325
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) by dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

As the title states I am confused on this matter. The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.

Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.

I really don’t get the logic. As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.

Please don’t come at me with pro-Israeli rhetoric as this isn’t the post for that, I’m asking about why people would make such choices and I’m not up for debate on the Middle East, on this post, you can DM me for that.

Edit: Bedtime here now so will respond to incoming comments in the morning, love starting the day with an inbox full 😊.

Edit 2: This blew up, it’s a little overwhelming right now but I do intent on replying to everybody that took the time to comment. Just need to get in the right headspace.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] rocci@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 month ago

In my situation, I'm in a solid blue state so I'm voting for a third party to push the country to the left.

[-] CameronDev@programming.dev 28 points 1 month ago

If only USA had ranked choice voting, then everyone could do that.

[-] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

Or literally any voting system with more than two seconds thought put into it

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago

they put a lot of thought into our system; the electoral college was intentional and it's doing it's job very well.

it's meant as a firewall to guard against poor people from getting sufficient political representation. our ruling class uses it today to keep this country conservative.

This kinda makes sense, I guess that means not a swing state (I’m not American).

Do you have to be in a heavy blue state to do this without fear that if enough people do this it will swing red?

[-] KammicRelief@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

Yes, exactly. If you live in a solid blue or red state, your vote is a drop in the bucket, so it won't matter if you vote third party. But in swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania.... in 2016, the number of votes won by Jill Stein was slightly greater than the difference between Trump/Clinton. Ouch! Was it worth it? Did it move the country left?

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago

the strategy definitely wasn't worth it, but we're doing it again anyways.

[-] rocci@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago

Yeah it's a strategy that would work in any heavy red or blue state, because there's an absolute zero percent chance the dems lose my state.

this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
325 points (81.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43944 readers
496 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS