So you don’t like Trump or Harris – here’s why it’s still best to vote for one of them
So you don’t like Trump or Harris – here’s why it’s still best to vote for one of them
It has been said a gazillion times over the last few months, but is it getting through to those who need to hear it?
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.
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.
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. ;)
At least it’s the newly elected House that starts its session in January, right?
anakin.jpg
Yes, but unfortunately they vote by state not individually
This government really is held together with hopes and dreams, isn’t it?
It always was. Sometimes that's stronger than other times.
Ah my favourite AJJ quote: "Hope is for presidents and dreams are for people who are sleeping"
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.
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.
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.
They could tie at 269.
Lol, yeah. The article I linked is from earlier this year and about Biden/Trump/Kennedy, but the gist of it still applies.
Whew the tankies and astroturfers are out in force in these comments. I think we got the gamut going here:
Solid work astroturfers! Glad to see you're still trotting out these arguments despite plenty of Lemmy users discrediting each and every one. Really shows grit and dedication.
Also, calling it now that at least one of them replies with something about how they're true / haven't been discredited.
It makes it easy to tag them for future reference or block them at least.
“Who cares if Trump wins; they’re both bad / nothing worse will happen l both sides”
Trump's RIGHT NOW basically talking about forming up goon squads and kicking out immigrants on the basis of some law passed in the 1700s and people are still pretending like this dude isn't basically a Hitler.
“I don’t vote for genocide”
Yeah....about that....a vote that helps Trump is one that not only exacerbates the ongoing genocide in the middle east, but starts up a new one right here. He's talking seriously about military tribunal and gas chamber type shit in "Operation Aurora".
... And the one that's best to vote for is Harris.
Third parties are crucial and we can't vote for them (intelligently) until we change away from first past the post:
"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.
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!
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.
In this scenario, why are we assuming that the 25% that are voting third party would prefer Harris over Trump?
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.
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
Isn't that precisely what the article said?
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.
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.
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.
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.
A third party gets campaign funds, and then what?
First past the post voting, or at the very least the US version of it, strongly favors two dominating parties. CGP Grey - Minority Rule...
A third party doing anything but fuck things up, is a delusional fantasy. Change starts with election reform. For instance https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
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.
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.
If you're in a state that is solidly red or blue, then similar logic applies to downballot races.
It’s just embarrassing to write an article like this and forget about the electoral college.
You say that as if you don't realise that the electoral college is exactly why it can't possibly achieve anything to vote third party other than risk your least favourite candidate winning.
You act all high and mighty and snide and then completely miss the point. I'm not impressed.
Complete drivel. Why do liberals think repeatedly telling us the same condescending nonsense without engaging with any of our actual arguments is convincing? There isn't a third party voter alive who hasn't heard these arguments.
So while each individual unhappy voter wants to keep their hands clean and not vote, they would each like the other 9,999 unhappy voters to step up and swing the outcome in favor of their preferred candidate.
What third party voter is asking other people to vote for a major party? This is such a blatant strawman that I find it hard to believe that this author has ever had a single conversation with a third party voter.
I've had many conversations with "third party voters" here on lemmy. Haven't found any, at all, not one, who can talk about the faults of the republicans in anything like the length and passion that they can talk about the faults of the democrats, and the national polling says that real third party voters are very rare, so a little bit of Bayes' theorem says that the "third party voters" talking so loudly and long about why I shouldn't vote for Harris are far, far, far more likely to be republicans pretending to be left wing or neutral, hoping desperately that they can convince enough potential democratic voters to stay home to swing the election for their favourite - stupid evil country-betraying Trump.
There's more discourse about the Democrats because there's less disagreement about Republicans being bad. I wrote up a post about Trump's foreign policy doublespeak a while back where I called out anyone who might support Trump from an isolationist standpoint. It didn't get much engagement, but that's not my fault. Most of my comments are responding to things other people say and there are more Harris supporters than Trump supporters.
I might remind you that Lemmy was developed by communists, so an alternative explanation is that communists are more likely to both vote third party and use Lemmy.
The idea that we're secret conservatives is so absurd that I doubt you actually believe it, and are just using the accusation as a talking point to discredit the other side. Conservatives are awful at impersonating communists, they don't read or understand leftist theory and typically can only make it a few hours at most before breaking character and shouting slurs. You're vastly overestimating their intelligence and creativity. To say that Bayes' theorem supports your accusation is patently absurd.
At some point, claiming that communists are just conservatives in disguise means claiming that conservatives read more leftist political theory than liberals do. As entertaining as it may be to imagine a bunch of good ol' boys getting together and starting a book club where they discuss, like, the finer points of Simone de Beauvoir, I think if you're doing Bayesian analysis you should probably assign that a pretty low probability. They don't even read their own theory, much less ours.
Censorship is alive and well at .world, huh? I’ll leave y’all turds to your echo chamber then and block your infantile instance. GFL!
Is the person censoring you in the room with us right now?
They can't respond, they censored themselves out of the thread. Kind of ironic iyam.
Lmao alright
"Censorship is when people disagree with my views!"
Meanwhile, your comment is still there for everyone to read
This article is the most logically corrupt piece of statist drivel i have read today. "No, no, don't vote for who you feel best represent your values. Instead, pretend like everyone else who shares those values is going to team up and vote for the same one of the two people they dislike." Because, in essence, the "logic" used in this article only works if you assume that all of the third party voters are pulling from one candidate.
It doesn't matter how many candidates third parties pull from.
If no candidate gets 270 votes, the election is decided by the House. That's at the electoral college level, but see jordan lund's breakdown above and how a majority "not Trump" votes will be split among candidates but Trump still wins the state because the "not Trump" voters couldn't get their shit together and coalesce around a single candidate.
And if the election goes to the House, Assuming Republicans maintain control, take one guess who they're going to elect?
The electoral system in the US is broken. In this system there's a 100% chance that Trump or Kamala will win. That's not even a question, it's undeniable fact. So, in this electoral system, if you actually want to have a say in which of these two wins, then vote for that one. Otherwise you're likely to get the other one. Helping some other candidate get 10% does absolutely nothing to help your values.
As long as first past the post and electoral colleges are a thing in the US, that's just the reality of the situation.
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.
Better than throwing your vote in the garbage!
That vote has the power to make a difference. But not if you throw it away on someone with no chance of winning.
Vote for whoever you want. Don't let anyone guilt trip you because youre not going to vote for their candidate. Everyone wants to cry about a 2 party system but then says a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for trump. You guys are the problem.
In a world without the electoral college (or in one with a House that actually represents the majority of the country), sure. Vote your conscience. In reality, we live in a two party system where the third will always be a spoiler, so voting needs to be approached from a harm reduction standpoint.
Voting for Trump or Harris is the same result. Some rich ass who doesnt give a rats ass about me or my community and just wants to funnel money to their rich friends. Its like two-faces double headed coin. Neither gives a shit. Fuck both parties and their candidates.
“Your country”? Are you even American?
He hates our turds too!
We're turds because we don't throw our votes in the garbage?
If you don't vote for Harris, that day you wish so badly to vote for 3rd party or the next Bernie Sanders will never happen. If you don't vote for Harris, you're allowing Trump to take the seat because you don't want to help Harris.
If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you deserve to get the greater evil.
I think you did some math wrong somewhere.
There's a trolly going down a track with 5 people tied to it. You can pull a lever to slow the trolly down and it will only run over 1 person, or you can do nothing and it will run over all 5.
This guy: "Anyone who would pull the lever for the lesser evil of running over 1 person deserves the greater evil of running over all of them."
That's so obviously false. Why did you think it would sound even remotely plausible?