this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
901 points (91.6% liked)
Political Memes
8104 readers
1794 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes 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 misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
two words: third parties
Tell me you don't understand American politics without telling me you don't understand American politics
Let's say that if in every Presidential and Congressional election from 2028 to 2058, everyone who'd otherwise vote for 3rd parties instead voted Democrat, and Democrats always won the White House, >45% of the House and Senate each, always had a majority in at least 1 house, and at least 1/2 the time won majorities in both houses.
Do you think the US would be any closer to voter reform—e.g. proportional representation, ranked ballots, whatever, even re-drawing districts more sensibly?
wp:2024 United States presidential election#Results by state
If 1.5 million Californians who voted for Harris, instead voted for Trump, Harris would have still won that state;
or,
If 3 million Californians who voted for Harris, instead voted for 3rd parties (e.g. Stein), Harris would have still won that state.
4 835 250 Texans voted for Harris. That's more votes for Harris than any other state besides California. It was still over 1.5 million votes less than what Trump got in Texas.
If those who voted for Harris in Texas instead voted 3rd party, Harris would be no worse the loser in terms of Texan Electoral votes.
But yeah, I have no understanding of American politics.
(minor correction about 20 minutes after posting: for 3rd party into for 3rd parties)
I think firewitch's point was that third parties almost by definition have zero chance of getting a candidate elected in a first past the post system. This is pretty common knowledge.
I don't think it's zero, but it's quite unlikely for the next few decades at least.
My point is if an American is in a non-swing state, then wt:thons vote counts for little: so thon might as well vote for thons heart, and maybe the number of votes might get attention.
Ah, I see, you have done the math. Ok, this is the only condition which I would consider voting 3rd party not morally dubious. Thanks!
The best a third party can hope for us to split the vote from whatever majority party they are most like and allow the other side to win. And only one time in our history has a third party gotten more votes than the party it split from. Teddy Roosevelt, Bull Moose Party, 1912
Progressive Democrats in non-swing states can vote 3rd party and scare future delegates and contenders into being more progressive. Also, they could support Libertarians and Constitutionalists a little in non-swing states.
source for pic: wc:File:Progressive Moose walking.png
wp:Bull Moose Party
wp:1912 United States presidential election
In 1848, it was just the Democrats and the Whigs.
Then in 1856, the Republicans ran their first candidate for President: John C. Frémont;
and in 1860, it was Lincoln.
(minor correction about 3 hours after replying: "and in 1856, it was Lincoln." to "and in 1860, it was Lincoln.")
Lol. Why would I support Libertarians? They're dumber than Trump supporters and have about as many solutions when you inquire.
See, you actually think that there's a good 3rd party worth voting for.
There's not.
Trump got 312 Electoral College votes, while Harris got 226.
If Trump lost 44 of those votes to Harris, she would be President today.
If you got 120 000 Georgians, 60 000 Nevadans, 121 000 Pennsyvanians, 90 000 Michiganders and 30 000 Wisconsinites who voted for Trump last year to instead vote for wp:Chase Oliver, Trump would have lost 46 Electoral College votes to Harris.
Right, and not voting at all is the surefire way to make third parties happen. Sure.
So, ultimately this whole thing hangs on how possible or likely is making the rise of a significant third party
I vote for 3rd parties, but people say I should vote for the lesser-evil wing of the 2-party-state.
That is because you are effectively throwing your vote away.
Or you don't care or want to give the more evil of the two dominate parties a small advantage while telling yourself you are good. I guess you do you.
Please read my other reply ITT: https://lemmy.world/post/29892234/17151202 .
Thanks, yes, in this case I think it makes sense to vote third party.
I applaud you if you vote 3rd party in local/state elections. But if you're voting 3rd party in a presidential election, you're dumber than the chair you're sitting on right now.
As a Canadian I don't vote in US elections,
but please, tell me why those who voted for Presidential candidates other than Trump or Harris in non-swing states, or who are very much concerned about Palestine, the US military-industrial complex, or IP (i.e. "intellectual property") trolls are dumber than chairs.
Instant runoff voting, then third parties
and the run-off in 2024 would be Trump versus Harris, and in 1992, Bush versus Clinton.
If we assume the first round goes the same, but without a spoiler effect third parties would do better in the first round.
IIUC, in neither the 1992 nor 2024 Presidential elections did a candidate win a (popular) majority.
If those who voted for Perot instead voted for Clinton, Clinton would still have been elected, probably with a majority. If they voted for Bush, then he'd been elected, probably with a majority, and those-more-left-wing-than-Republicans would have been (more) disappointed.
If those who voted for 3rd parties last year instead voted for Harris, she still would have lost the first round, including Michigan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election#Results_by_state ). I doubt she would have won the run-off.
I suppose run-offs are interesting when there are strong 3rd party candidates. As this is not currently the case in the USA, it'd mean little—the 2 party-state continues (and multi-millionaire Democrats would still complain about Stein, Greens, and/or other alternative parties).
Two words: NOT VIABLE
Unless you completely, or mostly, agree with Trump or Harris—and I repeat, agree, not just consider one the lesser evil—then no one is viable.
A vote for Harris in a non-swing state was a vote wasted.