this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
1157 points (89.9% liked)

Political Memes

5232 readers
1844 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

and he still would have lost. he got nearly 20% of the popular vote and exactly 0 electoral votes. until we change the system, they cannot win. sorry. please vote against fascism

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

Notably, had Perot won that potential 35% of the popular vote, he would have carried 32 states with 319 electoral votes, more than enough to win the presidency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_1992_presidential_campaign#Results

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But he didn't. He didn't get a single electoral vote.

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

Yes, but he would have won if everyone had voted how their heart desired.

Both major parties want you to believe that voting third-party is "throwing your vote away", but it isn't true. Simply expressing your heart's desire and having it counted on the public record makes voting worthwhile, even if your candidate doesn't win. (And in the case of Ross Perot, he would have won.)

You might as well say that voting for anyone except the candidate who is leading in the polls is throwing your vote away if that's how you see it.

A woman from a formerly Communist Eastern European country once told me a story. After their country had democratized, there was an election held on the day of a horrible blizzard. Her mother and father wanted to vote for one candidate, and her brother and sister wanted to vote for the rival candidate.

"Why don't we all just stay home, since our votes will cancel each other out anyway", someone said. And so her mother and sister decided to stay home. But her father and brother went out into the blizzard to vote, knowing that their votes would cancel each other out.

They just wanted to participate in democracy. They wanted to express themselves and be counted, even if it didn't change anything.

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

Yes, but he would have won if everyone had voted how their heart desired.

This assumes my heart desires having a president at all.