Really you don’t need to read more than one chart:

If you vote for anyone other than Harris, you’re voting for Trump:

  • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    I don’t live in a swing state, I get to vote for whoever I want. Lets not pretend like the election doesnt boil down to half a million voters in like 4 or 5 different states. This is as much a reality as anything you’ve said, probably more.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Outside of a swing state, you’re right… right up until the National Popular Vote movement is in effect in enough states to get 270 Electoral College votes:

      https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status

      "&As of April 15, 2024, the National Popular Vote bill has been enacted into law in 18 jurisdictions possessing 209 electoral votes, including

      6 small jurisdictions (District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont),

      9 medium-sized states (Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington), and

      3 big states (California, Illinois, New York).

      The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 61 electoral votes."

    • Rolder@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 days ago

      I dunno, I saw some stats the other day indicating that if all the non-voters in supposedly solid red states actually went and voted, then they might be able to swing the state.

      • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        Yeah and if all the people who dislike both parties voted for the same third party they’d win, but that’s not going to happen either.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          Why should it? Why should anyone vote for a candidate with no political administration experience? Regardless of their stated positions, what evidence do voters have that any of the third party candidates have the skills necessary to execute the duties of the office effectively? Without progressives in Congress, how exactly is a progressive administration supposed to navigate gridlock better than the neo liberals?

  • Ekybio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 days ago

    Im glad you posted this, but no both-sides smoothbrain will be convinced by it, since they are either lost on the plot, a bad faith actor, or unable to engage in real world politics.

    Still saving it, just to have one more post to bash them over the head with.

    • TheHiddenCatboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 days ago

      I have given up talking to these people. I really can’t with Rule 3 because I do not believe they deserve any form of civility, and since I can’t call them out directly, I’ll ignore them while destroying their points.

      The targets of my takedowns of the ‘Imma Vote Jill Stein!111one!1one!!’'s articles are the undecided and wavering voters who REALLY aren’t sold on Harris/Walz, but really don’t like Donald Trump. That’s where the ‘a vote for anyone but Harris/Walz just makes it easier for Donald Trump to steal the election’ line comes in. The ‘lost the plot/bad faith actor/naive poster’ people can’t be convinced, but we don’t have to, fortunately.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      It’s not about convincing a both-sidser.

      It’s about convincing someone who reads an article posted by a both-sidser and goes “Hmmm… maybe they’re on to something…”

      They aren’t, they really, really aren’t.

      Another good one here:

      https://web.archive.org/web/20240122162245/https://theintercept.com/2024/01/22/biden-trump-president-election-third-party/

      "Don’t Fall for the Third-Party Trick

      A progressive who stays home on Election Day — or backs Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West, or No Labels — is voting for Donald Trump."

      "Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst Thälmann made in 1932. The leader of the German Communist Party, Thälmann saw mainstream liberals as his enemies, and so the center and left never joined forces against the Nazis. Thälmann famously said that “some Nazi trees must not be allowed to overshadow a forest” of social democrats, whom he sneeringly called “social fascists.”

      After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, Thälmann was arrested. He was shot on Hitler’s orders in Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944."

      • Oxymoron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 days ago

        I thought Kennedy dropped out to support Trump? Maybe I’m wrong I’m not American, but thought I heard that.

        But yeah I agree. It’s just splitting the vote, the same thing happens in the UK. For a long time until this most recent election we only had the Conservatives on the right, whereas on the left you had Labour, Lib Dem’s and Greens, yet the Conservatives kept getting back in because the left wing vote was split, they wouldn’t work together to step down in certain seats to let the party most likely to be beat the Conservatives stand.

        Thank god, in a weird way, for Reform UK, massively splitting the right wing vote this time around. Allowing Labour to win. If Labour don’t change the voting system to proportional representation now that they’ve finally got the chance after a 15 year wait, then they are truly mugs. They won’t though I’m sure. They are hopefully supposed to be letting 16 year olds vote which should help.

        But yeah, that Hitler story gave me the shivers lol. Apparently we aren’t allowed to call Trump a fascist because it pisses off Republican voters and caused that assassination attempt (even though I swear the guy was a republican voter??)

        But like; he is literally a fascist. For me personally, if someone said, “we can stop Trump from ever being elected, but the price is you have to cancel the election and just say that George Bush won and let him have another term”. I’d take that deal. I genuinely think Trump is so dangerous, it shouldn’t be a republican vs democrats thing, it should be an Americans for Democracy thing.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          Article is from before Kennedy dropped out, but he’s still on the ballot in key states so it still applies.

          • Oxymoron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            7 days ago

            Oh really? I don’t really get how your system works I guess lol. Cos I thought if he drops out he’s out. So he’s still running against Trump in some states basically? I would have thought he’d be taking votes from the right rather than the left though. But I probably just don’t understand your system properly tbf.

            • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              He tried to remove himself from the ballot in multiple states and was told “LOL - yeah, no.”

              There are deadlines due to having to print the ballots, once you’re past a certain point, there’s no going back.

              https://thehill.com/homenews/4872514-states-where-robert-f-kennedy-jr-still-on-ballot/

              He’s currently on the ballot in nearly half the country:

              Alaska

              California

              Colorado

              Delaware

              Hawaii

              Indiana

              Iowa

              Kentucky

              Louisiana

              Michigan

              Minnesota

              Nebraska

              New Mexico

              Oklahoma

              Oregon

              Tennessee

              Utah

              Vermont

              Washington

              West Virginia

              Wisconsin

              • Oxymoron@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                7 days ago

                Ahh ok haha well that’s good at least. I can’t see any left leaning would-be democrat voters voting for the guy who dumped the carcass of a bear in… I wanna say… Central Park?

                I love that they’re like “paper doesn’t grow on trees dude, we ain’t wasting anymore”.

                I don’t really understand why these independents bother. Do they really think they’re gonna turn 3% (being generous) into 51%?? I don’t think so. I wonder if there’s some ulterior motive in play, like to just get their name out there and then with that name recognition, get elected into a much lower down position at state level.

  • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    7 days ago

    Using Third Way as a source? The same organization that helped push the entire party and country to the right? Bill Clinton and Third Way started the shift to the right and Harris finalized that transition to become the dominant conservative party.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      I have other sites with the same stats, but this article makes the dangers of third paries easiest to understand.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 days ago

        Use those other sites. Third Way is a large contributor to why the Democrats are continually threatened by third parties. Their whole idea is that Democrats can and should go as hard toward the right as possible because the left flank of the party is (a) bad for their financial backers and (b) has to vote Democratic. You can’t promote that position and then act like a shocked Pikachu when your own philosophy ends up creating the problem you now want to warn against.

        Plus all those godforsaken inaccurate pie charts other people pointed out.

  • LordCrom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 days ago

    Quick some body run as a super conservative as a third party and take away some GOP votes please.

  • Not_mikey@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    If you live in a swing state or any state that is up for grabs, then yeah don’t vote for third party. If your in a deep blue/red state, I’m talking > 15 percent swing, vote for whoever you want in the presidential, your votes just going to get collapsed into the state vote for the electoral college any way. Should still vote for the two parties or whoever’s competitive in state and local elections because your vote can have an effect.

    If the electoral college says my vote effectively doesn’t matter in deciding the next president since I’m in California, then at least let me use my vote to send some sort of message.

    • bec@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      You’re exactly right.

      I do wonder why nearly everyone manages to forget that the electoral college exists.

      • thallamabond@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        I deleted that because it was poorly worded, and not well thought out.

        I’m basically wondering whether a swing state is more likely to have third-party candidates on the ballot. Anecdotally it seems to me the third party candidates are attracted to the swing States.

        • Convict45@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          These days swing states are more likely to have third party candidates because in the current case, both third party candidates are supported by MAGA millionaires who want them to spoil the election.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          Traditionally, third party candidates perform best in races with no second party opposition. A Libertarian or Green running against an otherwise-unopposed candidate will do 10-20 pts better than one running against candidates from both parties.

          If you go back to Bush v Gore, Nader underperformed his popular approval. It was Pat Buchanan who significantly over performed in Democrat districts. And that was largely attributed to the (deliberately) poor design of the Butterfly Ballot.

      • blazera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        7 days ago

        No most of them started out as monarchies so they cant have parliaments. That would be a change in how the government functions, and that’s impossible.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          Constitutional Monarchies are still a parliamentary form of government. See England as a prime example.

          • blazera@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            Theyre just figurehead monarchies, they have a prime minister chosen by parliament. The point i was making was that they are not now how they were then. They and many other countries changed into a form of government that offers several party choices for voters. But any effort to that effect here is met with immediate dismissal as being impossible.

        • Billiam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 days ago

          No most of them started out as monarchies so they cant have parliaments. That would be a change in how the government functions, and that’s impossible

          Well that’s not true at all. Parliamentary monarchies are absolutely a thing, the UK being one.

          • blazera@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            Awesome, that means how our government functions can be changed to accommodate several parties.

            • Billiam@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 days ago

              Nobody is saying the US system can’t be changed to accommodate third-parties.

              What they are saying is that third-parties aren’t viable the way things are now.

              You can’t elect third parties to change the system; the system has to be changed to elect third parties. Until then, voting for a third party is wasting a vote and advocating for others to do so is telling them to vote against the major party that is both more likely to win and also the one that more closely represents their values.

              The exception, of course, is if one of the major parties suffers an implosion like the Whigs did in the mid-1800s. But the Dems are more unified than ever and the Republicans are brainwashed by right-wing media, so I don’t see that happening any time soon.

              • blazera@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 days ago

                You’re saying the only way to get rid of the two party system is to continue to exclusively support the two parties

                • Billiam@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  And the sooner you swallow that pill, the sooner you’ll realize that politics is not about emotions, it about strategy, and voting for third-parties isn’t a winning one.

      • vapeloki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        That is just bullshit. While your president is powerful, a lot of the power of government resides within the parliament itself.

        As long as US media calls candidates of other parties as “independents” your political system stais a fucked up mono party system.

        To change the Satus quo, laws must put in place, like in other countries that force media to represent all parties.

        In addition you have to stop with this excessive money dependent political campaigns.

        Those are gatekeeping tactics designed to keep the power in the hands of the two major parties.

        There is no reason why your system could not work with more competitors.

        edit: also, using a voting mechanism that was good in times before telegraph, telephone and internet makes it nearly impossible for smaller parties to get anything out of an election.

        There is no reason not to use the popular vote. None!

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          The Electoral College system blocks using the popular vote. Changing that means changing the Constitution.

          • vapeloki@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            And that is an issue how? Are you trying to say that the USA will be stuck with a legal framework from the 1800? For all eternity?

            EDIT I like that. Downvoting is fine, but maybe explain why? Srsly I am very invested in politics, doesn’t matter if European or US. So, if I am wrong on a factual basis, tell me.

            • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              Pretty much. There is a process to change the Constitution, here’s how it works:

              1. First you get a 290 vote super majority in the House. These are the people who took 15 tries to get a simple 218 vote majority to decide who their own leader would be.

              2. Then you need a 67 vote super majority in the Senate, the people continually blocked by needing 60 votes to overturn a filibuster.

              If somehow you meet those two hurdles, then it goes to the states for ratification and you need 38 statehouses to pass the Amendment.

              By point of comparison, in 2020, Biden got 25 states + Washington D.C. so you’d need ALL 25 Biden states +13 Trump states.

              BUT - Of those 25 states, only 19 have Democratically controlled statehouses, so you could end up needing as many as 19 Trump states.

              • vapeloki@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 days ago

                Thanks. That was my rough assumption. And that worries me. While I am not a US citizen, the USA have such immense power that yout politics affect people around the world. From privacy and data protection to the simple fact if we leave in peace or in war.

                I understand it is a big issue. And I hope you find a way to change that.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          There are lots of competitors in US elections, but most are eliminated during the primaries.

          When you have more than two candidates in the final round, the winner may not represent the will of the people. You can end up with a majority preferring A to B, a majority preferring B to C, and a majority preferring C to A. No matter who wins, the majority can identify a preferable candidate.

          In fact, Kenneth Arrow mathematically proved that multiparty elections will always produce paradoxical results like that. That’s why the winners of multiparty elections are often decided by elite kingmakers, eg Macron.

          • vapeloki@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            I see the issue with a president. But most legislation comes out of the Senate. Having more then two parties represented there forces compromises. And the wishes of more people have to be considered the get the required majority.

            And if the congress is more diverse, the president looses some powers, as he can not rely on having the majority at least for two years of his presidency. He also would have to compromise all the time.

            Just admit it, your system is broken.

            • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 days ago

              First of all, in a presidential democracy the president keeps their powers regardless of the composition of Congress (not just the Senate).

              It’s true that in order to pass legislation, the President has to cooperate with Congress. But I’m not sure why you think that a more diverse Congress would “force” anyone to compromise. What actually happens is that nothing gets done.

              In fact, this is why the purest multiparty democracies, like Italy and Israel, constantly fail. Multiple parties are “forced” to compromise. They can’t or won’t, blaming their opponents. The government is paralyzed and falls. New elections are held. The composition of the legislature changes (or not). Multiple parties are “forced” to compromise. They can’t or won’t, blaming their opponents. The government is paralyzed and falls. New elections are held. Repeat ad infinitum.

              • vapeloki@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 days ago

                I am living in a multi party country. I am experiencing the hurdles and the benefits of it every single day. Coalitions have to be formed to get the majority, smaller parties getting influence because of it.

                We are getting stuff like increased minimum wage, social benefits, legalizing cannabis, and more. And not because the senior partner in the coalition wants it. Because of the junior partners. They are required to form a majority, so they can state their terms also.

                And yes, some countries with more then two parties in the parliament are failing. What about the US?

                Got some universal Healthcare yet? A livable minimum wage for everyone including waiters?

                Effective countermeasures to climate change?

                No? See, also failing. And that lies in the nature of countries. Sometimes they fail.

                • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 days ago

                  You assume that US democracy is failing because it hasn’t delivered progressive goals. But the reason it hasn’t delivered progressive goals is that it’s a democracy, about half the country is not progressive, and there is no national consensus on those goals.

                  It’s true that in multi-party democracies, it is easier for a progressive minority to make its voice heard and achieve its goals. But it’s also easier for a right-wing minority to make its voice heard and achieve its goals. For example, in both Italy and Israel.

    • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Because many poeple have decided to uphold the notion America is somehow more complex than other first world nations that magically figured out things like multiple parties, universal healthcare, automatic tax forms, minimum wage that is enough to live on, and state protected maternity leave.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        TIL that “scientifically being able to prove the FPTP system the US uses will always devolve into a two-party system and make third-party candidates nothing more than spoilers” is “gaslighting” and “third-parties who do fuck-all for four years and curiously only show up to run for president instead of GOTV pushes and trying to win elections at local levels to build support for their party” is propaganda.

        Who knew? Well, aside from everyone who knows how the US system is set up and isn’t arguing in bad faith, that is.

            • capital@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              The next president will be either the Dem or Rep nominee.

              If you believe otherwise I would like to wager a large sum of money.

              • blazera@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                6 days ago

                Yeah and America will continue to be exceptionally bad amongst developed countries

                • capital@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  This is a pivot and Lemmy will eat it up because “USA BAD” but is not a response to the topic in the thread which is that third party votes are meaningless.

                  Let’s see if I can get a direct answer: Do you know that the next president of the US will be the Dem or Rep nominee?

  • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 days ago

    Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election was not due to any erosion in support for Donald Trump. Rather, not only did Trump’s raw vote total increase, but in the key states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, Trump’s share of the vote actually increased.

    Still mind-boggling and a source of great personal disgust while being a national disgrace. One can only hope that enough people have soured on him since then, after countless displays of racism, xenophobia, sexism, authoritarianism, bigotry, and incompetence. A twice impeached loser felon grifter that’s clearly a russian asset should not stand a chance, yet here we are. Makes me sad.

    Between the people trying to give you healthcare and secure your job, and the people trying to let your miscarrying wife bleed out in the parking lot of a for-profit hospital, some morons prefer the latter. Why? “because he’s racist like me!” seems to be the deciding factor. Yes, that is why my parents are voting for him. and my mom is a poll-worker 🤦‍♂️

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    7 days ago

    I feel like the most viable path to a third party at this point:

    1. Ranked choice somehow becomes national law (and while we’re at it, other election reform) — yes, already very unlikely here, although it’d help Dems with reelection so under them it’s possible if they get rid of the filibuster. Gop would never.
    2. Splinters make a better third party, I’m thinking the "RINO"s or MAGA folk. Maybe the progressive wing of Democrars. The current third parties are pretty bad as they are given they don’t seem to target places they could actually win.
    3. Said faction gets more traction and the model gets tested for a few elections until it’s more normal. New paries emerge, etc.

    It ain’t happening mostly cause of 1, either because the political capital would be too expensive or because it’s not ultimately in their interest. The only way 1 can happen is if it becomes a major issue and they’ve got much more lower hanging fruit, even in election rules (I’d be happy just having electrical college changed to popular vote).

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      National Election Reform would be great, but that would require we actually have national elections, which we don’t. :)

      It’s not even a matter of 50 state elections… each election precinct is essentially it’s own little fiefdom at this point, with officials who BELIEVE they’re free to say “I aint gonna certify!” even if the State Secretary of State will put the screws to them if they do.

      • Breezy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        Holy shit you’re so right on all the districts being treated like a fiefdom. I like to think i keep up with politics but this idea has never crossed my mind. Im going to be looking at my local elections closer now.

  • Professorozone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 days ago

    That’s such a messed up pie chart. It shows numerically 51% but the pie wedge is smaller than 48%. Man, I can only handle SO much in a day!!!

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Funny how third parties always rear their heads at election time but remain almost entirely quiet the rest of the term. Where does the money come from?