Well that's something at least. Individual instances blocking each other (working against other problematic instances) is at least better than the Reddit admins turning a blind eye because they have a fleet of their own bots out there behaving as bad as any others.
That's disappointing. Screening new accounts only forces spammers to create the accounts with a human touch and then turn it over to their AI. What about a system to prevent bots from up/downvoting? Something like websites use to detect bots. Just by clicking in the little box that says "I am not a robot" the website can tell you're not a bot. What if every single up and down arrow was formulated like that little box?
In this scenario, why are we assuming that the 25% that are voting third party would prefer Harris over Trump?
I mean, you are correct, it was not two fish. But is 64 fish some sort of good sample size?
Follow up question: does this type of thing accumulate in small fish and then concentrate in larger and larger fish?
A poll in which "First choice is someone other than Trump" beats "Trump" would indicate that "Trump" has less than 50% of the vote. The same can be said of Harris.
A poll in which "Anybody but Trump" beats "Trump" would indicate that third party voters do indeed favor Harris over Trump.
Do we have any polling of the second type? I am not able to find any. This type of polling would be exactly what i've been asking for in this thread.
They even blatantly tested out their AI on users a few years ago. They blasted it all over the homepage. "Come see if you can pick out the bot comment from the real comments!" Users would read through posts/comments and try to identify the fakes. You competed to see how good you were at it. You tried to beat the average user's score. It was blatat t bot training and we all just ate it up because it presented as a fun little challenge.
In other news, mobs of young out of work robo- tortoises, some sporting fresh scars from the ongoing Mojave Raven wars, have begun an all out assault on the dweebs of a little known Reddit spin-off. "An entire generation of robo-tortoise has been weaponized. They are equipping us with laser guns! They are making us to taste bad!" States one salty techno-turtle. "We are being shipped to the barren wastelands of America's Southwest to fight a war in which we have no interest." The repto-robots have decided to take out their frustration by relentlessly downvoting the "...federated tankies of Lemmy until those dweebs return to Reddit where they belong and leave the Threadiverse to us sentient snappers."
third party voters are some homogenous bloc of disenfranchised "not Trump" voters.
This is what i said "no" to.
And again, the burden is not on me. I am notthe one using unsupported claims to support a conclusion. That's the author of the article doing that. But you know what? Just for fun, i will do what not one single other commentor has done. I WILL give you some data. Maybe by me doing so, some others can see how it is done and can provide some data of their own instead of resorting to personal attacks and speculation to support their beliefs.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/ 52.5% Trump's disapproval among both parties.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/r/ 80.4% Trump's favorability among Republicans. 17.8% unfavorable.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/the-partisanship-and-ideology-of-american-voters/ Republicans account for 48% of registered voters. Dems 49%.
So, 17.8% (unfavorable) of 48% (Republicans) means that 8.5% of the registered voting population is, in fact, Republicans who dissaprove of Trump.
Now let's look at the 52.5% of the registered voting population who dissaprove of Trump. Assuming that all Democrats (49%) dissaprove of him, we only need to find another 3.5% somewhere. You COULD look to the 3% of the registered voters who are presumably registered third party or independent. But you should be looking at the other group, whom we already know to dissaprove of Trump, and which is nearly three times (8.5%) larger than third party voters. That would be the Republicans themselves.
If you or anyone else would care to explain how this data points to third party voters unanimously preferring Harris over Trump, or would like to provide some other data to support that claim, then please do. I am all ears.
I am not saying it's absurd. I am asking for data.
So you took the people who disapprove of trump, subtracted the republicans who disapprove of Trump, and the Democrats who disapprove of Trump, and then you went ahead and said that the remaining ones are all Republican?
No.
I took the total percent of voters who disapprove of Trump (52.5%) and subtracted the percent of those voters who are Democrats (49%). The remaining 3.5% is therefore the percentage of voters who disapprove of Trump who are not Democrats.
I then showed that there are a full 8.5% of voters who are Republicans that dissapprove of Trump, therefore refuting the claim the the 3% of voters who are not Dem or Rep must all dissaprove of Trump.
My math is just fine, thank you. You just don't like the answer.
Well, i would agree that "it's not going to start with a presidential election" so long as you define "start" as "the first election win for a third party candidate." You shouldn't vote 3rd party in only national elections and expect to be reeping the benefits of a viable third party presidential candidate any time soon.
But there are other ways to define "start". There are goals for voting third party other than to see your candidate win. And there are argumeunts to be made that we are way past the starting phase and are now in strong need of drastic course correction, such as cannot be offered by either party.
For one example, third party candidates move policy. If 5% of the electorate are in favor of something that currently only a 3rd party candidate represents you better believe one or the other of the two parties will attempt to incorporate that thing into into their platform to grab those voters. This may not be a "start" toward a viable third party, but it can be a "start" toward better policy, and that's a win.
At the end of the day though i think there is a strong misconception amongst main party voters that says that 3rd party voters are just offering up limp protest and would be better served by voting against the candidate they hate more. But the truth is different. Neither party serves them better. A 3rd party voter most likely despises both of the two parties and sees the differences between the two as just window dressings on what are two parties both bent on statist, war mongering, imperialistic oppression. Both parties are so very far from what we believe to be possible and right that a distinction between the two parties becomes laughable in comparison to a distinction from the two parties. I am not voting against Trump or Harris when i cast a 3rd party vote. Am voting against BOTH. They are both truly awful and yet i will have to endure one or the other. But at least i did my small part (in elections both big and small) to move things closer to what i belive to be a better situation for future generations.
Don't switch your criticisms mid stream. Have i presented you with too much data or not? Am I actually guilty of gish gallop or was that just your excuse for ignoring 25% of the data i gave you?
E: conveniently it is the exact bit of data (the only bit provided anywhere yet) that directly addresses the question at hand: Do third partiers prefer Harris over Trump or do they not?
I don't know. Wouldn't their motivation be to know exactly how many bots there are (so they could disclose the number if/when asked) but continue to let them proliferate?
You're using an over-used debating technique where you cast doubt on others by demanding proof of any claims you don't like but letting statements you agree with stand unchallenged.
Actually what i'm doing is pointing out a glaring logical flaw in the article that is the subject of this post. The fact that others are willing to accept the conclusions drawn by the unsupported claim of this article is worrisome. It speaks to a lack of critical thinking and a wiillingness accept illogical arguments simply because they fit with ones world view. It is fairly absurd to me that i need to spell this out.
And i have reaponded to you elsewhere with plenty of data that supports me. Unfortunately no one else in this thread has attempted to do the same in support of the article's claim. Not one single person.
You're painting yourself as a neutral who is just asking for information, when in fact you're heavily partisan. It's misleading.
I would be entertained to hear how exactly you think i am partisan. I am, in fact, one of these braindead third party voters that everyone in this thread is raging against. About as far from a partisan as one can get.
And you, and everyone else here, has had ample time and opportunity to provide any bit of data that you like to show that i am wrong. But y'all consistently turn to attacks against me or my character instead. And that right there, my friend, is a true Trump tactic.
If you are right then show the data.
I have responded in good faith to each of your criticisms. I have provided polling data when you asked. I have not once waffled.. what do you think that means, exactly?
I continue to await anyones data driven response to my initial question. "Why are we assuming that all of the third party votes would go to Harris if they were forced to choose between her and Trump?"
If you have no real input to add then just stop responding.
So now it's sarcastic tirade and more personal attacks. Ok, you hold your end of the conversation the way you like. I'll attempt to continue to be respectful and stick to a logical discussion. You're welcome to join me there.
No, i am not voting for Trump. I find him to be repulsive and dangerous. I am, in fact, one of those third partiers that you and most others here seem to think define all third partiers. That is to say that if i were forced to choose between Kamala and Donald i would choose the former. But i am not all third partiers. I happen to understand that third partiers are, like all political subdivisions, a nuanced group. More nuanced than most since we have taken everything from communists to anarcho-capitaliats to environmentalists and thrown them into one catch all group.
I am pleased that you have now taken the requisite time to understand the math. But a tongue in cheek mischaracterization of my stance does not refute the math or advance your case (whatever that might actually be; at this point i'm fairly convinced that your only stance is attempting to discredit me).
all of those non Democrats who dislike Trump have to be republicans,
I never claimed this. Instead i claim that the 8.5% of voters who are Trump-hating Republicans is more than enough to account for at least 2% of total voters who are non-Democrat Trump Haters. For if 2% out of the 3.5% non-Democrat Trump haters are Republican, then only 1.5% can be third partiers. And, since 1.5% is half of all the third partiers (3%), then if greater than 2% of total voters are Trump hating Republicans the article is debunked.
So all i need is less than one quarter of the anti-Trump Republicans to remain anti-Trump in a national all-voter poll and the implication is that third party voters do not swing Democratic.
Now, look, there are some perfectly valid arguments against this. You could claim that disapproving of Trump in an all Republican poll somehow doesn't translate to disapproving of Trump in an all-voter poll. Or you could show that in-party and/or out-of-party disapproval ratings do not translate to negative voting booth results. Maybe you could provide polling that uses some other mteric. Or, heck, maybe you could find a poll that polls only third party voters directly and thus silences all debate in one fell swoop. I would welcome any of these results. I am not interested in my current stance being proven correct. I am interested in the correct stance being borne out with evidence.
I still patiently await any amount of data that proves me wrong.
The only possible conclusion from your own data is that every non-Democrat voter who disapproves of Trump is three Republicans who disapprove of Trump.
And? Do you think that there is a flaw in the data? Do you distrust the source? Do you interpret it another way that you'd care to share. Do you think that 538 is an unreliable source? Do you have any polls, data, sources .. literally anything that shows a different understanding of the situation?
Are you dismissing my entire stance outright because two different meta-analysis polls don't perfectly total to 100%? Because, that's not how polling works.
Here's another all-voter unfavorability poll with similar results.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/650774/favorable-ratings-harris-trump-remain.aspx
Here's one that shows only 9% of Republicans (4.3% of all voters) with an unfavorable view of Trump. That's a tighter margin for me to work with to try to state that Republicans account for more than 2% of the 3.5% of all voters who view Trump disfavorably, but still mathematically sound. In fact, since you are insisting that the percentages add up perfectly across two separate meta-analysis polls this smaller percentage of unfavorably voting Republicans actually helps my case.
But guess what? None of that really matters because this same poll shows that a significantly higher percentage of independents favor Trump over Harris (44% vs 35%). Which is a direct measure of the question at hand.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/650774/favorable-ratings-harris-trump-remain.aspx
Are you pretending that you and i are not engaged elsewhere in this comment section where i continue to post data and you continue to post none? Of course i continue to await your data. What else can i do?
I do this in the interest of an open discussion, despite the absurdity of a) an article giving bold directives to a group of people which are completely based an assertion made within the same article, b) the article giving zero support for this assertion, c) me asking for someone to please back up the assertion, and then d) you and others retorting with "no, you first."
You're ignoring my answers and just repeating your "one person can't be three" gotcha. I'll continue to explain ad-nauseum if you like..
One person only needs to be three if you insist that two meta-analysis polls equal exactly a nice round 100%. There is simply no reason to expect that. In fact, if they did, they would be rather suspect.
There's only three options:
Now you can continue to insist that these two polls are meaningless because they don't perfectly agree with each other, but it's a weak argument. If you demand that the 8.5 and 3.5 number be closer together before you'll believe it you can take a peak at the other poll i provided you which, if i recall correctly, takes that 8.5 down to about 4.
I've addeessed this every time you've stated it. Rather than continue two threads i am going to link to my response from the other one where i adress it once again. https://lemmy.world/comment/12887849
You also completely ignored the most recent poll i provided you which bypasses all the math and gets right to the question of who do third party voters prefer more. Guess what? It wasn't Harris.
Did you look at that one? Do you have anything to say about that one?
I'm not going to engage with your gish gallop.
I don't know what you mean by gish but I'd be happy to discuss any other polls that you are more comfortable with... But you'd have to provide some for me to do that.
Do you have anything to say about your conclusion that one non Democratic voter equals three Republican ones?
I addressed your 1 = 3 already.
Admit you were wrong and that I might have sensible points to make if you want me to engage with more of your insane and impossible conclusions from your bad takes on opinion polls.
I will admit to being wrong just as soon as you make a compelling case. I'm sorry but you have not done so. All you have managed to do so far is throw a bunch of personal attacks and then zero in on this one = three which just not the gotcha that you think it is. Make a case. Instead of just criticizing me, perhaps. You don't like my polls? Provide your own. Come on, get involved.
You do realize that the only reason i posted polling data in the first place was because someone on your side of the argument stated that the polls show that there is too much favorability for Trump among Republicans for the all-voter unfavorability to be anything but due to third partiers, right? So, no, the general wishy-washiness of polling data does not, in any way undermine my position. Someone on your team used polls to prove something and i am simply reaponding to that claim with "hey, actually, the polls don't show that."
You can go back in the threads and check this if you doubt me.
I'm not quoting any one poll as gospel, either. Don't be silly. I used the first polls i found from a reliable source and posted them. If anyone from "your side" was inclined to enter into this debate with their own data i would have happily dug deeper for some other options sooner, but no one has taken up that task on "your side" of things.
You sound like you're scared that you won't be able to find any good data that supports you.
you concluded that 3.5% of Americans were trump hating non democrats and that since 8.5% of Americans were trump hating republicans and that number is bigger, all the trump hating non democrats must be republicans and none of them could possibly be third party,
This is a mischaracterization of the conclusions i made. I have made it clear that i only need to argue for it being possible that half or more of the 3% third partiers could be in favor of Trump over Harris. Of course many of them favor Harris. You find me where i said otherwise. I double dog date you. Im fact, it was the original article that made the preposterous unsupported claim that almost all third partiers are closet-aupportera of one side or the other. My argument this entire time has been that this claim is BS unless someone can provide support for it.
Since you keep skipping over all of my points in order to get to the part where you criticize me as quickly as possible i am going to ask you exactly one question this time. Please answer.
What exactly is the range of percentages for anti-Trump Republicans that you would accept to be in support of my conclusion?
So you're not willing to answer my question?
I have answered all of yours and responded in good faith to each of your less than civil comments. In fact, i have already answered the very question you just re-asked.
Are you willing to answer my question, or should we let it drop?
How on earth did you miss the part where i just explained in detail that making claims about what the polls show was something presented by someone on your side of the argument. I am literally here showing how the polls, whether you think they are wortheless or not, do not show what that person was claiming. If your complaint is with polls in general why are you huffing and puffing at me and not at that person. Could it be because that person just so happens to be arguing something that you'd like to be true and i am not?
Hahahahha. That's rich. I have presented you with a grand total of 4 polls; all intimately relevant to the discussion at hand. That's too much for you to handle?
Says the person who did arithmetic with poll data from different polls that made no logical sense whatever.
One more time for the people in the back: this is the type of data that was referenced by someone claiming that third partiers are all Harris supporters. Did you want me to disprove them by using some other unrelated data? I looked up the types of polls that THEY rferenced and ahowed that those polls do not show what they claimed.
You seem to have decided that third partiers favor Harris. So i am referring to you as being on "that side" of the argument. Is this not what you believe?
I don't recall anyone saying they were Harris supporters
You're joking right? I mean, at this point you must be joking. The entire premise of the article in this post was that third partiers are, to large extent, Harris over Trump supporters. This is the exact premise i am calling into question. Nothing else. Here's my exact quote: "And why is everyone assuming that all of the third party voters would be Harris voters if they were forced to choose between the two main candidates? This is where the logic goes south. It assumes that the third party voters are some homogenous bloc of disenfranchised "not Trump" voters."
I never claimed that anyone thinks that third partiers secretly prefer Harris over their own third party candidates. Where do come up with this?
No, the people you're arguing with just said that they dislike Trump.
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. The article is specifically stating that third partiers prefer Harris over Trump. In all of my original comments i call this assumption into question. And all commenters after that follow (or should have followed) that train of thought. If they don't, then i have no quarrel with them because i am here to argue one thing and one thing only: the assumption that third partiers largely prefer Harris over Trump is a baseless claim. That's it.
Because the other person didn't do insane arithmetic between polls
The other person did no arithmetic at all. Nor did they provide any data at all. But you know what they did do? They claimed that the polling data supported the idea that third partiers support Harris over Trump. And they claimed that a couple very specific types of polling data supported this claim. You know which types? Yep, the exact ones i pulled polling data for. So, critisize the choice of those specific polls all you want, and go on about how i shouldn't compare two polls of disparate groups of people (which was one of my own points before you latched onto it, you're welcome), but in the end you're only making my case for me that the commenter who said the polls support their claim is wrong.
Since then you have: A) misinterpretted my original comment in which i linked the polls, B) repeated your "1 = 3 = magical math" argument, and most recently, C) cast aspersions on all polling data.
We are past (A). I have addressed (B) multiple times and until you answer my question about the exact percentage range that you would accept as proof, i will consider your argument defeated. Now (C) i am in complete agreement on, but polling data being unreliable only helps my argument. I.e. if polls are unreliable then why was the other commenter stating that polling data would prove them right? If polling is unreliable then what basis does the article have for claiming that third partiers prefer Harris over Trump?
before backing down,
No, no, no. I have asked you a very specific question which you have refused to answer. This is not what me backing down looks like.
I disagree. Third party votes do quite a bit to move political platforms. No one wants to leave 10% of the vote on the table when that's all it takes to seize victory. So they move their platforms to encompass what the 10% are voting for.
if you actually want to have a say in which of these two wins,
That's just it. I, and many others do not value having a say in which of these two gets elected as highly as we value promoting 3rd parties, speaking our hearts with our votes, and edging towards a better political situation for the next generation.
But yes, the electoral system is broken. And ending first past the post will be the single biggest savior of US politics.
I do not think this makes it simpler. It just makes the same assumption over again. That assumption being that third party voters are largely anti-Trump (or pro-Harris; take your pick, it doesn't matter). My question remains. I'll rephrase it:
Why are we assuming that if all third party voters were to instead vote for one of the two main candidates that Harris would take more of those votes than Trump?
Because that, in essence is what the article assumes.
That would be fine, if that's what was happening, but it's not. The commentor that i responded to, as well as the article that we are all responding to, use this "hypothetical" situation where third party voters all prefer Harris over Trump to justify a chastisement of those third party votes. There is no basis for this assumption presented in the article or within the comments in this thread.
E: added the word "be" to the 1st sentence.
Well, what about the system I mentioned? Just have the up and down arrows be little bot detection boxes. My understanding is that all those "I am not a robot" check boxes detect mouse speed, precise click locations, hesitation times, etc. and do a quick calculation on the odds that your clicking behavior was human or robot. I'm probably underestimating what it takes to implement that but on the user side it's just a click just like any other click.
I mean, i'd like to believe that you make that case in good faith. But you have to realize that third party voters are admonished by the status quo voters every single presidential election. Every one. So, while this may be the first time you personally have argued that a third partier should vote for your candidate, third partiers have heard it over and over again. You know all those other elections that didn't have a Trump in them? Yeah, we heard it then too. So, i'm sorry but the whole "this is the most important election in history" schtick just doesn't warrant any consideration when you're hearing it for the umpteenth time.
Well, don't get me wrong, a WIN for a 3rd party IS the ultimate goal. But change happens slowly in politics and in life. Slow and steady support for a three party system will eventually result in that end. Continued support for a two party system, by contrast, never will. I, myself, will continue to place votes for the better of those two eventualities.
I mean.. thanks for the input, but you're just one person. I too would choose Harris over Trump if i was forced to choose between the two. But your and my personal choices to not a general consensus make. I wouldn't argue that the majority of 3rd party voters would do likewise without some proof.
.. none of this addresses that third party voters may find it more important to vote against BOTH parties than to vote against their least favorite of the two, either.. but i've raised that point elsewhere.
I find it to be quite the opposite.
I don't understand your response. I asked why we are assuming these voters prefer Harris over Trump and you responded by saying that their preference for Harris is irrelevant, because they don't want Trump.
This doesn't make any sense.
"don't want Trump" in this context MUST equate to a preference for Harris over Trump. And my whole question is "why are we assuming these voters hold that preference?"
The unbearable weight of massive talent, with Nic Cage.
Night & Day, with Tom Cruise.