this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024

200 points (81.8% liked)

politics

19118 readers

3228 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

• 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

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

200

So you don’t like Trump or Harris – here’s why it’s still best to vote for one of them (theconversation.com)

submitted 1 month ago by juergen@lemmy.sdf.org to c/politics@lemmy.world

259 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It has been said a gazillion times over the last few months, but is it getting through to those who need to hear it?

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 122 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

And remember: a "protest" third party vote is a vote for Trump.

If neither Harris nor Trump gets 270 electoral votes....

[If] No one gets to 270 and the House of Representatives, voting on behalf of the 50 states, is entrusted to pick the next president. What could possibly go wrong with that constitutionally mandated solution?

-- What if no candidate wins 270 electoral votes?

Edit: I feel like this fact is often overlooked.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 72 points 1 month ago (2 children)

A protest vote to a third party is actually a protest vote to whoever you prefer less. You're essentially just removing yourself as a voter and making it more likely the person you like less is elected... we often say "third party is a vote for Trump" since most of lemmy is sane - but for a staunch conservative a vote for a third party is a vote for Harris.

I'd encourage everyone to vote regardless of your leaning - having low voter turnout allows more shitty shenanigans.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 42 points 1 month ago (54 children)

Yep, we also say that because there are a lot of astroturf accounts pushing Stein and De La Cruz on Lemmy that are hyper-critical of Harris but suspiciously never want to talk about what a shitbag Trump is.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's because Harris is Satan and Trump is my Daaaaddy

[–] Archer@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

I’m really encouraged by the fact that universalmonk and return2ozma’s posts get heavily downvoted when they push this slop in Lemmy

load more comments (53 replies)

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Yeah, also, Conservatives are more 'fall in line' voters, so there's less vote splitting on the Right than on the Left. Libertarians do appeal to the people opposed to both eyes in the boardroom and eyes in the bedroom on both the Left and the Right, but for the most part, the GQP follows the 'Vote for the Conservative in the Primary and the Republican in the General' more than we follow its inverse (replace Conservative with Liberal and Republican with Democrat). And for Republicans afraid of a Trump presidency, come join us and vote for Harris. Then maybe go work on de-Trumping your party after they lose with you helping us. ;)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Fester@lemm.ee 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

At least it’s the newly elected House that starts its session in January, right?

anakin.jpg

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

Yes, but unfortunately they vote by state not individually

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This government really is held together with hopes and dreams, isn’t it?

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 6 points 1 month ago

It always was. Sometimes that's stronger than other times.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Wait... you can actually have someone NOT get 270 votes?

Oh... duh... 3rd parties taking some. You think it'd just be whoever has the most electoral college votes then... Alas, needlessly complicating things.

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah. It has been that way since the founding of the country. The winner not only must have the most votes, they must get half of the available EVs, rounding up. This was learned early on in the history of the US, when four Democratic-Republicans ran for President, and nobody got the required number of votes. This happened in 1824, barely half a century after the US was founded. It resulted in Andrew Jackson (Trump's role model, BTW), getting 99 EVs, John Q. Adams winning 84 EVs, William H. Crawford (who had a stroke) winning 41 EVs, and Henry Clay winning 37 EVs. Per the 12th Amendment of the US constitution, nobody had a straight majority here, so the top three vote getters (disqualifying Henry Clay) advanced to the House of Representatives. Clay's supporters in Congress threw their weight behind John Q. Adams, giving him a straight majority over the top candidate, Andrew Jackson, and Adams gave Clay a spot in his cabinet. Capping this shitstorm off was Andrew "Sore Loser" Jackson throwing a fit, calling it a 'corrupt bargain', in a very Trumpian temper tantrum.

IMO, what happened in 1828 (and again in 1837 with the VP) is an important history lesson for voters thinking of voting Third Party. Unless you can somehow convince 50% + 1 people to pick your Third Party candidate in 270 EV worth of states, your best bet is to get that candidate to run for a local election and become a vocal proponent for fixing the US electoral system. Because you'd hate to have 269 EV go for Harris, 81 go to a mix of Left-Wing Third Party candidates, and 188 go to Trump, then have the election thrown to the House, where the Trumpian states give Trump the win despite the Left-wing candidates winning in a landslide were those EVs have gone to a single person. And even that's an unrealistic scenario. Only two people who have not had an R or D behind their name have gotten EVs in my lifetime, and both of them were from faithless electors, NOT from winning an EV. You're not going to win the Presidency with 1% of the vote. But you WILL throw your state over to the bad guy if your 1% share makes the difference between Harris winning and Trump winning.

There are a lot of reasons why you shoulnd't vote for third party for US Presidential Elections. The EC is just one of them.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

Doesn't have to be a 3rd party. With the way proportional voting works in NE and ME, it is possible, however unlikely, that there will be a 269-269 tie vote.

https://youtu.be/YnNSnJbjdws#t=52s

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

They could tie at 269.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 61 points 1 month ago

... And the one that's best to vote for is Harris.

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago

Third parties are crucial and we can't vote for them (intelligently) until we change away from first past the post:

Https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (40 children)

"Instead, protest voting is in fact likely to harm the democratic process, potentially leading to the election of the candidate the majority of voters overall, and protest voters specifically, most dislike."

^ THIS!

In a Presidential election, whoever gets the most votes wins.

If "Not Trump" is split between 5 candidates, and Trump gets the most votes, he wins.

Here's a scenario:

Trump - 40%
Harris - 35%
Kennedy - 15%
Oliver - 5%
Stein - 3%
West - 2%

Trump wins. Even though 60% of the voting public don't want him. The "Not Trump" vote failed to coalesce under one candidate enough to block him from winning.

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is what I keep saying. It's like my scenario with the Class President. A Nerd and a Jock are running. 51 kids are nerds and don't want the Jock. 49 kids are jocks and don't want the Nerd. Pretty clear that the Nerd wins, because more people don't want the Jock than the Nerd, right? Wrong. If the Jock can peel just THREE votes off from the nerd coalition, the Jocks win it and D&D night is cancelled.

Now re-read that and replace nerds with Liberals, jocks with Conservatives, and 'D&D night is cancelled' with 'Project 2025 is shoved down our throats.' Then...vote with your fucking head and not your fucking heart!

[–] Wiz@midwest.social 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's like this, but Jocks' votes are worth more than Nerds'.

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Definitely. I tried to keep the scenario simple to make it easy to understand, but there is truth in the statement that the jocks have some fingers on the scale of Democracy. I suspect there's more nerds than jocks. We just have to make sure they all turn out to vote because the cheerleader that is the jock's politician is pulling out ALL the dirty tricks.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

On the other side of the Atlantic there's usually two rounds, unless someone gets >50% of the vote in the first round.

The second round takes the top two candidates and then people choose between them.

Well I mean I don't know of all European countries but this is fairly common afaik.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (38 replies)

[–] themachine@lemm.ee 14 points 1 month ago (3 children)

No you don’t. You just really ought to vote.

I hope you vote for Harris because Fuck Trump and I think she’ll be a good president, but you don’t HAVE TO vote for one of them. But really, please vote.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 month ago

It didn't say "have to" as in you are legally obligated to. It says why "it's best to" and explains why 3rd parties act as spoilers in the first past the post system and how voting for a 3rd party can lead to the exact opposite person winning than who you want

[–] juergen@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 1 month ago

Isn't that precisely what the article said?

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

I get where you're coming from here, but ... let's be clear.

Come January, one of two people will be taking the Oath of Office.

Kamala Harris.
Donald Trump.

The article explains why it's best for you to vote for the person you dislike the least (if you can't say 'like the most') out of those two.

None of the other candidates for President have any realistic shot at POTUS.

In fact, many of them are mathematically eliminated from a shot at POTUS by virtue of them not being able to secure 270 EVs because they are not on the ballot in enough states. Most of them can't even get 100EV, let alone 270.

Apart from RFK Jr, Chase Oliver, and Jill Stein, none of them appear as a pickable option in enough states to have a shot at winning 270 EVs and will require Write-In Campaigns.

RFK Jr., Chase Oliver, and Jill Stein COMBINED represent less than 10% (largest vote share I have seen in the past month is Outward Intelligence, which had Kennedy at 3%, West at 1%, Oliver at 1%, and Stein at 1%, taken between 22 and 26 Sept of 1735 Likely Voters, while most other polls show Third Parties between 2% and 5%). Harris is between 45% and 50% in many of these polls, which means...well, Harris has MUCH more of a shot of winning than any of the Third Party candidates, let alone any one of them.

The fix for this is to get your Greens and Socialists and Liberals and Progressives running for local offices, and pushing and pushing hard for RCV. I can't vote for your favourite candidate now because I don't want Republicans in office, but if RCV passes this November, I'll be far more open to it. In fact, I'll take a risk on a Green or Progressive or Libertarian alternative to my Senator or Representative because I can vote that person 1, and make sure the Dem is ranked over the GQPer, so my vote becomes a Dem long before a Republican can win. Then work on getting the EC torn down. And I think you should to. I won't tell you you MUST. But I won't shy away from saying that if you want a progressive future, letting Harris lose now is a stupid way to try (and fail) to achieve that.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There's a third scenario where a protest vote makes sense. In solid states, a vote for a third party could push that party to meet the threshold for getting over $100 million in federal funds for the next campaign. They just need to get 5% of the popular vote to be eligible. Now I'm not saying that this would necessarily lead to some utopia of qualified candidates, but it would help disrupt the higher echelons of politics from both sides that keep the system in place. And before some dumbass comes in and accuses me of "both sides-ing" this, when was the last time congressional term limits was seriously considered for legislation despite having broad support from both sides of the electorate? The top rungs of congress that have been in office since before most of us were born won't allow it.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 13 points 1 month ago

If anyone actually wants the option to vote for 3rd parties, then a landslide victory for Harris is the best option in this election.

The Republicans are already torn. They stand together with the MAGA insanity hoping to get enough votes by including the crazyness. If the election clearly shows that it's a losing strategy, they will have to regroup and the GOP will be split. Then when Democrats are clearly outnumbering the opposition, it will also be more tempting for radical left wing to branch out without risking the opposition winning.

When "both sides" are then fractioned into smaller groups, it will finally be possible to get a majority to vote for getting rid of the 1st past the post problem, and make it possible for 3rd parties to get any influence.

But the first step is to make sure the Republicans lose really hard. Voting 3rd party won't do it in this election.

[–] kyoji@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

First past the post voting mathematically ensures a two party system. Voting third party is useless unless we have election reform. Vote with your mind, not your heart, and vote thinking beyond just the next 4 years.

[–] Soup@lemmy.cafe 6 points 1 month ago

So glad to see the ratios tipping toward voting! In large communities where it matters, it’s good to know that the bad actors are being downvoted into irrelevance.

load more comments