-30
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
-30 points (26.6% liked)
politics
19145 readers
2197 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
She did address it again at the next rally, to be fair to her. Though I agree the first reaction was... let's call it sub-optimal.
Still, she is in an incredibly tough position here. Not only does she carry the regular US baggage of Israel relation and wanting the strategic position in the middle east - she's also an active member of the current administration. There is a pretty hard limit on how much she can speak out given Biden is still in office, and ceasefire talks are ongoing.
I hear you. But proclaiming that third party candidates are intentionally trying to dilute the vote, as the commmentor I replied to implied, is no different than Harris's response at the rally.
It's meant to shame third parties for not getting in line behind the Democratic candidate. Instead of listening to people's grievances, they both weaponize shame.
You do realize there have been many cases of third party candidates being explicitly on the ticket to confuse matters and pull votes from opposition, do you not?
Though admittedly that’s usually with a similar or identical on the ballot name: https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2024/06/florida-dem-latest-victim-of-same-name-ballot-confusion-scheme/
First, let’s be clear: voting is a fundamental American right, and every citizen has the right to vote for the candidate they believe in, without being accused of ulterior motives. The idea that supporting a third party is somehow working for Trump or any other major candidate is both historically inaccurate and logically flawed.
Throughout American history, third parties have played a crucial role in shaping political discourse and pushing important issues into the spotlight.
The abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and labor rights were all advanced by third parties before being adopted by the major parties.
By voting for Jill Stein and the Green Party, I am supporting a platform that aligns with my values, particularly on issues like environmental sustainability, social justice, and democratic reform.
The notion that a vote for a third party “dilutes” the vote is rooted in a fear-driven mentality rather than in democratic principles.
It assumes that votes are owned by the two major parties, which they are not. Our electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate, not just those of the dominant parties.
That was a great 6 paragraph comment, but you didn’t actually address the literal one topic I was referring to. Like, at all.
I think I have made myself clear. Thank you!
Me: “You didn’t address the topic…”
You: “I spoke clearly!”
Good job, buddy. Good job.
I have made myself clear. Please stick to information that is in the news article posted.
This Lemmy community explores and respects diverse viewpoints.
And thank you for respecting the right for me to vote for who I want to vote for, even if it's not your candidate. Let's keep this sub civil.
I appreciate your perspective, but I’m trying to understand how your response relates to the specific topic I raised. It seems like you sidestepped the issue I mentioned regarding third-party candidates and their potential impact on elections.
I also want to clarify that I’m not being uncivil; I’m simply expressing my concerns about the broader implications of voting choices. It’s important to consider how those choices might affect the country as a whole.
Are you suggesting that the viewpoint about the intentional confusion created by some candidates isn’t worthy of respect? I’m a bit confused, and I’d appreciate your help in clearing this up.
And I appreciate your perspective. But I've made my point clear in many posts, and from now on I will only discuss information that is in the actual news article that I posted.
And I respect your right to think that. I, however, disagree. I like the fact that there are more voting choices.
The notion that a vote for a third party “dilutes” the vote is rooted in a fear-driven mentality rather than in democratic principles.
It assumes that votes are owned by the two major parties, which they are not. Our electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate, not just those of the dominant parties.
Voting for the candidate who best represents my beliefs is not just a right—it’s a responsibility.
Democracy thrives on diversity of thought.
It’s crucial to acknowledge that there have been documented cases where candidates have entered races specifically to confuse voters or draw votes away from a particular party. Ignoring these tactics is just as dangerous to democracy as discounting the role of third parties.
While I understand your commitment to voting for the candidate that aligns with your beliefs, it’s essential to consider how these strategies can impact the electoral process as a whole. Recognizing these issues doesn’t undermine the value of third-party candidates; rather, it highlights the complexities and challenges within our political system.
I believe that voting for the candidate who best represents my beliefs is not just a right—it’s a responsibility. One that I take very seriously.
I don't belive there is a spoiler effect, and that it relies on the strength of candidates. I understand and appreciate that you disagree, and you have every right to your opinions. As do I.
It's hard to feel otherwise when operating under a FPTP system, which is basically intentionally built to shut out third parties. In fact, one of the prominent benefits of FPTP is that it's incredibly difficult for an extremist party to find foothold - as opposed to what is seen all over Europe currently in places with party-list proportional representation.
Whether the third party candidates are naive about their chances, putting themselves out there as an act of protest or intentionally diluting the vote is impossible to say (and I suspect there are some out there in each category).
In the end however intentions don't really matter - the practical impact of third parties in an FPTP system is diluting the vote.
First, let’s be clear: voting is a fundamental American right, and every citizen has the right to vote for the candidate they believe in, without being accused of ulterior motives. The idea that supporting a third party is somehow working for Trump or any other major candidate is both historically inaccurate and logically flawed.
Throughout American history, third parties have played a crucial role in shaping political discourse and pushing important issues into the spotlight.
The abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and labor rights were all advanced by third parties before being adopted by the major parties.
By voting for Jill Stein and the Green Party, I am supporting a platform that aligns with my values, particularly on issues like environmental sustainability, social justice, and democratic reform.
The notion that a vote for a third party “dilutes” the vote is rooted in a fear-driven mentality rather than in democratic principles.
It assumes that votes are owned by the two major parties, which they are not. Our electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate, not just those of the dominant parties.
Thank you!