this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
692 points (95.9% liked)

politics

19118 readers
2711 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yet as someone who lives in a more diverse democracy (although it has been getting dangerously more polarized in the recent decades), I’m always baffled by this presumption that a candidate deserves someone’s vote by default.

If you live in a democracy where the spoiler effect isn't an issue, then just be happy, whistle, and move on.

If you live in a democracy with first past the poll elections with an electoral college, then you should understand how the system works and vote accordingly.

The spoiler effect is where you vote for someone (Jill Stein in this case) who you think better aligns with your particular set of policy goals, but since they have no chance of actually winning you help the candidate most opposed to your policy goals (Trump in this case) by subtracting votes from the less aligned candidate (Harris in this case) that actually does stand a chance of winning.

It's an ironic outcome of voting in our system. By voting for the person most aligned with your preferences you actually help the person least aligned with your preferences.

Trump is worse on genocide and climate and will be assisted greatly by idiots voting for Jill Stein in swing states.

They've done research and provided these assholes aren't on the ballot, people usually choose a ballot-present major party option instead.

[–] AliSaket@mander.xyz 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I did say that I live in a democracy with more parties, not that it does not include elections where there is the "first past the post" principle, so I'm familiar with the spoiler effect.

Trump is worse on genocide Although that might be true in some sense, please try to understand the people affected here. If your family is the one affected, it doesn't get more dead, than dead. I'm not saying, I would vote the same way, but I can understand not wanting to actively vote for killing your family.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

In a US presidential election, your vote supports Israel no matter what party it is for.

If people are actually interested in choice on this and many other issues, they'll have to organize to change the electoral process. But this is America so instead we will sit around in threads like these all day pretending that pissing away your vote with Stein will somehow change that when it obviously will not.

[–] thoro@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you live in a democracy with first past the poll elections with an electoral college, then you should understand how the system works and vote accordingly.

If you understand, then you understand that only swing states matter and you're essentially free to vote as you feel in solid red or blue states.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

For President specifically. Downballot still matters.

And if you're not in a swing state, but are in a state that "leans" R or D, your vote matters.