375
rule problem
(lemmy.cafe)
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 09 Mar 2024
375 points (99.5% liked)
196
16747 readers
2910 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I just want to point out a thing said in this, that I have seen said hundreds of other times, which is not correct.
This is incorrect, most charitably interpreted as an exaggeration, but it is said so often I think people are misunderstanding the spoiler effect.
The spoiler effect is real and it can suppress a victory of not-as-bad candidates if they have a popular opposition, but it is never as bad as "essentially voting for trump". It is equivalent to not voting at all, at worst.
And it is also a simplification of the situation to imply that the spoiler effect only affects democrats. There is a similar thing going on with conservative third parties.
eh, you're still effectively supporting trump by not voting for the party that can actually win instead.
It's not as bad as voting for trump, but it's still giving him a better shot at winning than he would have if you voted for biden
But if I'm a leftist, wouldn't I rather any candidate win over the furthest right one?
Obviously I'd want a leftist to be the president, but US politics doesn't work outside of the binary. I voted third party in 2016 and regretted it a lot.
That's the basis of what the spoiler effect is and why it's a problem to consider, yeah.
I just think it is better to be clear about how it works and what it means. Non-voting and third party votes being described as explicit support for trump has some troubling implications.
It's more accurate to say that they are votes for whoever wins. By not choosing between the 2 choices you know will win, you basically say that others should decide for you.
Not to be rude but this is an oversimplified and incorrect view of voting and is the exact kind of mindset I am against.
If you try to insist non-voting is somehow support for a specific candidate, what does that say about people who can't vote for personal/health reasons? If someone working poverty wages, unable to get the day off to vote, can't get their vote counted, are they somehow a bad person?
Additionally, although less significant, I can't consider it morally wrong, ever, to vote third party. Strategically wrong, sure, it often is, but the point of a vote is to choose, and I can't blame someone for using their right to choose to be an idealist rather than a strategist. And honestly, in an election like this with so much frustration towards the major parties, 3rd party has a better chance of winning than usual... although I'm sure that is a stressful and unpleasant thing to hear if you dislike third parties.
To continue on this, the spoiler effect is a shorterm strategic problem, not necessarily a long term one.
There absolutely is a strategic difference between
52% Republican
48% Democrat
and
47% Republican
43% Democrat
10% Green
The former tells Democrats their only option is to move right to resecure some Republican voters. The latter tells Democrats that they have the ability to also resecure votes from the left by making concessions that to Green Party politics.
People who say these two situations are literally identical are being disingenuous or ignorant. Even if the same number of Democrats/Republicans voted in both, and the only difference is people who didn't vote instead voted green, this results in actual differences in signals and potential future policies.
tldr: voting third party is not identical to not voting, even strategically.
In a FPTP, it's a mostly 2 option situation. This is especially true for the green party, who are a joke in local politics. They shoot for the moon instead of building to it. They're nowhere close to 10% in the presidential election and barely existent in terms of offices held. They're not serious about being a political force.
Unless we have ranked choice for presidential elections, you have 2 choices. It's a terrible system, but we have to exist in it. The green party strategy is a dead end. Focus on the DSA if you want to have an impact in elections.
The strategic difference between the two situations in a general election is that the 3rd party could have settled for liberals instead of fascists. In an open or closed primary, it is a valid strategy for sending a message, but not in the general. Don't like it? I don't either.
I know you don't want to hear this, but fascists are actually much worse than liberals. If you think they're comparably evil and that the second situation is better strategically, you're disingenuous or ignorant.
If the Democrats have any self-interest in holding power, they'll actually try strategies to regain power. If they lose in 2024 by a percentage that is covered by the green party, they could conclude it's easier to go left and get Green members rather than pull people from the Trump cult. I'd agree with these future Democrats, I think you'd have very, very little success pulling people from the Trump cult.
Especially if the people who voted green in 2024 have previously voted Democrat, it showcases that these people are willing to go Democrat if certain material concessions are made.
I wish that could be the case, but there won't be another election if Democrats lose, at least for the presidency. A fascist takeover is an explicit campaign promise for Trump. Thinking there's a strategy for Democrats to regain power through elections shows how little you know. We have to take Trump at his word considering how honest he was in his original campaign.
We're on the edge of that cliff even if Biden wins reelection, as local Republican officials are working overtime to enshrine their power and enact as many evil policies as possible. No abortions, trans people, regulations, taxes, you name it. They're enacting unpopular shit because most Republicans don't even think about policy. This isn't a future threat, it's already here. I'm not predicting doom as much as describing the current state of things.
We don't have good options. We don't have wiggle room. We don't have votes to spare. The Republicans are seriously considering invading Mexico & crashing the economy with blanket tariffs that benefit no economic perspective, only accelerationist political goals. They're halting legislation in Blue states with bomb threats, and no one is going to stop them. The insanity is here. The book burnings are here. The brownshirts are here. The oppression isn't hypothetical, so please do what can be done to alleviate it.
No we don't, I've never done this and I'm not going to start now. He's already tried and failed to seize power as a sitting president. He's proven he's too incompetent to become a fascist dictator.
I won't go as far to say as it's literally impossible, but the fact that so many liberals now believe in Trump's ability to overthrow the government just as much as his own supporters is baffling. He's not a reliable source of information. He's not intelligent, and he's not capable. He's an old, pathetic moron that is on the verge of dying due to age, not some capable fascist mastermind.
He doesn't need to be. He has the help of the entire Republican party, meaning they'll be about 60% successful. Issue is, 60% means a lot of death, as someone being stupid doesn't make them harmless. It's like claiming we shouldn't worry about climate change because humanity will survive. That isn't the point ffs.
Also, you fail to address the fact that PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING RIGHT NOW IN REPUBLICAN AREAS. Wake the fuck up! Democrats are shit, yet that doesn't mean Republicans aren't pure evil.
On top of that, what do you honestly think would replace a fascist state after it falls apart? Some utopia, or a liberal democracy trying to restore the same fucking system we have now? If the system doesn't fail on its own merits, fewer people will recognize that it needs to be replaced.
Your strategy is pure emotion without any foresight, and if a single local Republican gets elected because you didn't vote, you'll have allowed needless suffering like the Democrats that run shitty right wing strategies and ignore their base. You both could have been better, but all I hear are pathetic excuses.
That's called disenfranchisement. When you're disenfranchised, you don't have choice. Not liking people who make bad choices says nothing about people that cannot make the choice in the first place. What a weak ass strawman. Not cool ๐
It is morally wrong to "vote your conscience" when you should know the consequences of doing so. Government is a mechanism that has inputs and outputs that can be predicted to some extent. When you go against a clear prediction with dire consequences, you've done a bad thing that causes harm. I don't care about blaming you because you're deluded, but the effect of that action is unambiguously bad. It isn't about making the choice with the best outcome, but about making the choice that seems likely to have the best outcome.
It's like being in a death cult. You believe your own nonsense, but that doesn't make it right. It just means you were a victim at best. There's no need for me to consider blame or responsibility when I call drinking the cool-aid bad.
Third parties have a smaller chance than ever in the presidential election. There are no strong candidates from a 3rd party. Jill Stein? She sucks even if you ignore the Russia shit. The only unpleasant thing about your arguments is that they're so inadequate. I feel guilty about knocking them over.
Well if there is no practical point in our communicating, with our senses of morality being so alien to each other, could you at least avoid doing it anyways for the sake of being so insulting to me?
I don't need that condescension, thanks, I'm all topped up.
you know what, you are absolutely correct and i would have the same criticism about this post if i saw someone else post it.
i think my mind slipped when i was putting it together and typed words that meant more than i did. my fault.
ill make an effort to fix this.
And this only because some places won't count your votes if the difference isn't big enough to swing the election. This ought to be illegal, but it isn't.