Ranked choice voting is something that will probably never happen in the USA without a full on restructure. Once that happens, it’s probably not the USA anymore.
Lmao, just deal with it until things get better. When will things get better? Never!
As opposed to the option where you actively prevent things from getting better? You know, the thing you're advocating for? Biden winning preserves the possibility that there could be change and improvement. Trump winning eliminates that possibility. Instead of "dealing with it" your solution is to make everything worse?
I think Biden winning is the least possibility of change. Absolutely not the changes Ive listed, which are the fundamental issues specifically preventing progress on political issues.
There are also other ways than just voting. Joining Unions for example and strikes. In Europe Unions have a massive influence on politics because they have the ability to strike and have huge membrrship numbers
Europe has ranked choice voting
I don't know of any country in Europe that uses ranked choice voting. Where in Eutope?
my bad Im mixed up with proportional representation. Which would also be better than what we've got.
That is definitely true. Even Sortition would be better than what you have now.
Primaries? Sure. In the general if you do that you are essentially voting for Trump and/or fascism. Third parties are spoilers 100% of the time until they can actually win. And none of them can right now.
Gee you know what would really help with that fucked up situation? Ranked choice voting.
Yeah no shit. The chance to get that from Republicans is somewhere below -1, close to hell probably.
Republicans or democrats. But yall will defend them and the two party system to the death
Our current system is shit... but it's our system.
Like a diabetic munching on candy. "I shouldnt, but its what im doin"
You sound like a child throwing a fit because you didn’t get the Christmas present that was on your list to Santa.
the christmas present being an electoral system that better represents the people instead of corporations. I will continue to throw a fit.
Well then join a union and start organizing. That is an even better way to influence politics.
Alright since voting doesnt matter im gonna go ahead and vote for who i want
Anything you're upset about is your fault because you're not active enough.
Outlawing lobbying? So you want to make it a crime to visit your elected representatives in their office? Is that the kind of world you fantasize about?
Also, how the absolute fuck are you gonna get ranked choice voting enacted by the President?? Did you just arrive from the moon?
Youre thinking of the historical definition of lobbying, when citizens would wait in lobbies of legislatures to make their case to a legislator. Thats no longer what lobbying means in the US. Its actually a legally distinguished title, lobbyists are a paid position, generally lawyers or former legislators, representing large organizations, and facilitating giving politicians money or gifts to influence their votes. You can write to your congressman, you can call one of their secretaries voicemails, you can attend any town halls they might hold, but youre not a lobbyist and you cannot go have a personal meeting with your congressman like a lobbyist can.
Im voting on these issues for all elections, not just president. But presidential support is pretty important for any legislation.
The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 starts regulating when a person exceeds 20% of their time spent in that capacity. If you spend less than 20% of your time lobbying, you're not recognized as a lobbyist per federal law. Jon Stewart was, for example, an unpaid lobbyist for 9/11 first responders.
Wrong. Lobbyists are people who spend more than 20% of their time in that capacity, per the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. Anyone under that threshold is still lobbying, but is not a lobbyist. Nonprofits also have lobbyists, such as Human Rights Watch, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Greenpeace, or the Waterkeeper Alliance. The Cherokee Tribe has a lobbyist. So does the Nebraska League of Municipalities and the Chicago Teachers Union. Not all of them are mustache-twirling supervillains. I'm sure you think it's nice and neat to write a law that makes "bad" lobbying illegal but keeps "good" lobbying legal, but I can assure you there's more lobbying happening every minute of every day than you actually realize, and a lot of it is good lobbying.
Bullshit:
Theyre non-profit, but they still spend money. The Southern Poverty Law Center i know does monetary lobbying, contributing to political campaigns. With good intentions sure, but id say theyre being forced to use a corrupt system to try and compete with the mustache twirling supervillains. Im defining lobbying as monetary value contributions to elected officials or candidates, thats the specifics of what i want outlawed. Actual legislation would be even more specific in scope.
All of these meeting links include organization representation. Some of them even say you might only get to meet with a staffer. See if you can get a one on one meeting with your rep.
If the "corrupt" system goes away, the implicit coordination with PACs doesn't. You will quite literally only be punishing the good guys. You should be far more specific that what you want to outlaw is quid pro quo lobbying, not the whole concept of lobbying itself.
Also I pointed out that you are factually incorrect on being able to meet with a Congressional representative, your goalpost shift notwithstanding.
Lobbying does not exist in its historical definition anymore. Even in non-profit examples, it's still monetary influence rather than just spoken. That's what people are talking about when they say lobbying, if you see a political call to action of writing your congressman, tell me if they describe it as lobbying your congressman.
I aint moving goalposts, I claim you cannot have a personal meeting with your congressman. If you are a representative of some large organization, maybe.
Wrong and wrong. I know and work with several registered lobbyists, as well as people who do occasional environmental lobbying. To say you're completely and utterly misinformed (on both points) would be an understatement.
you knowing lobbyists changes what? Are they registered with organizations that are doing no political contributions? The fact that they're registered lobbyists is kind of what I've been talking about, you came in talking about how I want to make it a crime to meet with my representative. Im not a lobbyist, I don't represent any organization, I dont have a political fund to influence my representative.
Yes. Novel idea, I know. That's the kind of information you learn from experience, rather than gut hunches and the news media.
And you said exactly that. The kind of activity that a colleague of mine does to advocate for clean rivers would be illegal. Not my fault you used sweeping generalizations that don't reflect reality.
Yet you are legally allowed to lobby your elected representatives.
the proof that biden isnt the guy isnt exactly his age, but its his age.
its that he apparently lacks the awareness required to understand he needs to fucking retire already... that these ancient political monoliths need to go.
that lack of awareness is whhy he personally is not fit to be president.
then theres the whole reality of 'democrats are conservatives' now, so actual democratic voters have to hold their nose and vote non-fascist while the DNC pretends the party is still relevant to the common man somehow.
its been frustrating to watch for decades democrats fumble the ball at literally every play
Democrats have been winning important recent elections, no?
yeah, when the choice is 'democrat' or 'fascist' you tend to win some races.
what sucks has been watching the democrats conservatively do fuck all for 40 years.
Dropping out now is ideal, but he'd be forgoing both incumbency advantage and name recognition. I know why he doesn't drop for a younger person. Also because there are no prominent Democrats with enough name recognition right now. People can throw stones about why there aren't all day long but at this point it's too late.
You’re not wrong about the democrats fumbling all the time; but at least they aren’t fascists.
Second worst to fascism shouldn't be the best we can ever hope for.
It’s not the best we can hope for, no one ever said that. It’s what we have. 10 times out of 10, I’ll take second worst to fascism as opposed to fascism.
When does it stop being all we have?