this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
160 points (76.5% liked)

politics

18839 readers
3820 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

He also said that the danger posed by another Trump term doesn’t excuse Biden from scrutiny but “actually makes him more subject to scrutiny.”

To leftists and progressives fed up with Biden, particularly his commitment to Israel as it continues to bomb civilians in Gaza, the assessment was not just fair — it was obvious. But more centrist Democrats, including those most likely to have appended “Blue Wave” and “Resistance” labels to their social media accounts in the Trump years, were appalled at what they saw as a betrayal by one of their own.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

mathematically, the vote goes +1 to the candidate for whom you vote. the rest of this is storytelling.

No shit the +1 goes to the candidate for whom you vote. No one is disputing that. The problem is, the third party candidate will not win.

In a FPTP system that has devolved to two parties, without a major political upheaval bringing about the death of one of the two parties, there are, realistically, only two candidates who have a chance of winning the election.

If you vote for neither of those two candidates, the candidate it benefits the most is the major candidate you agree with the least. This is called the “Spoiler Effect.” This is Nader taking sufficient votes from Gore in 2000 to hand the election to Bush, because Green Party voters would have, given something like the Alternative Vote or Ranked Choice Voting, ended up mostly being Gore votes.

This is Teddy Roosevelt running independent in 1912 and getting Woodrow Wilson, an extremely racist shitbag, elected president by taking Republican voters away from Taft.

And we all understand this effect, because when it looked like Trump might lose the primary in 2016 and was threatening to run anyway, Democrats were thrilled because it would guarantee a Democrat win by splitting the conservative vote.

This “Spoiler Effect” is what is meant when someone says that voting third party is a vote against your own interests in a FPTP system. It’s the major reason FPTP is a terrible voting system.

[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

>This is Nader taking sufficient votes from Gore in 2000 to hand the election to Bush, because Green Party voters would have, given something like the Alternative Vote or Ranked Choice
Voting, ended up mostly being Gore votes.

gore won that election. the supreme court appointed bush.

[–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The Supreme Court wouldn’t have been able to do so had Gore more demonstrably won Florida, which he would’ve done without Nader. That’s the point.

[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social -1 points 7 months ago

>The Supreme Court wouldn’t have been able to do so had Gore more demonstrably won Florida, which he would’ve done without Nader. That’s the point.

there is no way to prove this.

[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social -2 points 7 months ago

>This “Spoiler Effect” is what is meant when someone says that voting third party is a vote against your own interests in a FPTP system.

voting for biden or trump is explicitly voting against my interest. my interest is in neither of them having power.

[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social -4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

>the third party candidate will not win.

where did you get your crystal ball?

[–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

where did you get your crystal ball?

SkyMall, but it’s a bit hazy on predicting the future. My assurance that the third party candidate won’t win instead comes from paying a modicum of attention to US politics and not being disingenuous.

[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social -4 points 7 months ago

your insinuation of disingenuity is bad faith.