Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently made headlines for calling perennial Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein “predatory” and “not serious.” AOC is right.
Giving voters more choices is a good thing for democracy. But third-party politics isn’t performance art. It’s hard work — which Stein is not doing. As AOC observed: “[When] all you do is show up once every four years to speak to people who are justifiably pissed off, but you’re just showing up once every four years to do that, you’re not serious.”
To be clear: AOC was not critiquing third parties as a whole, or the idea that we need more choices in our democracy. In fact, AOC specifically cited the Working Families Party as an example of an effective third party. The organization I lead, MoveOn, supports their 365-day-a-year efforts to build power for a pro-voter, multi-party system. And I understand third parties’ power to activate voters hungry for alternatives: I myself volunteered for Ralph Nader in 2000, and that experience helped shape my lifelong commitment to people-first politics.
Register to vote: https://vote.gov/
You are incorrect. While a vote for the GOP candidate certainly carries more weight, it doesn’t mean they don’t benefit from non/3rd party votes. That is how FPTP voting works.
they literally cannot benefit from it at all. it’s a vote against them and for another candidate.
Non/3rd party votes make it easier for the SMALLER party to win, and that happens to be the GOP here. This is just how FPTP voting works.
There are two possible outcomes, how could your actions not benefit one of the two possible winners?
I get that it feels icky, especially when someone views voting as a way to send a message or present their own moral views, but that’s not what voting is. Not in the general election at least.
you have no authority to tell others what their motivations ought to be for voting.
Your motivations can be whatever you want. You just don’t get to absolve yourself of responsibility for the results of your actions. I think that’s a fair position.
so you’ll take responsibility for empowering the genocide enablers?
I will take responsibility for enabling one of the two genocide enablers that I can choose from, yes. I am choosing to enable the one that contains a modicum of dissention from the status quo vs the one that wants to wipe Gaza from the map entirely.
Why would you want to enable the party that wants even more genocide than the Democrats do?
i’m not going to take responsibility for the policies of someone i vote against. that makes no sense.
You’re still ignoring the realities of FPTP voting. There is precisely one way to effectively “vote against” the GOP during the general election and you seem to be advocating against it.
Explain to me how Gaza gets better if Trump wins. Or literally any issue. Even if the loss magically created a huge shift in the Democratic leadership that echoed throughout the caucus and they go all in on every progressive policy we could possibly want. Let’s say they make Rashida Tlaib minority leader. Let’s say every single Democrat now supports a full embargo of Israel until they cease all hostilities. Lets say every Democrat now supports whatever policy you want. How does any of that help once the government is fully controlled by fascists that will literally make it impossible for the now Super Progressive Democratic Party to ever get back in power and do those things?
If your justification for supporting the GOP is that the Democrats haven’t done enough on Gaza that’s fine. I just question the logic.
You are too by voting third party.
de la cruz, west, and Stein all oppose supporting genocide
Telling other people that their votes do not matter is a common right wing voter suppression tactic. And then they wonder why there’s over 100 million people that do not vote. Because they’ve been told time and again that their votes only matter if they vote for one of the right wing parties.