politics
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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Let's be real. Votes for third parties in already decided states such as California or Missouri only help promote in some small way a diversity of parties that the US sorely needs.
I think it's only in battleground states where it would benefit someone to think more tactically about the use of their vote versus participating in the system as intended, i.e. voting for their preferred candidate.
If your state is deeply in the hands of your closer-aligned party, then probably, though down-ballot races are always important to consider too. Even things like school boards.
If your state is deeply in the hands of your most-opposed party, though, you should be aware that flips can and do happen. Our "swing state" system is by no means stable, which states are "swing" changes pretty steadily, and broad waves are still very possible. Additionally, by making a state come closer to even, you can force your opposed party to devote some of their limited resources to defending it in the future. So, you can hurt a party by voting for their opponents even when they have a strong grip.
It's useful to consider a historical context, where over the 2.5 centuries, the elections have shifted every which way. There really is no predicting what the future holds beyond the most immediate, short-term horizon. It is absolutely not stable, though, never has been. It's not intended to be, after all, otherwise we wouldn't have things like term limits.
I agree that the US sorely needs this. Having just two major parties who run (and WANT to run) everything, isn't helping things at all.
While I agree with that sentiment, I think it’s more important push overwhelmingly for electoral process reform first - switching to approval, star, or even ranked choice voting is a step up from first passed the post and encourages more honest voting over strategic voting, at least a little bit.
I think entertaining individual third parties shouldn’t come until that’s a bigger issue that America starts talking about.
I understand the need for electoral reform, but waiting for the perfect system before voting for a candidate like Jill Stein ignores the current power of our vote.
By supporting a third party now, we’re signaling to the major parties that a significant portion of the electorate demands something different—whether it’s stronger environmental policies, healthcare reform, or campaign finance reform.
If everyone holds off on voting for who they truly believe in until the system changes, that change may never come.
Voting for Stein now isn't just about winning this election; it’s about pushing the political conversation forward and showing that there’s real demand for the values she represents. It sends a clear message that voters are tired of the status quo and want real alternatives, even within the current system.
Hear hear. For what it's worth, I live in a deep blue state and I often vote 3rd party. Not because I believe they are the best candidate, but because I'm assured the DNC will win regardless of my action or inaction at the polls and I want to promote a diversity of parties. Heck, I'll vote for candidates I disagree with if the race is secure enough (that only really applies to local elections).
The Democratic systems in the USA are highly flawed and we must use them practically in the small ways we can in order to attempt to move the country forward in a positive way.