Cornel West was a speaker. In the past, having Green Party candidates on the ballot has shifted 2-3% of the population to voting for them instead of the Democrats. That’s enough to tip close election, which is what we’re likely to have.
Getting his support, and having him stay off the ballot in likely swing states would make a real difference.
A good way to is poll twice, once including a Green Party Candidate, and once not. Emerson College did that for some swing states a few weeks back. Here’s a pretty typical example, showing how results in Michigan change when West is added to the ballot:
This is why having him on the ballot is a really damaging for the Democrats, and it’s important that there be a negotiated policy concession to get him to avoid the damage.
The ‘RV’ annotation means it’s a poll of people who say they are registered voters.
Proof is a standard for mathematics. Not the real world. It’s likely enough that Republicans regularly provide financial support for the Greens. That’s good enough for me
so you have conjecture. you should have just said that instead of stating it as indisputable fact and then trying to snow me with data that doesn’t prove your position.
registered voters are not the same as likely voters, nor actual past voters. you made a claim that you simply can’t prove and none of the data you’ve provided is, in fact, proof for your claim.
Likely voter models don’t work well enough to look at 1-3% kinds of numbers of voters more than a year out from election day. Sorry.
Using actual voters from 2020 is tough because we had two different third parties there: the Greens who siphoned votes off of Biden, and the Libertarians who siphoned a larger number of votes off of Trump. So you see polls showing the combined effect (slightly beneficial to Biden) but not the separate impact of the Green party candidate.
Absolute proof isn’t something that really exists in the social sciences, which is why you’re never going to find it, the most you find is several decent converging lines of evidence, as we have here.
what makes you think this is a good method for proving your claim that 2-3% of all voters were democrat voters who switched to green in past elections?
none of the data or graphs are proof that 2-3% of voters have voted green but would have otherwise voted democrat. demanding proof for a claim isn’t rude.
It’s a good way of saying what people are thinking of doing, and that’s exactly what was happening in Michigan a few weeks ago. Given how close the election is likely to be in that state, even a far smaller number of people voting G instead of D will throw the country for Trump.
For sure. But of the people who vote for the greens, many more would have chosen to vote for a Democrat instead.
The Green party could:
Run candidates in the Democratic primaries (the DSA has done this to considerable success at the state level)
Run candidates in districts where Democrats aren’t running
Build up power by starting at a local level and winning elections there to create people with a base of supporters who can win in larger and larger areas
But they don’t do those things in the US, and instead choose to run candidates where they effectively serve as spoilers
Cornel West was a speaker. In the past, having Green Party candidates on the ballot has shifted 2-3% of the population to voting for them instead of the Democrats. That’s enough to tip close election, which is what we’re likely to have.
Getting his support, and having him stay off the ballot in likely swing states would make a real difference.
can you prove that?
It’s a bit lower than I thought; Jill Stein got ~1% of the vote in 2016. The spoiler effect is so well-known that you see Republicans funding Green Party candidates. It’s an artifact of how US elections work:
Scenario 1:
D: 11 votes
R: 10 votes
G: 0 votes
Democrat wins
Scenario 2:
D: 10 votes
R: 10 votes
G: 1 votes
Tie decided by game of chance
Scenario 3:
D: 9 votes
R: 10 votes
G: 2 votes
Republican wins
none of this addresses my question:
CAN YOU PROVE THAT 2-3% OF THE POPULATION BOTH HAVE VOTED FOR GREENS, BUT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR DEMOCRATS.
i already know the answer: you can’t prove a counterfactual.
A good way to is poll twice, once including a Green Party Candidate, and once not. Emerson College did that for some swing states a few weeks back. Here’s a pretty typical example, showing how results in Michigan change when West is added to the ballot:
This is why having him on the ballot is a really damaging for the Democrats, and it’s important that there be a negotiated policy concession to get him to avoid the damage.
the polling is interesting but it doesn’t prove that any of those people will vote at all.
The ‘RV’ annotation means it’s a poll of people who say they are registered voters.
Proof is a standard for mathematics. Not the real world. It’s likely enough that Republicans regularly provide financial support for the Greens. That’s good enough for me
so you have conjecture. you should have just said that instead of stating it as indisputable fact and then trying to snow me with data that doesn’t prove your position.
I have:
It’s pretty compelling when taken as a whole
registered voters are not the same as likely voters, nor actual past voters. you made a claim that you simply can’t prove and none of the data you’ve provided is, in fact, proof for your claim.
Likely voter models don’t work well enough to look at 1-3% kinds of numbers of voters more than a year out from election day. Sorry.
Using actual voters from 2020 is tough because we had two different third parties there: the Greens who siphoned votes off of Biden, and the Libertarians who siphoned a larger number of votes off of Trump. So you see polls showing the combined effect (slightly beneficial to Biden) but not the separate impact of the Green party candidate.
Absolute proof isn’t something that really exists in the social sciences, which is why you’re never going to find it, the most you find is several decent converging lines of evidence, as we have here.
what makes you think this is a good method for proving your claim that 2-3% of all voters were democrat voters who switched to green in past elections?
You are being so rude. Silence is linking all the data and graphs at you and you’re spitting in their face.
none of the data or graphs are proof that 2-3% of voters have voted green but would have otherwise voted democrat. demanding proof for a claim isn’t rude.
It’s a good way of saying what people are thinking of doing, and that’s exactly what was happening in Michigan a few weeks ago. Given how close the election is likely to be in that state, even a far smaller number of people voting G instead of D will throw the country for Trump.
a small number of people voding r instead of d will give the election to trump, too.
For sure. But of the people who vote for the greens, many more would have chosen to vote for a Democrat instead.
The Green party could:
But they don’t do those things in the US, and instead choose to run candidates where they effectively serve as spoilers