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
It's a deliberate misunderstanding of how our present system works. We are facing a party who may end democracy in America depriving your preferred party of relevance ever. If you take enough votes from Harris we get Trump. If you really want you party to have relevance you should vote Harris and promote 2 ideas.
Ranked choice voting at the state level so you can vote green without throwing your vote away.
National popular vote compact. It's the idea of having the states pass state laws that give their electors to the person who gets the most votes. It's already passed in the majority of states and it goes into effect when it has passed in enough states to represent a majority of electors. Achieving a majority would be very hard but it would be at least technically possible unlike getting the majority in the majority of states. As it stands a third party could get 58% of the individual voters and still lose.
Both these ideas are virtuous individually and support your ends.
Voting out of fear only perpetuates a broken system, while voting for a candidate who truly represents your values is a way to push for meaningful change. The real threat to democracy is a system that discourages diverse voices and forces voters into a false choice between the lesser of two evils.
I'm not voting for your candidate. And neither are many of my friends. That's democracy.
I won’t vote for the Democratic Party until they commit to ending the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote AND stop filing lawsuits to keep third parties off the ballot. Until they make these changes, they won’t have my support.
If you are on a treadmill dragging you towards a machine that will mangle and grind your body into hamburger and on the other side is a button that will turn off the treadmill. You should run towards the button out of self preservation if you aren't going to run out of fear.
Neither party can end the electoral college ever at the federal level. It requires the people who benefit from the EC to vote against the EC. You will never see Republican lawmakers nor Republican state legislators adopting that! The national popular vote compact can be passed not by 2/3 but by states worth 50% + 1 EC vote and can get the actual popular vote in through the back door.
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
OR I can vote for who matches my values. And that's Jill Stein.
She has no values she's willing to increase the chance that our entire country crashes and burns and meets with fuckin Putin
Claiming that Jill Stein has no values and is willing to risk the country’s destruction is an exaggeration and misrepresents her platform.
Voting for Stein is about supporting policies that align with my progressive ideals, not about endorsing any foreign leader or causing harm to the country.
It's important to vote based on shared values and the kind of future we want, rather than out of fear or misinformation.
I'm voting for who closest matches my values and who is on my state's ballot. And that’s Jill Stein.
She can't win. She stands to get like 1-2% while will be drawn almost entirely from progressives and whereas its impossible that she should get even a single EC college vote let alone 270 she could cause Trump to win if she takes enough votes in the margin.
Which statement do you not understand?
A) Jill can't win.
B) Losing votes on the margins could flip one or more swing states causing Harris to lose and Trump to win
C) Trump winning again would be disastrous.
Voting for Jill Stein isn’t just about winning this election; it’s about pushing for change and ensuring that progressive voices are heard.
If the Democratic Party wants to secure progressive votes, they should present stronger candidates who genuinely represent those values, rather than blaming third parties for potential losses.
Fear of Trump shouldn’t dictate our choices—voting based on principles is how we build a better future.
What part of what I am saying don't you understand? I'm not voting for your candidate and I'm not scared of Trump.
I'm voting based on my principals that actually putting a Democrat in a possible goal is better than trying to send a political message.
The electoral college means that additional votes in progressive states after getting 50%+ 1 are worth exactly zero whereas losing 1-2% in swing states can lose you enough swing states to lose the election. This means that progressive policies that won you +10% of the entire US population but lost you a fraction of 1% in the crucial states cause you to lose.
Are you actually saying that you want to send the message that in order to earn your vote Democrats should do something incredibly stupid that will certainly cause them to lose?
And I respect and support your right to do that. That's not the path I'm taking though.
The electoral college system does create challenges, but it doesn't justify abandoning principles for fear of losing.
The real issue is that the current system forces voters to choose between the lesser of two evils instead of advocating for policies they truly believe in, which is why voting for third parties can push for the change we need.
I'm not scared of Trump. And I'm not voting for Harris. Or Trump. It's really that simple.
The green party has failed for 40 years to win any federal office whilest running as a green. In those 4 decades in 50 states they have in total managed to elect someone to a state level house position twice and it hasn't happened in 21 years! Its a certainty that the least effective party in history will once again fail. Given that its impossible to win you should vote for the person who isn't going to destroy our country so you have a chance to make a political statement in 2028!
The Green Party's lack of federal office wins doesn't negate the importance of voting for a candidate who truly represents your values. Real change doesn't happen overnight, and dismissing third parties only perpetuates the two-party system that limits genuine progress. Voting out of fear rather than conviction is what truly undermines our democracy—it's essential to support candidates who advocate for the future you believe in, even if that means challenging the status quo.
And guess what? You'll be saying, "oh no, not THIS election, it's too important. You can make a statement next election. THIS one is too important." Just like the democratic party has been saying for the last 50 years. lmao
I'm not voting for Harris, brah. Accept it.
It's been 40 years and the green party has never won anything at the federal level and hasn't had anything at the state level for over 20 years. You aren't going anywhere and you will NEVER go anywhere in the current system because a first past the post system with two large entrenched parties will NEVER EVER not in 1000 years see a third party with meaningful impact.
You need the national popular vote compact,, then you need to prove ranked choice voting at the state level, then you need to remove the EC. Since the green party has never had a meaningful voice in government of any sort you can't work towards any of those or indeed anything else nor will you ever be able to.
It's like your sitting in a car with an empty gas tank and a dead battery and you've been that way for decades. Gradually it gets more and more decrepit. A few years ago thieves ripped off the tires and now you are sitting on blocks. You told your spouse you were going to work but all you are doing is sitting in the rusted hulk making car noises.
Dismissing the Green Party because it hasn't won federal office ignores the fact that many significant movements started small and faced long odds before making a real impact.
The current system is indeed stacked against third parties, but that doesn't mean we should give up advocating for change; it means we need to push even harder for reforms like ranked-choice voting and the national popular vote compact. If everyone resigned themselves to the status quo, progress would never happen—change starts with those willing to challenge the system, even when the odds seem impossible.
Mocking third-party efforts as futile only serves to reinforce a broken system, rather than recognizing the value of persistence and principled action in shaping a better future.
Green Party candidates have occasionally garnered significant attention and votes, but they have not been successful in winning federal office due to the challenges third parties face in the U.S. political system, including limited visibility, funding, and the dominance of the two major parties.
They have had some local successes in other parts of the country, such as winning seats in local government or state legislatures. Californians have elected 55 of the 226 office-holding Greens nationwide. Other states with high numbers of Green elected officials include Pennsylvania (31), Wisconsin (23), Massachusetts (18) and Maine (17). Maine has the highest per capita number of Green elected officials in the country and the largest Green registration percentage with more than 29,273 Greens comprising 2.95% of the electorate as of November 2006.[68] Madison, Wisconsin is the city with the most Green elected officials (8), followed by Portland, Maine (7).
And the simple fact that dividing your power base gives your opposition's coalition a better opportunity to defeat you, and enact their preferred policies instead of yours. The idea we can just grassroot ourselves to a viable third party neglects the 200+ year historical context of our political system.