Nevar Forget : politicalmemes

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago

There you go again. Blame third parties for your own failure. Keep doing it, tell yourself it's true.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Ranked choice voting eliminates the concept of spoiler candidates/parties.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

I might risk voting 3rd party if this election wasn't a choice between boring corporatists and 100% concentrated evil.

The stakes are just too damn high to risk letting Trump get back into the White House again.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 hours ago

This is the way.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

it's not worth it until first past the post is removed.

Until then it's mathematically impossible for a third party candidate to win. Focus your energy instead on removing first past the post, then you have a chance

[–] [email protected] 1 points 57 minutes ago

The only time I went third party it wasn't to win. It was because I saw it as two main candudates so shirty that there was a good chance for third party to snag more voters than usual, possibly enough to gain slightly better recognition in the future.

The monkey's paw curled.

We got Trump. The recognition came as irrational blame for Trump.

I won't make the same mistake of voting for someone I think would do the best job. Now it's merely an effort to keep the worst viable candidate out.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago

Dont let online bullies influence your vote. Each citizen gets one vote, cast it for whom you wish to support. Learn about the issues, the policies being proposed, and cast your vote for whomever you support.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 hours ago

G.R.E.E.N.

GET

REPUBLICANS

ELECTED

EVERY

NOVEMBER

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 hours ago

Don't mind me, just sweeping þrough to prune ð propoganda weeds on ðeir latest block/ban dodge accounts!

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

These numbers are ~~not~~ correct according to NY Times

Edit: I can’t math

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

I double checked the subtraction with the NYT numbers you linked to, and the numbers look correct to me. Which numbers are wrong?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 hour ago

I can’t math and I think I looked at the wrong state for Michigan

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

I think maybe he means numbers themselves are wrong? I mean look at 7. That number is just all kinds of fucked up. Don't get me started on 23.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

If you don’t like stein, consider voting party for socialism and liberation instead.

They’re running Claudia de la Cruz on a platform of Palestinian statehood and an end to arms shipments to israel.

I found out recently that they’re on the ballot or have official write in status in 42 states, so unless you’re in Alaska, Nevada, Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Georgia or Pennsylvania go for it!

E: forgot Nevada. They’re not officially recognized in Nevada.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

I’d advise that no one buy into any of this nonsense. De la Cruz has a mathematically impossible chance to win, and at this point will serve only to siphon votes and spoil the election. Knowingly or not, this is what is happening.

Think about it: Ever wonder why you’re really only hearing about them recently? Where were they four years ago? What have they done to prove they will even do as they say? They have no track record to stand on, but for some reason, these people seem to think they can sneak into an election and have a chance to win on unproven, untested policy with no practical or effective way to make any of it happen?

Make no mistake- there is no good intention from anyone asking you to throw away your vote on these people this late in the game- NONE.

Were it a year or two ago, I could maybe see it. But weeks away from what might be the most important election of our lifetime- to even think to request people not do everything they can to stop a racist rapist traitor to America from forcing our own militarily against us, systematically removing the rights of our LGBTQ+ friends and family, and the rights of women to have body autonomy is as shamelessly in bad faith as one could possibly be.

DO NOT LISTEN TO THESE PEOPLE.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I might be misremembering the electoral values of the states here, but I think the combined value of the states they’re not official write ins or on ballot is only 64.

That leaves 474 electoral votes that psl could get, so they very much could win.

The history of the party is easy to find. They’ve been around for a little while now.

I’d choose a party with no track record over one with a consistent track record of genocidal violence and extrajudicial killings, but luckily psl has a track record of grassroots activism that’s pretty consistent, so I don’t have to take a gamble.

It’s a bit absurd to call opposition to genocide and apartheid unproven, untested policy.

I’m swiftly climbing the ladder of age and my whole life people have been saying “well, you should have been advocating for this or that last year, it’s too late now, this is the most important election of our lifetime!”

The best time to vote (and do groundwork for) psl was last year, the second best time is now!

I agree with the last part though, don’t listen to people peddling tired cliches and misinformation trying to manipulate you into voting one way or the other!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

News flash genius…. Most everyone here is opposed to genocide. As has been said before, you’re not part of some fringe grassroots group that figured out that genocide was bad ahead of everyone else.

Stop with that shit. I don’t believe you’re here in any good faith to help anyone in any way.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

If most everyone is opposed to genocide then I agree with them and want to help them find parties and candidates that oppose it too, like psl!

What party in opposition to genocide do you support?

I’m not going to stop politely and courteously advocating for the party and candidate I think is appropriate in threads where it’s on topic in a political comm.

It might not be a good idea to accuse people of bad faith when you open up with a sarcastic insult. World is pretty strict about that stuff, it’s like their number one rule.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 minutes ago

America is a two party system.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

I accused you of bad faith because that’s what I think you are. And I think the PSL is hot garbage and that’s why no one is taking them seriously.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Is there an argument I could make from my position that wouldn’t read as bad faith to you?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

You’re here trying to garner support for the hopeless psl within weeks of an election, so….

No.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

I was trying to garner support for the psl here months before the election too, and years before it in real life organizing.

Just for the sake of completeness, if you can’t see a persons position as having a good faith form, doesn’t that mean you’re the person here in bad faith? If you truly believed there was no earnest true believer doctrinaire communist that was committed to their party of choice because they really thought it was the best use of their and everyone else’s time, wouldn’t you just report me as misinformation or whatever and move on?

I’ve always considered bad faith to be not the person I disagree with but the person who isnt willing to engage with anything I’m saying, to assume that there’s a human being on the other side of the capacitive predictive text thumb pad and that they have reasons behind what they’re saying that are worth listening to.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (6 children)

That makes an assumption that all or a big majority third party voters would prefer Harris over Trump.

Just for clarifying the logic here.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 hours ago

I remember 2020 where Trump did not win. All problems are fixed now.

[+] [email protected] 56 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (7 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

See how that says "99.8% reporting"? If you look at the NYT, it shows the results after counting 100% of the votes, and it matches what's in the picture.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

Fair enough, you are correct. Still bullshit to think that all of those voter would automatically go to clinton, but I will delete the bad information.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] 27 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

If this were true then American politics really are terrible. Minority should hold seats. America needs to revisit representation.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

It’s actually not entirely true, it only counts stein as the only 3rd party (the libertarian candidate in PA got 3x as many votes as her, I’d bet those 3rd party votes wouldn’t have gone to Clinton) AND doesn’t report factual numbers.

It’s just not true.

That said unfortunately voting for a 3rd party candidate is largely useless in the USA and the forces trying to get their opponents voters to vote 3rd party are probably more overwhelming then the forces actually compelling folks to vote 3rd party.

FPTP needs to die in the USA.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

Political Memes