Any third party that’s telling you to vote for them under FPTP, but isn’t heavily promoting RCV to fix the system, isn’t trying to win. They’re trying to spoil the FPTP election.
RCV is already law in a surprisingly large number of places. It may change the majority in the house in this upcoming election, because the difference in vote-counting within the two states that use it for US congressional elections might be enough to change the razor-thin outcome.
RCV is on the ballot, in one form or another, in 7 states and DC this year. Go vote. You might be able to fix the system, and move toward the future that all the people in this thread who are being vocal about Jill Stein say that they want. Remember back when marijuana was illegal? That changed. This can change too, and it would be glorious, for a lot of important goals that a lot of people claiming to support Jill Stein claim they’re supportive of. It would be practical and realistic. It would work.
Since you’re saying Jill Stein is extremely important, but you haven’t been saying anything about ranked choice voting or changing the voting system to make third parties realistic: Why? What’s your goal, why did you make that decision about your priorities?
Register and vote, for RCV as well as for Harris. We have 19 more days.
I’m not sure if the “you” you’re referring to is the person in the article or me.
I know for me personally, that I’ve supported and voted for ranked choice voting from the beginning. In fact, my local city ballot had ranked choice on the ballot this year, and I supported it.
I didn’t vote for Jill Stein. I appreciate the conversations she has started though, and I hope that what she’s done will stir the Democrats into being more pro-active about issues rather than just yelling “vote against Trump!”
Which is why I asked for clarification. It’s public forum, and I can express my opinions even without being directly asked. As many here do. And as you have done just now.
You have made 15 comments that reference ranked choice voting in any way, with several of those emphasizing that in your opinion, Green Party support needs to come first, and only after that, can ranked choice voting come about.
Here are some examples:
I don’t feel that democrats and republicans will ever allow ranked choice to happen.
If you truly support ranked choice voting and breaking the duopoly, then you should understand that the fight starts with challenging the status quo, even if it’s uncomfortable.
There’s also this absolute gem:
You argue that voting third party only serves to undermine the party most similar to it, effectively helping the opposition. But this perspective assumes the current system is the only possible framework.
The very act of voting third party is a challenge to this idea, a refusal to accept that our choices must be limited to two parties that both uphold the same capitalist structure.
While ranked-choice voting would definitely take care of some of the issues you mention, the push for third parties is not just about winning elections under the current system—it’s about forcing a broader discussion, about demanding that the system itself be questioned and eventually changed.
You’ve also made two posts about ranked choice voting. I don’t know how many of your 5,000+ postings have dealt with Jill Stein, since the API doesn’t let me count up that high, but if we conservatively say that one-third of what you say is supportive of third parties in some fashion, that means you’ve posted approximately 99% content supportive of third parties within our current FPTP framework, and 1% supportive of changing the framework in a way that would let third parties get some traction, which in the current system they cannot.
The question I was asking, which you didn’t answer, was: Why? It seems like putting 99% effort to changing the system to allow the third parties to succeed, and 1% effort into supporting them in their currently-doomed effort, would be a better use of your time to accomplish the future you claim that you’re trying to accomplish. What am I missing?
I support both. I am just not going to wait for RCV first. I don’t feel that Democrats or the Republicans have taken it very seriously, but to your point, it IS starting to make some headway. But I’m not going to wait for it to vote for who I want to vote for. I still don’t like the democratic candidates or the republican candidates.
Right - you said you voted for Rachele Fruit, who is vocally pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian. Odd that you find this article interesting to share when the main thrust of the event is that Harris is bad for not doing enough about Gaza and needs to be “punished”. Is your problem with Harris that she isn’t more strident in demanding more Palestinian civilian deaths? Just curious as that seems to be the stance of the candidate you claim to have voted for.
Here’s what Rachele Fruit says about the war in Gaza:
In the U.S. and other imperialist countries, organizations of middle-class radicals claiming to be socialists explicitly disavow any course to advance class solidarity among working people. They celebrate the murders, rapes and torture of Jews and others by Hamas on Oct. 7. They accept the Jew-hating course of the Iranian government and Hamas as if it was an expression of the national aspirations of the Palestinian people.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The war between Israel and Hamas is not about the Palestinian national struggle. Israel is not at war with the Palestinian people. It is fighting to eliminate Hamas whose leaders say openly their reason for being is to kill Jews and destroy Israel.
Hamas leaders say that they have no responsibility for the welfare of the Palestinian people. They’ve met protests by Palestinians in Gaza with repression. To speak out against Hamas has meant to take your life in your hands. There is no one claiming leadership among Palestinians who recognizes the right of Israel to exist or proposes a working-class road forward.
Hamas’ Oct. 7 pogrom confirms that there is no “two-state solution” possible today. Under its rule it’s impossible for a leadership worthy of the Palestinian people to develop. It will take the defeat of Hamas for a working-class leadership to be forged among Palestinians.
The capitalist government in Israel is committed to defeating Hamas because there is no other way to ensure the survival of the Jewish people. No other government on earth makes that commitment.
Here’s what UniversalMonk said about her:
Yeah, this is actually the socialist party I joined. But it’s much smaller, but I feel like their values line up with mine the most. They were much more popular in the 1970’s. They really concentrate mostly on workers rights here in the US, more than anything else. In fact, Rachele Fruit, the candidate actually still works as a hotel housekeeper! So she is right there in the trenches with workers. And the VP nominee was an airline food service worker until he quit that to run for this campaign. So yeah, I like them. They’re my people. lol
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. She aligns with my values the most and I voted for her. I don’t agree 100 percent with everything she says, but she aligns the closest to what I like. Especially when it comes to workers rights, which is the issue that I most care about in the election.
That hasn’t changed. And I voted for her. Thank you! :)
“If you vote for either of the genocide candidates you are endorsing genocide, you are affirming it, you are enabling it,” she said. “Every vote for our campaign is a shot across the bow of the empire.”
Do you agree with that, meaning you agree you’ve endorsed, affirmed, and enabled genocide? Or do you reject it, meaning it’s okay to support genocide-enabling candidates as long as they align with your values the most, and you make sure to disclaim that you don’t agree 100 percent with everything they say?
Because it sounds like you voted for a candidate who is furious at the existing administration for “backpedaling from defense of Israel and stepping up pressure on its government to stop the war, claiming they’re concerned about the humanitarian disaster in Gaza.”
Just because I post an article doesn’t mean I endorse everything in it. That seems to be a big misunderstanding here on Lemmy.
I read a lot of political news—some I like, some I don’t. Since this is a political news community, I post links to articles from various sources. There’s no rule that says we have to agree with everything in the articles we share.
For example, if I post a Trump article from Newsweek, it doesn’t mean I support Trump, no matter how many people jump in claiming I do. It’s like a newspaper reporting that Trump is leading in a poll—that doesn’t mean they endorse him. It’s just the news.
This isn’t a “Pro-Harris only” community. There’s plenty of pro-Harris content already, so having some opposing views won’t hurt anyone. And, by the way, I don’t support Trump and don’t care if he wins or not, but I don’t think he has any real chance.
Yes, I voted for Rachele Fruit. And yes, I am aware that her view is different than some of the other candidates. Tho I don’t agree with her on every issue, I do agree with her on most.
My main interest is worker’s rights stuff, not Gaza war stuff. Again, this is different than most Lemmy’s. And that’s ok. This community supports diversity of political thought.
So she’s the candidate that most closely aligned with my views. Thanks! :)
This sentence fragment alone should get you banned from the platform, but for some reason you’re allowed to continue your election interference campaign with only a biweekly slap on the wrist.
I completely agree. For me, it’s a serious thing. My safety will definitely be impacted if Trump wins. I might go to prison or have my livelihood upended. But I’m not even the lowest on the pole. There are people who could die at the drop of a hat, or at the very least get kicked out of the country. There are whole nations whose fate is at stake. And, of course, making genuine progress on economic justice and real representation of the people is a key thing I would love to see, now or in the future. That’s why it’s irritating to see someone trying to undermine it under the guise of advancing it.
It’s pretty obvious that this whole “lol” “don’t care” “Gaza war stuff” pretense is just that. The guy clearly cares about the election, or he wouldn’t make such a full-time mission out of posting his flood of content. It’s only because he’s being backed into a corner where he has to justify it that he’s all of a sudden pretending that none of it means anything.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” -Jean-Paul Sartre
The technology and tactics have evolved since 1944. “Intimidate and disconcert,” in online spaces, has turned into “confuse and overwhelm.” But the strategy is the same. Truth is irrelevant, an obstacle to be ignored or attacked, until it becomes a casualty.
Any third party that’s telling you to vote for them under FPTP, but isn’t heavily promoting RCV to fix the system, isn’t trying to win. They’re trying to spoil the FPTP election.
RCV is already law in a surprisingly large number of places. It may change the majority in the house in this upcoming election, because the difference in vote-counting within the two states that use it for US congressional elections might be enough to change the razor-thin outcome.
RCV is on the ballot, in one form or another, in 7 states and DC this year. Go vote. You might be able to fix the system, and move toward the future that all the people in this thread who are being vocal about Jill Stein say that they want. Remember back when marijuana was illegal? That changed. This can change too, and it would be glorious, for a lot of important goals that a lot of people claiming to support Jill Stein claim they’re supportive of. It would be practical and realistic. It would work.
Since you’re saying Jill Stein is extremely important, but you haven’t been saying anything about ranked choice voting or changing the voting system to make third parties realistic: Why? What’s your goal, why did you make that decision about your priorities?
Register and vote, for RCV as well as for Harris. We have 19 more days.
I’m not sure if the “you” you’re referring to is the person in the article or me.
I know for me personally, that I’ve supported and voted for ranked choice voting from the beginning. In fact, my local city ballot had ranked choice on the ballot this year, and I supported it.
I didn’t vote for Jill Stein. I appreciate the conversations she has started though, and I hope that what she’s done will stir the Democrats into being more pro-active about issues rather than just yelling “vote against Trump!”
Not everything is about you
Turns out he WAS talking about and to me. So no, not everything is about me. But the comment that we’re referring to is. Thank you! :)
Which is why I asked for clarification. It’s public forum, and I can express my opinions even without being directly asked. As many here do. And as you have done just now.
Thank you, friend! :)
You have made 15 comments that reference ranked choice voting in any way, with several of those emphasizing that in your opinion, Green Party support needs to come first, and only after that, can ranked choice voting come about.
Here are some examples:
There’s also this absolute gem:
You’ve also made two posts about ranked choice voting. I don’t know how many of your 5,000+ postings have dealt with Jill Stein, since the API doesn’t let me count up that high, but if we conservatively say that one-third of what you say is supportive of third parties in some fashion, that means you’ve posted approximately 99% content supportive of third parties within our current FPTP framework, and 1% supportive of changing the framework in a way that would let third parties get some traction, which in the current system they cannot.
The question I was asking, which you didn’t answer, was: Why? It seems like putting 99% effort to changing the system to allow the third parties to succeed, and 1% effort into supporting them in their currently-doomed effort, would be a better use of your time to accomplish the future you claim that you’re trying to accomplish. What am I missing?
I support both. I am just not going to wait for RCV first. I don’t feel that Democrats or the Republicans have taken it very seriously, but to your point, it IS starting to make some headway. But I’m not going to wait for it to vote for who I want to vote for. I still don’t like the democratic candidates or the republican candidates.
Right - you said you voted for Rachele Fruit, who is vocally pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian. Odd that you find this article interesting to share when the main thrust of the event is that Harris is bad for not doing enough about Gaza and needs to be “punished”. Is your problem with Harris that she isn’t more strident in demanding more Palestinian civilian deaths? Just curious as that seems to be the stance of the candidate you claim to have voted for.
More information:
https://themilitant.com/2024/03/22/rachele-fruit-for-president/
Here’s what Rachele Fruit says about the war in Gaza:
Here’s what UniversalMonk said about her:
https://lemmy.world/comment/12350294
https://lemmy.world/comment/12377155
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. She aligns with my values the most and I voted for her. I don’t agree 100 percent with everything she says, but she aligns the closest to what I like. Especially when it comes to workers rights, which is the issue that I most care about in the election.
That hasn’t changed. And I voted for her. Thank you! :)
Did you not just post an article which said:
Do you agree with that, meaning you agree you’ve endorsed, affirmed, and enabled genocide? Or do you reject it, meaning it’s okay to support genocide-enabling candidates as long as they align with your values the most, and you make sure to disclaim that you don’t agree 100 percent with everything they say?
Because it sounds like you voted for a candidate who is furious at the existing administration for “backpedaling from defense of Israel and stepping up pressure on its government to stop the war, claiming they’re concerned about the humanitarian disaster in Gaza.”
Just because I post an article doesn’t mean I endorse everything in it. That seems to be a big misunderstanding here on Lemmy.
I read a lot of political news—some I like, some I don’t. Since this is a political news community, I post links to articles from various sources. There’s no rule that says we have to agree with everything in the articles we share.
For example, if I post a Trump article from Newsweek, it doesn’t mean I support Trump, no matter how many people jump in claiming I do. It’s like a newspaper reporting that Trump is leading in a poll—that doesn’t mean they endorse him. It’s just the news.
This isn’t a “Pro-Harris only” community. There’s plenty of pro-Harris content already, so having some opposing views won’t hurt anyone. And, by the way, I don’t support Trump and don’t care if he wins or not, but I don’t think he has any real chance.
Yes, I voted for Rachele Fruit. And yes, I am aware that her view is different than some of the other candidates. Tho I don’t agree with her on every issue, I do agree with her on most.
My main interest is worker’s rights stuff, not Gaza war stuff. Again, this is different than most Lemmy’s. And that’s ok. This community supports diversity of political thought.
So she’s the candidate that most closely aligned with my views. Thanks! :)
Wow, could you be any more dismissive of the senseless deaths of innocent civilians? Workers rights don’t mean a thing when you’re dead.
This sentence fragment alone should get you banned from the platform, but for some reason you’re allowed to continue your election interference campaign with only a biweekly slap on the wrist.
I completely agree. For me, it’s a serious thing. My safety will definitely be impacted if Trump wins. I might go to prison or have my livelihood upended. But I’m not even the lowest on the pole. There are people who could die at the drop of a hat, or at the very least get kicked out of the country. There are whole nations whose fate is at stake. And, of course, making genuine progress on economic justice and real representation of the people is a key thing I would love to see, now or in the future. That’s why it’s irritating to see someone trying to undermine it under the guise of advancing it.
It’s pretty obvious that this whole “lol” “don’t care” “Gaza war stuff” pretense is just that. The guy clearly cares about the election, or he wouldn’t make such a full-time mission out of posting his flood of content. It’s only because he’s being backed into a corner where he has to justify it that he’s all of a sudden pretending that none of it means anything.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” -Jean-Paul Sartre
The technology and tactics have evolved since 1944. “Intimidate and disconcert,” in online spaces, has turned into “confuse and overwhelm.” But the strategy is the same. Truth is irrelevant, an obstacle to be ignored or attacked, until it becomes a casualty.