WASHINGTON (TND) — Dr.Jill Stein, who is a Green Party presidential candidate, has selected Professor Butch Ware as her vice-presidential running mate.
WASHINGTON (TND) — Dr.Jill Stein, who is a Green Party presidential candidate, has selected Professor Butch Ware as her vice-presidential running mate.
Agreed.
And I’d say that the notion that a vote for a third party “dilutes” the vote is rooted in a fear-driven mentality rather than in democratic principles.
It assumes that votes are owned by the two major parties, which they are not. Our electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate, not just those of the dominant parties.
In the end, I personally refuse to be intimidated into voting against my conscience. Democracy thrives on diversity of thought.
If that’s how you feel, then why vote for a particular party at all?
Why not just write in whoever you most desire to be the president? There’s nothing against that, after all…
Voting is a fundamental American right, and every citizen has the right to vote for the candidate they believe in. The idea that supporting a third party is somehow working for Trump or any other major candidate is both historically inaccurate and logically flawed.
Throughout American history, third parties have played a crucial role in shaping political discourse and pushing important issues into the spotlight. The abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and labor rights were all advanced by third parties before being adopted by the major parties.
By voting for Jill Stein and the Green Party, I’m supporting a platform that aligns with my values, particularly on issues like environmental sustainability, social justice, and democratic reform.
Okay, so to anyone who reads this exchange: I’m pretty sure this is a bot.
On top of it being a very botty response to my question, that didn’t even answer my question, they typed out three whole paragraphs with a thesis statement and conclusion, with some bold-face typing…in less than a minute. That’s fucking sketch.
But I’ll respond back at least once more:
Again, if you believe that the “electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate” and you don’t like voting “against your conscience”, then it seems like you value honest voting very highly.
But honest voting goes beyond parties. If you value voting honestly, then you should vote for the person you think is best suited for the presidency. It doesn’t have to be Jill Stein, it can be any of the other hundreds of millions of Americans, as a write-in.
What is your take on that?
How am I bot? Feel free to look at my past posts and conversations. lol
I 100 percent agree. And I think that Jill Stein is best suited for the presidency right now. Also, voting for someone who is officially on the ballot gives the party more recognition, influence, and potential access to resources and ballot access in future elections, which wouldn’t happen with a write-in vote that doesn’t carry the same weight or visibility.
Now having said that, IF a good socialist candidate is allowed on my state ballot, I may switch over, depending on who it was.
But I really, really like Stein’s pick for VP. So far. I mean, if something comes out or it’s uncovered that he’s done something wrong, I could change my mind.
Also, just because someone goes against the mainstream grain about who the vote for, doesn’t make them a bot. Just saying…
My bad, I didn’t know you just had a copy-pasted snippet. That snippet didn’t feel like it answered my question at all, hence my suspicion.
Again, that suspicion had nothing to do with your apparent views, it was entirely because it didn’t feel like you were responding to my question at all - it was a long, well-written, yet generic, almost immediate response.
But I am sorry for sounding accusatory.
I do generally agree with this sentiment, so don’t get me wrong on that. However, I see this is a strategic/practical consideration in who to vote for. I don’t see it as a valid consideration in an honest vote.
My point is this: it sounds like you are a principled voter, but one who’s not blind to strategic or practical considerations. That’s how I feel as well, but I value the spoiler effect very highly in my strategic/practical consideration. Fighting the political science inches us both closer to our least preferred candidate getting elected.
I wish that your energy of “Consider voting for Jill Stein” was instead put towards “fight for electoral reform, so we can all honestly vote for candidates like Jill Stein without fear”.
No need to be sorry at all. I took your comment within the spirit it was given. I wasn’t offend or upset at all. You had your suspicion, voiced it, and I gave my response. All good, friend!
Well, for me, it’s the person I believe in the most and who aligns with my views. Jill Stein fills in those blanks. I don’t care about “spoiler” voting. I vote for who I want.
If the American people choose someone else as president, regardless of who that is, I’m fine with the decision. We’re a democracy.
Almost half of the American people aren’t gonna vote for Harris. That’s what part of democracy is. Our personal favorite side doesn’t always win. Regardless of the political spectrum.
I put it towards both. I 100 percent agree with and fight for electoral form. The thing is that the 2 main parties never want that at the time that they are the winning candidates and in office.
How many years have Democrats had a chance to change it? How many years have Republican had a chance to change it?
Neither party has, nor wants to.
They aren’t getting my vote.
Also, I don’t have “fear” of any political party.
With a majority sufficient to overcome opposition? Zero. The GOP hasn’t been without significant influence through the filibuster in decades.
Normally I’d feel the same way, but it sounds like you’re not concerned about a 2nd Trump term. I am VERY concerned.
If Trump wins, he’ll have 4 years with a SCOTUS supermajority, a platform that was written for him that will deal massive damage if even a fraction of it is implemented, and an already promised decision to implement Schedule F which’ll increase the appointive power of the presidency by a factor of 12-100. That’s literally not even the half of it.
We have to send a message that any of that is NOT OKAY. That message cannot be sent if he wins.
Perhaps you’re telling the truth, but it just doesn’t feel like that, simply because most of your posts appear to have been about defending third party candidates rather than speaking in favor of reform (I say “appear” because I have not combed through your entire post history or anything, nor will I).
I will say in your defense that recent news in the US doesn’t say anything about electoral reform, so there’d be no recent developments to post. I’m just talking about the impression it leaves that it appears to go unmentioned by you.
This is not true in general. See this. Ranked choice is slowly being adopted at the local level, and made it to the state level in Alaska and Maine. Yes, it’s banned statewide in several states, but that’s a hell of a long way from being banned everywhere. It’s slow but steady progress, from the ground up.
Although ranked choice isn’t my preferred system, it’s something, and that something sets the precedent that reform is possible.
Correct, I am not. I don’t think the world ends if Trump wins again. (But he won’t win anyway, so I’m double unconcerned.)
Well, you feel that YOU have to send that message. And I support your right to do that.
I, however, don’t feel the need to do that.
I am telling the truth. And I love the idea of reform. But no, you don’t have time to go thru all my posts. (tho you are welcome to!) People argue with me a lot, and are very mad that I am not voting for their candidate, so it would take you forever. But I have advocated for reform plenty of times.
But I’m not going to sit around waiting for that; I’m going to vote for the candidate I believe in now.
Careful, accusing someone of being a bot is against community rules and this user has and will report any perceived rules infringement.
The response in question is a copy-pasted spiel they have employed before to several users - me included. Often repeated verbatim, and sometimes multiple times to the same person such as to me here and here (within minutes of each other).
I’m not sure of any rules being broken, but it doesn’t feel like good-faith organic discussion. Might just be able to skirt around the rules though.
Fair enough, thanks for the background. And I didn’t know that was a rule, so thanks.
I did also respond to the user organically in the second part of my post, so hopefully my post stays within the rules.
Oh I have no reason to report anything in this thread. It’s just that some users can be very uncivil, which is against the rules.
You thought I was a bot and gave your reasons. And I replied to you telling why that assumption would be incorrect. That’s fine.
But I have had some very nasty, very personal, very uncivil responses. And I did have to report them.
And the mods removed them for the toxicity. And those users got REALLY mad about it. One even sent me DM’s that he would “follow me around, just to keep an eye on” me. So yeah, creepy stuff.
All because I posted political news story about the Green Party to this political news sub. lol
This is true!
Except I get asked and accused of the EXACT same things over and over. So of course my responses will match for the sake of brevity.
Especially the whole, “Jill Stein is a russian asset” one. I always have to post a link to the newsweek article rebutting that.
I’ve discussed this poster in other threads. I suspect that the user is a real person using an LLM to respond to messages, but they enter the chat when directly called out on it, and give a human response to sow confusion.
However, as you can see from the OP response you directly responded to and others in the thread, the “LLM”-style responses are laser focused on splitting the left vote. They always jump to “stop trying to silence my third party vote” straw men arguments, and don’t respond directly to the points being made (except when accused of being a bot, and then they respond to that).
At the very least, the user is extremely suspicious and not credible.
Yeah, I think that’s a very reasonable assessment.
I like to come to conversations in a good-faith manner anyway, cuz I mean, you never know for sure.
But of course, there’s a limit to that, especially when they stop answering your questions, and later straight up say “you will never change my mind about XYZ” like that’s a good-faith thing to say.
I agree that your hypothesis seems likely. You can see a sharp shift in tone too, between “LLM-style” essays and then sudden abrupt uses of stuff like “lmao” and smiley faces “:)”. I’m surprised they’ve been able to avoid being banned, but I guess they seem very focused on skirting the rules by the letter of the law. I would argue they don’t engage in good-faith arguments, but maybe that’s not bannable, what do I know.
I still can’t say for sure whether they are intending on promoting third-party voting for political reasons, or if they’re just addicted to arguing online and have found a fertile hunting ground.
This has been my exact suspicion as well. A staggering number of their responses fall end with ‘Well I am voting third party whether you like it or not. Accept that.’, or some variation of that kind of a phrase.
But any actual result of you voting 3rd party is to end up with a fascist president who has plainly stated his intent is to make sure you will never vote again.
Then maybe your party should have a stronger candidate if you are that afraid of 3rd parties having an impact. People get to vote for who they want to, even if it’s not who YOU want. Welcome to demoracy.
Also it’s spelled “D E M O C R A C Y”.
Idiot.
Well, I can be an idiot sometimes. But this is more of “my fat fingers moving too fast as I reply” sorta thing. Thanks tho!
You’re ridiculously naive. We go to war, or the polls, with what we have. And if you don’t make the best use of the best candidate to get closer to what you’re actually in favor of, you’re a fool.
Awww, thanks. And yes, we have what we have. And I like the Green Party candidates we have, so I’m voting for them.
I am!
By supporting puppets you throw your voice away. Voting as a right isn’t being debated here and your desperate plea for “rights” shows how little you know of them.
When your only argument is “I have the right” you are confessing that you don’t really have a reason. You don’t know why… instead you are telling everyone that you don’t think you just act. Apparently because you just can… or because someone spoke a line and you felt so compelled.
First, I don’t belive she’s a puppet. Second, I am not throwing my voice away. I’m voting for who I want to be president. And right now, for me anyway, that’s Jill Stein.
I have stated my reasons many many times in this community. Right now she is the candidate that bet aligns with my values.
I support you voting for who you want, and I would expect that you would support me voting for who I want. As is our right.
Maybe the issue is what you want to accomplish not who you’re told “represents” that…
You can tell yourself that you don’t “believe” she’s a puppet… all while she sits with Putin, his puppets and soils the vote. At that point what will your “beliefs” accomplish? Without accomplishing shit what value does believing in an asshole accomplish?
Which is true. I don’t believe she’s a puppet. Listen, I get it. You don’t like her and you think she’s a russian puppet.
I don’t believe what you believe. It’s really, really that simple.
It’s not some vast conspiracy. It’s not some russian state troll farm trying to sway you.
I don’t believe what you believe.
I like her, I’m voting for her.
That’s it. It ain’t that deep, friend.
We get to vote for who we want. If I liked Vermin Supreme, who IS running for president again, by the way, then I’d vote for him.
And you could say, “Well I don’t believe he’s worthy cuz he wears a boot on his head,” but then if I actually thought he was worthy BECAUSE he wears a boot on his head, then that would be ok.
It’s ok that not everyone believes exactly the same way that you do or in the exact same stuff. That’s ok. I promise.
Ha no likely there’s no issue understanding THAT you in fact, believe “things”.
Bet you do!
It’s the fucking weird ass reasons WHY you believe that stuff of all things…
And that’s the beauty of “diversity of thought,” friend.
Free country, man. I get to think whatever I want to, for whatever reason I want to. :)
You have to vote strategically. That is: with an eye to what your vote will actually DO.
Not voting, or voting third party in this election will directly contribute to the installation of a fascist dictator and the destruction of democracy.
Voting is not dating. You’re not trying to hook up with The ONE who is “perfect” for you.
Voting is public transport. You grab the one that’s going to get you closer to where you want to go.
I don’t “have” to do anything of the sort. I am 100 percent free to vote for whoever I want, for whatever reasons I want. Welcome to freedom, friend.
I respect and support your right to vote for whoever you want. And it’s not who I am voting for. We have a difference in opinion. And that’s ok. I promise.
You’re making your bed for fascists to come and ass fuck you. And me. And that’s not OK.
Idiot. I’m not your friend because you aren’t mine.
Removed, civility.
Reported for civility. You’re not keeping up with the inclusive nature of this community.
Its neither. Trump or Harris will win. They both have flaws, but one of them has significantly more including wanting to be a dictator and removing the right to vote going forward. The notion that a 3rd party vote dilutes is based in strategic voting. We have a system that benefits only 2 teams, refusal to work within that 2 team system without first erecting groundwork to actually have a chance at winning is either: 1) removing votes from the main candidate of those 2 teams you’d rather see prevail over the other or 2) not voting against the candidate you’d most like to see fail. It didn’t matter which of those is the case, they are both diluting.
They are. The system is erected such that only a member of one of the 2 major parties will actually win the presidency. Therefore only votes for them actually matter.
It’s not. First past the post only helps the dominate parties. They are the only ones that stand a chance at winning and they are the only ones who actually win. This results in a majority of the electorate compromising somewhere to settle on a less ideal candidate. Ranked choice voting and proportional representation with a parliamentary system of government is significantly better at representing the diverse views of the electorate.
That’s fine. Your preferred candidate won’t win and you will not be contributing to choosing a candidate that more closely aligns with your views than the other.
No it doesn’t. Democracy thrives on having access to the polls. Outcomes of democracy thrive on them being educated, voting critically, and for their best interests, and having proportional representation.
Some people believing women shouldn’t have control of their bodies, that they belong naked, standing in the kitchen without the right to vote, some people believing women should have autonomy and suffrage, some people believing women should have autonomy, but not the right to vote, and some people believing that a man should have 1 vote for him and all his dependents are a diverse selection of thoughts. But those thoughts and the people that hold them are not causing democracy to thrive.
All told there are tons of problems with our electoral system from the EC to paid ballot access for minor parties, first past the post, unlimited money, 2 year campaign cycle, the people that actually get nominated, strategic drawing of maps, culling voters from registrations, states leaving ERIC, and more, but those problems benefit a 2 party system and refusing to participate in that does not benefit your cause. What voting a 3rd party does do is get them closer to the 5% cutoff for access to federal Presidential Election Campaign Funds in their next election and signal a vehement opposition to some policy. However, that signal is easily ignored with such a low turnout.
So how do you get a third party presidential candidate to win? By actually building a 3rd party first. Run candidates in local elections, get them on school boards and mayorships. Start locally, build a following and work up to state. Start winning an appreciable percent of state legislature seats and move on to congressional seats. Once the American people are familiar with you as a “party” who actually is involved politically and demands a significant amount of real-estate on the hill and in their states and not simply as a “fringe party” taking a crap shot at power they will start to view your party as actually having a chance to win the presidency, they might actually vote for you in no small part, and you eventually can work your way to an actual victory.
Vote for who you want. If it’s not one of the main candidates that may be ideological and even admirable, but right now it’s ineffective. I’ll be voting to reduce the chances of Trump winning office, because I actually want my vote to matter in future elections.
I have no doubt.
Which I don’t practice nor believe in.
And, in my opinion, access to more than 2 political parties.
According to YOU. I mean, just accept that some people don’t believe the same way you do. And if there are more of them that vote for their candidate, than yours, then that’s how the American voting system goes.
I personally disagree with their line of thought, but again, if there are more of them than me, and their candidate wins, then I just continue voting for who I think best alignes with my values.
You have to understand, that they think the EXACT same way as you do. They think that YOU are wrong. Just because YOU believe in all of this, doesn’t invalidate the fact that they do not believe you.
If democrats are that scared of Trump winning, then they should pic a candidate strong enough to over come his and any third party votes. Also maybe they shouldn’t have waited till last minute to make Biden step down.
Having said that, Harris is going to win anyway, so I personally think you should relax. But it’s your right to feel however you want. Also, it’s other voters’ right to feel however they want.
I will, thank you. And I respect and support your right to vote for who you want.
There’s a lot more to my post that you neglected to address, so I’ll just stick to your reply. I am writing this followup not in an attempt to convince you, but to seek clarity and understanding; unfortunately my rhetoric is often not perceived that way, though I do mean it earnestly.
Do you have a preference of the two? Are you okay with either of them winning?
What do you mean by that? I practice voting strategically, it’s certainly a thing that exists. Are you saying you believe people in general shouldn’t or do you really mean you believe there is no such thing? Are you also positing that you still believe it is based in fear?
What are you talking about? I listed a diverse selection of thoughts then stated truthfully that they were diverse. Is your fault found in my understanding that those thoughts are not causing democracy to thrive? People living under dictatorships, authoritarian regimes, and week democracies do not necessarily think in unison. People the world over have different thoughts and opinions even within their own communities and ruling structures. That doesn’t cause democracy to spontaneously arise or even thrive. The distinction between democracy and other ruling structures is the ability of the people to vote. If you want democracy to thrive then the people need to actually be able to vote, not just think differently.
I fully understand that not everyone believes the same things I do, that has nothing to do with the ability for a 3rd party candidate to win.
I fully 100% agree. I just also expect that people will vote in their best interests, but recognize they don’t necessarily, and I don’t understand why that is. Voting for a 3rd party candidate does nothing for you, while voting for a major party candidate possibly can do something for you. I am a gay leftist atheist. One of the major candidates doesn’t want me to be able to vote (or potentially live) the other one isn’t immediately dismissive of who I am and can be reasoned with. If I vote for the former I am contributing to active oppression against me. If I vote for the latter I am not. If I vote for someone (or no one) else I am complicit in whatever happens to me. I don’t know you. I’m sure there is some category that means a lot to you and that you see Dr. Stein recognizing, but she will not be able to act on that, whereas a major candidate will.
When I say I don’t belive in it, I mean I don’t believe in DOING it. Kind of like amish don’t belive in grounded electricity. Meaning, obviously the know it exists, but the choose not to use it.
So no, I don’t believe in voting strategically. Maybe it’s something you want to do. I don’t. So I won’t.
I’m talking about the fact that people don’t necessarily believe in the same things you do. You do realize that half of the country votes for Trump because they actually LIKE him and his policies, right? They aren’t doing it, to just “show the libs.”
As strange as it may seem to this Lemmy community, there are people who like Trump and what he stands for. I don’t. But that doesn’t make it any less valid that they do. I respect their rights to think that.
And YOU believe that is what Trump will create. Many people DON’T think that. You do realize lots of people don’t think that Trump is (or wants) a dictatorship, right.
YOU think that. Many in your social circle think that. But not everyone does.
I personally don’t like Trump. I won’t be voting for him. But I do not think that a Trump win means we have “dictatorship.” I don’t. And you can spare your opinions and your examples. I respect your right to have your opinion, but I don’t agree. That’s it.
In YOUR opinion. But it does do something for me in MY opinion. I am proudly voting 3rd party. Accept it. Disagree with it, but accept it.
I like Jill Stein, and I’m voting for her. We can move on.
The world won’t end if Harris wins. The world won’t end if Trump wins. Nor will America. I promise.
Not interested in the truth or any sort of discussion. Only in spreading his narrative.
Well said
Exactly this. These cicada-like independents and 3rd parties that pop up every four years to run for POTUS accomplish absolutely nothing, other than acting as a spoiler to one or both the two main parties. Some, like JFK, are acting in an ego-driven fantasy world with their best possible outcome being bribed with a job or money to drop out of the race, while others such as Stein, are intended specifically to achieve a spoiler effect targeted to pull votes away from one of the two dominant parties by playing on wish-fulfillment fantasies of susceptible people.
The only way to achieve real political power in our US system is to either (a) do as you suggest and put in the hard work over years to build up a viable party from the ground up to get large and strong enough to replace one of the Big Two at the top, or (b) take over one of the Big Two from within, as MAGA has done with the Republican party, which is certainly faster. I’ve gone into how the left can do something similar with the Democratic party in other posts.