The survey by the Council on American Islamic Relations finds 40% of Muslim-American voters in Michigan say they support Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein.
DISCLAIMER: America has a two party system. In the current political climate, both parties are supportive of Israel and voting therefore offers no way to solve this issue. Trump is also worse than Harris on this issue. Not voting or choosing 3rd party only helps the republicans, and if you don’t agree with their platform, the only rational electoral choice is to vote blue. While you may disagree with some policies, one has to make a pragmatic decision on election day. Voting is a chess move not a love letter. The death will continue regardless, we have no power to stop it.
Now that’s over…
Wow wouldn’t it be nice if the democratic party didn’t insist on arming an active genocide and alienating large numbers of would be voters through their uncritical support of an apartheid state.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could have a candidate who did not support acts which are fundamentally evil
No, that’s not it at all. The glaring issue is that the 3rd party candidates have ZERO chance of winning the presidency. None, zilch, nada. Comprendez? Simply put, they almost certainly aren’t on enough state ballots to get the required 270 EC votes, but even if they did they wouldn’t even come close.
And I’m sorry, you’re saying people that vote for the only 2 plausible candidates are evil? Sounds like trying to justify crashing planes to me.
Stein is on enough ballots to get way past 270. But voters cling to their oligarch bread crumbs too tightly to do the right thing. Their biggest fear is losing those bread crumbs
Good thing I’m not a liberal, and I have hard mathmatical evidence. Here it is!
Total voters: 1214
52% of voters approved of the results.
cocina - 626 votes - WINNER
owen - 588 votes
Total voters: 1214
48% of voters approved of the results.
owen - 585 votes - WINNER
room - 317 votes
cocina - 312 votes
These two randomly generated elections are identical, with the exception that the second election has a newly introduced candidate, who is irrelevant.* Yet despite their irrelevance, their introduction has changed the outcome of the election. That means this is a failed electoral system, and this is what people are talking about when they talk about the spoiler effect, as per the definition:
* Irrelevent meaning they had no chance of winning. In the second election, the voters colored lime green and light blue would never have voted for the new purple candidate, because the lime green and blue candidates were closer. So telling those voters to “quit voting for the establishment, vote with your heart” is meaningless, because that’s already what they’re doing, they’re just voting for whoever is closest to them.
That is based on the assumption that a 3rd party voter would vote for a right wing duopoly party to begin with if there were no 3rd party options. We would likely leave that box empty and vote down ballot or simply not vote at all.
That is based on the assumption that a 3rd party voter would vote for a right wing duopoly party to begin with if there were no 3rd party options.
Not really. It’s the subset of voters that have an effect on the votes of the doupoly candidates, and 3rd party voters who would never vote for the doupoly candidates by definition aren’t in that subset to begin with.
Zooming out/accounting for voters abstaining doesn’t actually change anything:
Election report for election "Plurality 2 Candidates"
Total people: 1047
11% of people supported the winner.
Kruger - 112 votes - WINNER
Sahl - 111 votes
Election report for election "Plurality 3 Candidates"
Total people: 1047
10% of people supported the winner.
Sahl - 109 votes - WINNER
Kruger - 93 votes
Maikol - 91 votes
The overwhelming majority of Maikol’s votes came from voters who didn’t vote for the preexisting duopoly. However Maikol’s entrance into the race was enough to split the vote with Kruger, causing the election to be won by Sahl.
The math is the same math, it still shows the spoiler effect.
I liked Ralph Nader. I voted for him. George Bush barely won that election, and then started the “global war on terror”, instituted the PATRIOT act, etc.
It’s another form of voter suppression, decades of people being told their votes do not matter is why we have 100 million people that do not vote. because they know that the two choices currently in government do not represent their needs, and they will not support those that ignore their needs.
Trump is also worse than Harris on this issue. Not voting or choosing 3rd party only helps the republicans, and if you don’t agree with their platform, the only rational electoral choice is to vote blue.
I disagree, but you have a well-written post. So I appreciate your contributions.
What part do you disagree with? On the merits of 3rd party voting?
Yeah, you said that “choosing 3rd party only helps the republicans” and that kind of thinking is exactly why third parties have such a hard time. Everyone is so afraid of the “other side” that they hesitate. In addiction to the bullies that yell at them about it.
Yeah I totally understand where you’re coming from. The problem is the first past the post system, but changing to another one isn’t in the interest of the major parties so it’s unlikely they’ll do it.
You’re right that this kind of thinking is why third parties have a tough time. But if you do vote third party, most other people still won’t and you will just take away from your preferred option out of the two main parties. It’s a terrible system where the fear of the spoiler effect takes any chance away from other candidates and from the voters who they represent. Ross Perot was the most successful 3rd party candidate in recent memory and he wasn’t even close to winning.
Literally the only way out is to force the issue through protest etc.
But honestly I would never criticise you for not wanting to vote for these people. I totally get it. My disclaimer was a semi joke intended to keep people from turning my criticism of the dems into a conversation about Trump and the election
DISCLAIMER: America has a two party system. In the current political climate, both parties are supportive of Israel and voting therefore offers no way to solve this issue. Trump is also worse than Harris on this issue. Not voting or choosing 3rd party only helps the republicans, and if you don’t agree with their platform, the only rational electoral choice is to vote blue. While you may disagree with some policies, one has to make a pragmatic decision on election day. Voting is a chess move not a love letter. The death will continue regardless, we have no power to stop it.
Now that’s over…
Wow wouldn’t it be nice if the democratic party didn’t insist on arming an active genocide and alienating large numbers of would be voters through their uncritical support of an apartheid state.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could have a candidate who did not support acts which are fundamentally evil
The glaring issue is we do have a nonevil anti genocide candidate in the ballot, but people are more comforted by their preferred and familiar evil
Do you mean Russian Asset Jill Stein who also actively opposes Ukraine?
No, that’s not it at all. The glaring issue is that the 3rd party candidates have ZERO chance of winning the presidency. None, zilch, nada. Comprendez? Simply put, they almost certainly aren’t on enough state ballots to get the required 270 EC votes, but even if they did they wouldn’t even come close.
And I’m sorry, you’re saying people that vote for the only 2 plausible candidates are evil? Sounds like trying to justify crashing planes to me.
Stein is on enough ballots to get way past 270. But voters cling to their oligarch bread crumbs too tightly to do the right thing. Their biggest fear is losing those bread crumbs
Yeah that’s called the spoiler effect. The spoiler effect hurts 3rd party candidates too.
Spoiler effect only exists in the mind of Liberals.
Good thing I’m not a liberal, and I have hard mathmatical evidence. Here it is!
These two randomly generated elections are identical, with the exception that the second election has a newly introduced candidate, who is irrelevant.* Yet despite their irrelevance, their introduction has changed the outcome of the election. That means this is a failed electoral system, and this is what people are talking about when they talk about the spoiler effect, as per the definition:
* Irrelevent meaning they had no chance of winning. In the second election, the voters colored lime green and light blue would never have voted for the new purple candidate, because the lime green and blue candidates were closer. So telling those voters to “quit voting for the establishment, vote with your heart” is meaningless, because that’s already what they’re doing, they’re just voting for whoever is closest to them.
That is based on the assumption that a 3rd party voter would vote for a right wing duopoly party to begin with if there were no 3rd party options. We would likely leave that box empty and vote down ballot or simply not vote at all.
Not really. It’s the subset of voters that have an effect on the votes of the doupoly candidates, and 3rd party voters who would never vote for the doupoly candidates by definition aren’t in that subset to begin with.
Zooming out/accounting for voters abstaining doesn’t actually change anything:
The overwhelming majority of Maikol’s votes came from voters who didn’t vote for the preexisting duopoly. However Maikol’s entrance into the race was enough to split the vote with Kruger, causing the election to be won by Sahl.
The math is the same math, it still shows the spoiler effect.
I liked Ralph Nader. I voted for him. George Bush barely won that election, and then started the “global war on terror”, instituted the PATRIOT act, etc.
I learned.
Because of all the bullies saying that and pressuring people to vote for their fav candidate.
It’s another form of voter suppression, decades of people being told their votes do not matter is why we have 100 million people that do not vote. because they know that the two choices currently in government do not represent their needs, and they will not support those that ignore their needs.
Exactly!
I disagree, but you have a well-written post. So I appreciate your contributions.
Thanks! What part do you disagree with? On the merits of 3rd party voting?
Yeah, you said that “choosing 3rd party only helps the republicans” and that kind of thinking is exactly why third parties have such a hard time. Everyone is so afraid of the “other side” that they hesitate. In addiction to the bullies that yell at them about it.
Yeah I totally understand where you’re coming from. The problem is the first past the post system, but changing to another one isn’t in the interest of the major parties so it’s unlikely they’ll do it.
You’re right that this kind of thinking is why third parties have a tough time. But if you do vote third party, most other people still won’t and you will just take away from your preferred option out of the two main parties. It’s a terrible system where the fear of the spoiler effect takes any chance away from other candidates and from the voters who they represent. Ross Perot was the most successful 3rd party candidate in recent memory and he wasn’t even close to winning.
Literally the only way out is to force the issue through protest etc.
But honestly I would never criticise you for not wanting to vote for these people. I totally get it. My disclaimer was a semi joke intended to keep people from turning my criticism of the dems into a conversation about Trump and the election
Fair points. Thank you!