Europe’s Greens ask Jill Stein to pull out of US election to prevent Trump victory
Green politicians from across Europe on Friday called on U.S. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein to withdraw from the race for the White House and endorse Democrat Kamala Harris instead.
“We are clear that Kamala Harris is the only candidate who can block Donald Trump and his anti-democratic, authoritarian policies from the White House,” Green parties from countries including Germany, France, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Ireland, Estonia, Belgium, Spain, Poland and Ukraine said in a statement, which was shared with POLITICO ahead of publication
https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-greens-tell-jill-stein-to-pull-out-of-us-election-to-defeat-trump/Open linkView original on lemmy.blahaj.zone876
Comments367
Haha they must be new to this, Jill Stein isn't running for president, she is running to split the vote like they paid her to.
Of course they know that. They're saying this to make exactly this point. While the average US voter will be entirely unaware of and oblivious to what some pinkos from cheese eating surrender monkey land say, potential green voters just might take notice.
If they haven't already, they won't.
I don’t like that phrase because it was used a lot by the american right when france refused to support them in the Iraq war and by far right figures in the UK during Brexit.
Of course. The way it was used here was to make fun of exactly those people.
If I recall correctly it originally started as something said by Willie in the simpsons but then a lot of people started saying it in real life to insult people based on nationality which is kinda fucked up and was condemned as xenophobic.
How do you do, savage from the colonies?
Fun fact: if jill wasnt on the ballot harris still wouldn't have received my vote. Harris losing votes has nothing to do with jill being there. Harris' struggles are purely her own fault, propaganda from Russia only works if there is a edge to grab, the only reason there is an edge to grab is because harris has decided to treat arab Americans absolutely horribly this entire campaign.
Learn to focus your energy properly: on changing Harris' mind not the voters for whom preventing a genocide is important. Trust me it'll be easier.
Jill has a snowball's chance in hell of winning and if you think voting for her helps the "Arabs" you are wrong. It cancels out your voice because Jill is not a viable candidate. Your vote has been effectively split.
Your choices, like it or not, are Harris or Trump. So let's break this down since you seem to think a vote for Harris is worse than not voting.
Kamala Harris has prioritized a ceasefire in Gaza, advocating for Israel's right to respond to Hamas attacks while emphasizing civilian protection and addressing humanitarian needs. Harris’s approach focuses on a three-part plan for Gaza’s future: reconstruction, enhanced Palestinian Authority security, and governance reforms to stabilize the area post-conflict. Harris, however, does not support an arms embargo on Israel but has backed withholding specific weapons amid Israel’s military operations in Gaza. She views a two-state solution as a path toward long-term stability, but she stresses that immediate efforts should be humanitarian and diplomatic to prevent civilian harm and prepare for a sustainable resolution.
Donald Trump, in contrast, has heavily criticized ceasefire calls as limiting Israel’s ability to eliminate Hamas, framing his support as “unconditional” for Israel’s military objectives. Trump argues that his policies would have prevented the escalation of violence, asserting that Hamas’s attack on Israel would not have occurred if he were in office. While he has expressed skepticism about a two-state solution, Trump is more focused on empowering Israel to pursue military action without restriction. Trump has also suggested that his approach would involve exerting pressure on Israeli leadership if necessary to secure what he describes as a “final resolution” to the conflict, though specifics remain vague. Trump's campaign has used pro-Israel rhetoric to appeal to voters and has signaled a hardline stance against Hamas.
So, I am sure your voting for the lady who can't win as opposed to the lady who can win will help the "Arabs" you seem to care so much about. Good on you for picking a hill to die on though, I hope you like it because you and your people are about to die on it.
Try not to tell me what my choices for president are, my ballot clearly listed them.
Now fun fact: my state is 30+ dem. I can vote for whoever I chose at 0 risk of trump getting those electoral votes. And I happily exercised that this election rather than vote for a candidate with is hostile to not only labor, but apparently is quite happy enabling a genocide.
Now if I was in a different state would I behave differently? absolutely. but I'm not, many people are in the same position as i am. harris lost my vote and I had 0 compelling reasons to give her a hand based on her words and deeds. She was a bad candidate in 2020, and shes a bad candidate today. try to focus on the issues that actually matter. my critters know why I handed jill the ticket.
If you want harris to win instead of trying to wow me with your inane rambling about my voting options spend your effort on getting harris to see reason before she blows it in 3 days.
Bless your heart, you have a good day now.
next time try not to be an asshole to people pushing for good changes and respect people have different options than you. but given your response, thats probably impossible for an asshole like yourself. bless your heart.
Lol, you can't counter bless your heart with bless your heart that's not how it works.
Just because I told you you were wrong does not make me an asshole or disrespectful of your opinion. Jill Stien is a vote splitter, that's the original point. No 3rd party candidate has any chance of winning in any state and a vote for one splits the vote. Your condescending response and personal attacks don't change that.
Look, I am just happy you are voting and if you hadn't been condescending I would have talked more with you about it. I wish I lived in a state where I could throw my vote away in a form of futile protest but I dont, and there is a lot we could continue to argue about that point, but you decided to call my thought-out rebuttal "inane rambling" and then prove my point by stating that if you didn't live in a solidly blue state you would feel differently. So instead of engaging further, I gave you a bless your heart and walked away.
I am bored though so here I am engaged in the most noble of futile endeavors arguing with stupid on the internet...Fun fact, that's me being an asshole.
😂 bless your heart.
Who would have recieved your vote, if only Trump and Harris were on the ballot?
Oh! Oh I've seen this one in another thread!
"I wouldn't vote for either of them."
That's not an option in this exercise, you have to pick one or the other.
"I don't see why I'd have to choose. I pick neither."
Again, that wasn't the question. Harris or Trump are the only acceptable answers. If you have to choose one, which would it be?
That's how the exchange generally went. It shone a really nice spotlight on the ridiculous mindset at play.
I'm waiting for jatone to chime in. Humans aren't good at logic problems, especially real world ones where they don't have to follow instructions. Ever try giving a logic puzzle to a 6 year old and they answer "well I wouldn't do either of those things I'd buy an airplane and use a laser gun and then....."
That's what this stuff is. While I understand the desperate need to reform the system, you don't do that by throwing the game. I know how unlikely it is to change their minds (and they already voted) but others reading this who aren't as bull-headed might take half a second to re-evaluate the actual outcomes available from the actions to be taken. That's the hope anyways.
Good on you for remaining hopeful! In cases like this, though, the ignorance is willful. They know how absurd they're acting. Once the conversation goes past the point of their ability to just be obstinate, they abruptly cease responding.
And that lack of response will be another data point for anyone reading this in the future.
We all know who they'd vote for
Hey look! you were right! I would choose neither. false dichotomy are not interesting questions. You'll learn nothing from them since you know, they don't represent reality. but in such a situation where only harris and trump were on the table. harris of course. but since that isn't the case, and my vote in no way endangers the country to trump, but does allow me to point my reps and say 'that could be my vote for you next cycle' which I absolutely have done. my 3rd party vote is providing more value for my reps to push back on harris when they need to. particularly in defense of ms khan and gaza.
What do you mean when you say "my vote in no way endangers the country to Trump"?
Exactly what i said. Trumpet isnt even a blip of a possibility in my state. We're talking 0.000001%. its pretty nice here we do good work.
Harris is the greater evil in my voting scenario. Its going to be very unfortunate if she loses this week to trump because the rank and file couldn't be bothered to pressure her over something as little as not genociding but ug here we are.
I mean she has larger issues as a candidate but explaining those is 1000x harder than 'genocide bad mmmmkay?' and even that message is struggling to get through because trumpet has managed to make everyone absolutely insane.
I agree with a lot of what you just said there.
Just not your conclusion.
Does your vote not count in the national "popular vote" for some reason? With a race this ... Whatever this is, don't you think you'd want to give every possible advantage to the person that CAN defeat Trump? Especially somewhere that she is likely to win, aren't you concerned many like-minded people will make the same mistake you are/did?
That's kinda the playbook here. Each of you individually thinks "Harris will win this in my riding, so I'm allowed to be special and vote for a third party so I can feel good about myself!"
It's literally why everyone is asking Jill to fuck off. She won't leach any Trump supporters from him. But she will leach people like you from Harris.
It's just selfish.
You’re either a Russian agent, or a useful idiot. EITHER WAY, your opinion is worthless when it comes to American politics, so kindly skitter back under the rocks from which you came.
And you struggle with understanding how to apply contextual information to a situation and clearly come to the wrong conclusions. Either way Ill gladly be her with my bullhorn making you uncomfortable with the sad truth you're enabling a genocide.
in my state? it would have been left empty. you know thats an option right. you can say 'none of these'.
In that case, your voice is meaningless so you should just shut your mouth and let the adults continue to vote.
smile let me know when the actual adults show up. Because right now all i see are murderous children.
So you would not vote?
Do you understand how ballots work? They have more than one position on them. Yes id pass this election if there were not a single candidate with the moral grounding to not support a genocide.
But there are two even! Makes it pretty easy. Esp since there is 0 risk of my state going trump. If only the rest of the country was as correctly grounded that harris would be the greater evil.
Get it now? Been fucking telling you dunces in every post: in my state harris is literally the greater evil choice because trump isnt even on the map when it comes to viability. Its pretty nice, and you could have it to just by withholding support for candidates who support genocide. Not supporting a genocide is kind of a prior to having empathy which, i hope i dont need to explain why, is a really good quality for a politician to have. And harris doesnt. Withholding support its key to be explicit, does not necessarily mean withholding your vote as i did. It means speaking out, as i am, engaging others. And if its safe for you to do so with holding your vote.
I'm responding to your other, much more coherent response.
You're not saying "none of these", as it will ultimately still be one of them, more accurately you're saying: "I'll take either equally"
Incorrect. Did you ever learn about the monty hall problem? You seem to struggle with applying priors to a situation.
In my state the prior is: trump isnt even a blip of a possibility. We're talking 0.00001% not a blip. Not gonna happen. Harris is literally the greater evil in my state. Go through my history.
Its going to suck in a few days if harris loses because you nits thought that throwing labor, arabs and other minorities under the proverbial bus was a winning strategy.
I don't know about all that, I just enjoy logic. I'm replying to you saying "I'd choose not to vote", that is not the same as saying "none of the above", it's the same as saying "any of the above"
and you'd be wrong. shrug you're essentially saying anyone who doesn't vote doesn't have an preference. which is trivially incorrect. ask felons if they have a preference. ask teenagers.
if the prior is 'harris will win' me not voting for her isn't a statement of 'either' its a statement of 'I don't need to support her shittiness' you don't get to assert what my preferences are certainly.
Jill Stein is funded by Russia. Every multicellular organism knows this by now.
Yup, even my friend Fred the Fungi was just yapping about this, told me to follow the money.
You'd be suprised. My partner is very tuned in to politics and watches Hasan near daily, reads news, talks with me and her friends but casually mentioned she would be voting for Stein instead of Harris. I very quickly pulled up the Putin dinner party pic and a handful of articles explaining the various connections. It all totally flabbergasted her and she decided on Harris despite her, very legitimate, reservations over genocide. Realistically we're in a very blue state that will safely go Harris so it wouldn't matter, but I'm certain other people will still fall into the same trap.
I might be more tempted to believe this if I wasn’t regularly accused of the same thing by every Democrat on Lemmy.
It holds a little more weight when you've been photographed at a formal dinner alongside every single Russian head of state.
But these accusations don’t even make sense.
Why would Putin benefit from having a Russian plant as the presidential candidate of the Green Party? Does he mistakenly think the Green Party has some influence in American politics?
And how could he known his plant would be selected by the party as their presidential candidate? Is he psychic? Is the entire Green Party comprised of Russian plants?
If his goal was for the Greens to be a spoiler for the Dems, surely they’d be just as much of a spoiler no matter who their candidate was. In fact, without Stein, they could probably find a better candidate and be more of a spoiler.
I’m not worried about Stein being a Russian plant because it literally would make no difference to anything.
They aren't intended to win, they're intended to do exactly what they're doing - selecting particular wedge issues to split the Democrat vote and give them a lower total percentage vs Republicans, the other main player. In this case the Green Party was originally set up to champion environmental issues, hence their name, but have also been a convenient shunt for the Israel/Palestine situation and Harris' percieved refusal to budge on such.
Everyone involved knows that a third party has no realistic chance of victory in the US, so setting up a third-party honeypot to gather passionate far-left voters away from the Democrat vote is a potent power move for the Republican party. Every percent point lost by the Democrats is one gained for the Republicans, even if the point doesn't go to them. With margins as thin as they usually are, this is significant. Putin in particular cares about this because Trump is vocally friendly towards him and Democrats and their voters are not.
I can't find proof of this with a cursory web search, but it's suspected that the entire Green Party is primarily funded via Russian interests. If nothing else it is known factually that Jill Stein has attended at least one private dinner with Russian heads of state and has appeared on Russian state media propaganda quite a lot. I doubt the entire party is a Russian op but significant portions of its leadership including candidate Stein are pretty clearly compromised.
Personally I feel that Stein may just be more who they got rather than who they wanted, and this may be where the plan is starting to fall apart. A truly passionate, honest far-left firecracker candidate probably would be an excellent spoiler, and pull many honest far-left votes, but they also wouldn't be susceptible to foreign influence. They're choosing to take the bird in the hand, rather than two in the bush, and Stein is who they've got that they can control.
At the end of the day Putin has a very clear motive to help Trump win his election at all costs and the leadership of the Green Party has been shown to have been in close contact with Moscow. It may not matter materially whether or not she is a Russian plant at this time. But it does matter because it is yet another avenue for hostile foreign interference with our election.
But surely that would happen even if someone else like Cornel West was the Greens leader.
All Putin achieves by (somehow) installing his plant as the Greens presidential candidate is lowering the Greens’ vote share by preventing them from getting the most charismatic and effective candidate.
If Putin really did subvert the Greens’ selection mechanism and install a less popular candidate with limited appeal, the Democrats should be thanking him.
Nothing to believe. The proof is in front of your eyes. Green Party funding is from Russian sources. Jill loves to have dinners with Putin and the oligarchs.
Type fast! Before long you’ll have to ship out to the front lines with you NK allies. Planting sunflowers is harder work than typing nonsense from your desk.
I’m not Russian.
You lie.
Yarp, and still voted for her because harris is that bad and hasnt shifted at on key issues that actually relate to the role of president. Like supporting labor (kahn, no strike busting, etc) and follwing the law with respect to weapon sales/delivery.
Focus your energy on getting harris to move, its a lot easier than getting people like me to move; we actually have moral values, harris doesnt. Though at this point its unlikely there are many hold outs waiting for her. Cast my ballot a week ago. Good luck in your efforts! Im rooting for you 🤷
At least you are not worried about all the extra people in the world that will get hurt by your reactionary stance leading to a trump presidency. If you can't have your way, let the world burn... Gotcha.
In this case you either vote against actual fascism or risk it taking over.
That is literally the rationale for lots of people. I've heard it spoken verbatim, and heck, when I was young and stupid, I said it myself. It'll hasten the collapse and move us more quickly toward a glorious new future!
trump isn't winning my state; can't do much more to help you there mate. I'm sorry harris is running such a shit campaign she's struggling against fucking trump.
but threats need to be backed up by action or they're toothless, just look at how netanyahu has ignored biden.
"My moral values allow me to vote against my best interests and the welfare of anyone who doesn't align with the christofascist right. I have such a difficult time with concepts like "logical thinking" and "cause and effect" that I can rationalize such a terrible decision and even pretend that I'm the solution!"
against my best interest? my best interests are in trump not winning. which is assured in my state. its not necessarily harris winning. so my best interests are in assuring there is enough pressure on harris post election and part of that is making sure my critters know votes will be lost for them in the future for israel.
As predicted, rationalization.
Mmm yes people explaining their reasoning is so horrible. :) its almost like you cant justify shit and only have pithy lesser evil nonsense to justify your support for a shit candidate. 🤷
First step to not having lesser evil candidates: dont support genocides. Wild i know. Maybe you should try it?
Is it hard to type with Putin’s dick in your mouth?
No
no, why would it be his cock is so tiny it doesn't obstruct my view of the screen at all. poor thing.
any proof ? and are we to ignore the dnc has significant funding from aipac to enable them to murder kids with our tax money ?
GEnOcIdE!!! Whatabout!!!
It will ve a nice place when you all leave by tuesday.
Oh wait, maybe you'll be back whining about voter fraud
So edgy
Its not what about to mention harris' policy position on gaza its extremely relevant to Harris' campaign in particular to the nonsense being spouted here.
Only one person had to shift to be less of a shit human and that was harris and this issue would have disappeared immediately. Learn to properly focus your energy. To help you with this process let me give you a breakdown of choices you as an individual had:
Notice how you've decided to pick the harder of literally every single option?
Harris will flip on a dime on gaza if you stop wasting your breath defending her and switch your efforts to criticizing her. No one is asking you to vote for trump. Hell look through my history its always: 'if you're in deep blue voting 3rd party is a okay, if you're purple harris is your best option, but not your only one'
You dont need to be this worked up over harris if she loses to trump its her fault for running a terrible campaign using terrible policy positions. She had an entire year of warning over gaza and she chose to swing right on her policies, alienating a large swath of her base.
This is such a backward comment I don't know where to start. Tortured logic, the fact that voting 3rd party doesn't send the specific message you're looking to send, or perhaps that it's all Harris' fault that she lost while ignoring everything about outside election interference including Stein's ties to Russia and conservatives all in one post. Bonus points for projecting that a large death of her base cares solely about Gaza and would be willing to suffer fascism instead.
Can't wait until these astroturfing accounts are retired after the election.
Never said it sent a specific message. It sends one message: you didnt get this vote. I sent the specific message weeks ago, daily for 3 weeks to harris, and my local critters. This post is to counteract the nonsense spread about voting for the lesser evil and to give people an option to opt out of supporting harris without endangering a trump win.
The message here for you is: jill stein doesn't matter. Learn to focus your efforts productively. Its easier to influence one person (harris) than it is a million (people like me).
Please reread my post in particular the 3 decisions your making atm and realize how absolutely useless your efforts will be here. Atm all you're doing is broadcasting to everyone your okay supporting a genocidal candidate.
Again if Harris loses thats her fault. Not mine, not yours. She chose how her campaign is run, what messages are delivered, etc.
Also please watch this interview. Thinking these accounts are all astroturfing is going to hurt you more than me if harris loses. My state already has legal protections for all the things people are trying to use to defend Harris' monstrous policy positions. They're not effective arguments to vote for harris in my deep blue state.
"Take a look at this video, which should convince all of you that trying to convince individuals is a failing effort."
Do you even read what you post?
The way these people salivate over Trump hurting people who vote for Stein, I think they're all bloodthirsty enough to want genocide. But keeping fighting the good fight. Just know that if Harris wins, we'll keep having to pressure her after the election just as if she was Trump, and probably without the help of the rest of these liberals as they go back to brunch and wanting to ignore politics.
EDIT: I'm not voting for Stein myself but I see why people are, and I think their existence is overall good, because it keeps you all and the people in power from getting too comfortable with the fact that we're doing a genocide.
Just know if Trump wins, you very well might not get that option.
Oh I'm 100% aware I'll have to keep pressuring her after the election. its annoying as fuck doing the leg work for these dweebs.
https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-greens-tell-jill-stein-to-pull-out-of-us-election-to-defeat-trump/
They looked in the mirror and Kamala bribed by AIPAC. Then they project that onto others.
Good. I was apart of the Green Party, I left when I learned they were planning of running a candidate this year, when internally, we were floating around the idea of NOT running a candidate.
That's interesting insider info. Was the reason for not fielding a candidate because of this particular issue (splitting the vote)?
Can’t say exactly, it was just floated around, I’m guessing it was for that specific reason, but that was around the time I was thinking of leaving for other reasons, they are VERY unorganized as a party and it really, really bothered me. The way smaller Transhumanist Party seems more organized than the Green Party.
Probably because running a presidential candidate is a waste of money unless your intent is to split the vote.
Start local, gain influence, work your way up.
Edit - to those downvoting, the Green Party literally has zero representation, even at the State level. And you want to jump straight to POTUS. Riiight.
Get one state senate seat. Get one House of Representatives seat. Get some kind of representation. Then you have a bargaining chip.
The threat of splitting the vote is a good reason to run, if you feel like your position isn't being taken seriously enough AND that it's important enough that everything else is worth losing.
The problem is that the majority of the Democrats are on board with green initiatives. The only holdup on the $10T program before was Manchin. She has now pivoted RCV, or more specifically destroying the duopoly because they are the enemy for "reasons".
Also, she's said that she wouldn't pull out even if the Dems gave her what she wanted. So it doesn't really work as a threat either.
Eh, threatening to split the vote might in theory get some campaign promises, but such promises are likely to evaporate when things get down to it.
Meanwhile if you actually hold a persistent presence in the house or senate, particularly when it's close, you got ongoing leverage. Hell, folks like AOC, MTG, Boebert have an absurd amount of national influence for being elected by merely a singular district.
IDK if I really want to know but I can imagine a mid-to-far-left party like the greens would have a lot of disparity in the views of members.
Why would ylu believe a rando on a forum post re: insider info?
Why would you assume I just believe them outright? I just said it was interesting and asked a follow up question to get more info.
Fair enough, cary on warning remains for others. :)
Isn't it too late for it to matter? At this point, she's on the ballots that she's on, isn't she?
Especially for states like Oregon that are primarily vote by mail. I already have my ballot, and Stein withdrawing won't keep people from voting for her
Yes, her name is already on the ballots, like RFK Jr is still on the ballots in many states, but the hope is her supporters will listen to her endorsement. Just because a person's name is on the ballot doesn't force people to vote for that person. Some people have voted already, some will continue to vote for her out of protest, some will continue to vote for her because they didn't hear she dropped out or didn't care. But the hope is enough people will hear that she dropped out and endorsed Harris that their votes will come through for Harris.
When I went to vote last week and saw RFK Jr.'s name was still on the Indiana ballot, I burst out laughing.
What a shit show, honestly.
You're assuming we voted for jill because shes jill. Which is not the case for everyone. She got my vote because of Harris' absolutely abysmal treatment of arabs and gaza, her lack of pro labor policies, etc etc etc.
Jill dropping out would just meant the vote went to a different non-trump candidate or left blank.
The only way harris would have gotten my vote was if she modified her position on gaza, or another key issues like ensuring kahn was kept.
She declined to do so, so i declined to vote for her. 🤷 But harris will be fine my state is 20+ dem.
That'll teach her! Way to go - you really stuck it to that horrible excuse of a candidate.
It's not like she had better labor policies (or practices) than that other guy (or did she?)
It's not like that other guy was (allegedly) working with an (alleged) war criminal to rebuff US efforts to make a ceasefire deal (or was he?)
And finally, it's not like AIPAC can literally thumbs up or down damn near any politician in the US like Julius H. Fucking, Ceasar and an almost universal bloc of voters will carry out their direction. Oh, wait, they will.
The thing that pisses me off is that yeah, maybe she's fine in Cali or Hawaii or wherever. But there's gonna be a fuck of a lot more death and misery in the world if fascists get control of the United States in the form of Donald Trump, and in those few states that matter (because of the fucked up electoral college) that attitude , which I perceive as smug self-righteousness, could be the deciding factor.
That simple worldview, unburdened with the whole idea of "you can't make change if you're not elected" must really be comfortable.
But you sure showed Harris.
I'd love to expound on this thought, but I have a fussy infant daughter that needs attending. BTW, it would be really cool if she FUCKING DIDN'T have to grow up in some goddamned Handmaid's Tale dystopia.
So you're ditching one fussy infant for another?
I agree it would be great if your daughter didnt grow up in such a dystopia. So tell me have you been emailing your critters to let them know to reverse course on gaza? Worker rights, (ala khan, health care etc?). Did you vote for harris in the prinary (rhetorical question obv)?
Gaza is such a low bar, 'dont send weapons to a country genociding' we even have laws already on the books for this. Harris wants to claim herself as law and order she can follow the fucking law.
Now as i said i live in 20+ state. My vote is literally wasted on harris. The best outcome we can get w/ harris is an absolute squeeker of a win. If she loses she has no one to blame but herself shes been getting told for months to reverse course on gaza. Biden has been getting told for a year. Their refusal is whats caused this.
Now ask yourself: would you vote for harris if she reversed course in gaza? If the answer is yes, then why havent you joined us in pressuring her? All it takes is a lie to pollsters, calls to your critters, and a willingness to reduce her win ratio in deep blue states. dont worry we're not asking you to vote 3rd party in red/purple states. Vote harris in those places if you can, if you can't no judgement its not your fault harris ran on these policies.
Whats more important is that we get every possible vote out down ballot. harris is secondary concern. What matters more is the house/senate. A harris win is essentially useless if we cant pass legislation. While a harris loss control of those chambers will be incredibly critical.
You want roe v wade codified, focus on local reps and congress critters, ballot measures. You'll have more success.
I completely agree with your last two paragraphs. Regarding the rest, the other person that replied stated my thoughts in much more eloquent terms than I'm able at present.
Edit: regarding the electoral and electorate math: I noticed you didn't touch the "Trump working the Netenyahu to block a ceasefire" (which would obliviate the need for bombs), "you can't govern if you can't win", and "AIPAC" topics, but also seem to think that all of this is Harris' fault or she has control of this.
correct. Harris will win my state regardless of my vote, hence its perfectly fine to vote with my distaste for her policies on labor and genocide. harris' problems lie in other states.
As for trump and a ceasefire. I didn't think I needed to; Unless harris literally does that one thing she has so far committed to not doing, enforcing US law on weapon shipments to countries committing war crimes, Netenyahu will continue to do what hes currently doing make any ceasefire agreement DOA making the two admins immaterially different in terms of outcomes.
Yeah so the message so far has been carte Blanche vote third party. None of the nuance you're displaying here is evident in 99% of these 3rd party posts. They're all "genocide BAD, vote 3rd party or you're COMPLICIT!" so the message here isnt what you're saying.
Secondly, applying your logic regarding wasted effort because your state is solid blue, telling others to write their congresspeople on the issue is equally useless. Throwing the onus on them is shortsighted. The, "what have YOU done" argument doesn't really hold water with anyone, particularly when many people reside in a solid red or blue state
Finally, voting 3rd party sends "a" message after the election, not during, and no candidate ever looks back at the election results to ask Greenies why they didn't vote for them. They do canvassing before and during, and quite frankly they have to walk a tightrope between courting lefties and every other single-issue voter. Imagine you're running and you have Greenies yelling about genocide, women's rights yelling about bodily autonomy, and LGBTQ folks yelling about equality and all three don't give a flying fuck about the others. What would you do? Exactly what Harris is doing - courting the biggest blocs of voters.
I'm not gonna touch on the general laziness of my compatriots, but when I went to early vote at my precinct there were a lot of people voting straight ticket, so I don't think most people will dig through ballots to send that message. Frankly, Trump in power means nothing for down ballot votes because he still installs a fascist regime.
sounds like you think voting is a wasted effort in general. 🤷
Genocide is bad, and we are complicit when we vote for harris currently. but thats because people are happy to vote for her mindlessly. not because the people trying to get her to shift are wrong.
Oh I've been pestering my reps all year on gaza. and I continued to do so up through casting my ballot mid month in october. I'm just also able to happily follow through given the electoral makeup of my state.
Well first off I'd recognize that most people are very happy not to support a genocide. and that maybe an administration with historically low approval isn't a good model for success. zionists are not the majority of jews. many are perfectly happy if we withheld aid to israel based on our laws. if I was running Id happily point out israel is in violation of american laws and as soon as they begin complying and stop murdering innocents they'll get their weapons back. So what we have here is a minority group (arabs) vs a minority of another minority group (zionists). in most states the loss of zionists wouldn't tick the needle materially.
LGBTQ+ are well justified and I'd support them; just as I'd support anyone seeking personal freedoms protections that dont infringe on others rights.
Women are more than welcome to raise the banner over bodily autonomy as well they should. the government should have not be involved in decisions made between medical professionals and patients.
I certainly wouldn't tell citizens to sit down I'm speaking, remove them from my rallies for no reason. I'd simply recognize the fact they're there for a reason and make time for them as part of the schedule as long as they're not too disruptive the rest of the evening.
You see, its fairly easy to differentiate oneself from harris' behavior. I certainly would have given arab americans a voice at the DNC for example. they asked for one slot for christ sake. would have been a lot harder to nail harris to the wall if she wasn't acting like a radical zionist on gaza.
it'd certainly be a problem, think maybe you can get harris to recognize her follies before its too late?
She won't.
Of course she won’t. She is Putin’s puppet.
I never get tired of showing this photo.
It is ten years old so you are not exaggerating.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/06/jill-stein-says-nothing-happened-at-her-dinner-with-putin/ https://www.newsweek.com/jill-stein-ties-vladimir-putin-explained-1842620 I'll never get tired of posting this in response.
You get that nothing had to happen at the dinner, right? That's not how networking works.
Okay, then prove that something happened. I'm not the one implying she's some sort of Russian asset with 0 evidence beyond a photo. That's you.
I don't have to prove anything happened. She was put at a dinner table with Putin in Moscow. Something that only happens if Putin finds you useful. He doesn't sit at random tables and strike up conversations with whoever he finds.
You put the rest together.
Your evidence for Jill Stein being bribed by Putin in her sitting next to a German ambassador at a table, and Putin sitting down in a seat at the other side of the table?
The Democrat misinformation campaign is in full swing here.
You made the assertion, so the onus is on you to prove it.
F to doubt what she says
You don't get put at a dinner table in Moscow with Putin unless Putin has a good reason for wanting you there.
He doesn't just sit down with random people and hope they have a good time.
Shit, and all this time I thought he just had a passion for entertaining!
That's basically what this person seems to be suggesting. Like she just happened to be sitting there and Putin and all of his closest people were like, "let's go see who this lady is and what she's up to!"
Well, sure. I'm not saying that Russians didn't have a nefarious reason to invite her there. It's entirely possible and maybe even likely that they did it because they saw a third party candidate as a useful tool to sow some sort of election discord in the US. But that claim would be entirely different than the claim that Jill Stein did it because she's an asset or that this was her idea or purpose for being there. I'm disputing the latter, not the former, because her attending a gala for RT is not evidence of collusion and this was the implication being made. I can find all sorts of pictures online of Hillary Clinton and other politicians having dinners with Trump or Putin, but that doesn't mean the photos are evidence that they were in collusion with either of them.
I like how you are completely overlooking the fact that I never made any actual claim about her being a Russian asset.
You kept bringing up the asset thing.
This is what I wrote:
The asset part was a complete invention of yours.
Of course she says nothing happened. It's like a child getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar covered in crumbs, and they will insist they did nothing wrong. Never expect someone to be honest when it's against their interests.
meanwhile in the same universe. the cheney are as big of criminals as putin.
doesn’t bill clinton has photos with Epstein ? its not like she is hugging him like biden hugging netanyahu. maybe he was there to poison her ?
anyway people voting for her including me will write aoc rather than voting harris if there was no third option allowed. enough is enough.
Oh boy, you'll really be sticking it to The Man with that. You're truly an important visionary, and everyone is totally taking you seriously.
What's fun is that it's literally impossible to write in AOC in Indiana because you have to declare yourself a write-in candidate here and she didn't.
I had four options- Harris, Trump, RFK Jr. or the Libertarian.
And I keep asking people like this who I should have voted for and who other Hoosiers have voted for. The closest answer I've gotten from any of them was a sudden heel-turn to "vote for who you like, it doesn't matter."
Trump thanks you for your vote.
Hang on, let me just dig up their rap sheet on war crimes.... oh, wait
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/remembering-why-americans-loathe-dick-cheney/244306/
Dick Cheney isn't running for president.
Whose talking about any of those people?
I forgot to ask you!
These are the four options in Indiana. No write-ins because you have to declare yourself a write-in and no one did. Who should Hoosiers vote for?
vote for the candidate that best fulfills your expectations as a president. i am against voting just for the lesser evil. there has to be a minimum requirement for whats acceptable else we are begging this corrupt system to shit on us as much as they want. here most of us are struggling to make ends meet and they are giving billions to murder poor people in other countries. and don’t stop there. boycott all brands involved in lobbying or supporting genocide, boycott any candidates taking superpac funding. boycott msm peddling bullshit while ignoring the real issues.
Unfortunately, USA doesn't have ranked choice voting. So voting for someone who doesn't have a chance of winning is basically the same as throwing away your vote.
Months and months of "don't vote for Biden" and then "don't vote for Harris" and then suddenly when the people like you who have been saying that are presented with the harsh reality that choices really are limited, are saying "vote for who you want."
Amazing.
what part of it you don’t get ?
harsh reality of what ? that we have to vote just blue unconditionally ? cool live in this delusion, but those fed up with dnc impostering are only going to become more determined with this current toxic campaign. the only thing other than “trump this stein that” we get from them is launching video games or snl shithousery.
so again vote for the candidate that worthy of presidency else we are only lowering the bar each election and soon will have someone worse than trump forced on us by dnc.
Of course .ml is gonna say this shit.
Want to upvote your comment, but you're at 69.... Dilemma
It's only a dilemma if you're 12.
European Greens must be dumb as fuck then, because the US Green party exists to:
Get
Republicans
Elected
Every
November
and republicans exist the dnc can put a boogeyman every election so we will have to vote for these corrupt scammers. our political system is so broken that we either get lobbyists controlled genocidal hacks or a dumb racist genocider.
its like asking to eat either dogpoop or vomited dogpoop
Two sides of the same coin am I right!? Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.
I grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh and other hate radio. There is no liberal comparison.
They regularly called for the death of liberals amongst other horrible shit. The toxicity comparison is ridiculous when the other side is liberals saying they wish conservative voters were not misled.
I get you don't like the government. I don't either, but this is not a god damned game of good cop bad cop.
they are the same vocal minority as those on dnc side who have said if trumps wins then they want all muslims who didn’t vote for harris to be deported to gaza.
they two parties may not be the same but they are both bad and corrupt enough that we need to start voting them out. after 2016 primaries i have no confidence in dnc to not rig the primaries against an actual liberal candidate again.
there are easy things harris can still do to improve her chances but she is not even moral enough to disapprove genocide, progressive enough to disapprove fracking. she has failed upwards in the corrupt dnc as a token minority whose career has been of a smug prosecutor who has only looked down on minorities.
but hey why not just run a propaganda campaign against jill stein who has been pro-climate since 1998.
Trump fomented anti-muslim sentiment and literally passed a travel ban against Muslim countries.
The RNC completely rolled over for Trump in ways far worse than the DNC snubbing Berny.
Harris is not pro-genocide no matter how many times you say it. You make it out like decades of gloves on diplomacy with Israel is suddenly her fault.
Trump is open to letting Israel do whatever it wants and while in office stroked tensions between Israel and Palestine several times.
To blow off the fact that she would be the first woman president and to trivialize her to a token representative speaks a lot about your mindset.
If Jill Stein endorses Harris knowing she is the only remotely pro-climate candidate that could win then perhaps she isn't the piece of shit everyone says she is. I won't hold my breath waiting.
One side is climate change denialists and the other isn't. Two sides of the same coin right?
Dude you're arguing with a horse
What an unwarranted insult to the noble equine!
This Shadowfax is a cheap, flawed imitation. A dollar store replica. A sad, sad doppelganger.
Temu Shadowfax.
Because politicians can’t just put somone in jail. The judiciary is an independent branch.
Also you seem to be a 29 minute old account who has like 15 comments on a single issue and nothing else. Which is always sketchy.
The entite purpose of your account seems to be “Harris bad”
You're talking to antiyanks, a troll that has been banned on over 30 accounts on this community. Don't waste your time with anyone with "yanks" in their user, as it's just them.
let me detail out the “tokens” here. do know that i am of indian origin as well.
and then there is her advocating for border wall and getting tough on immigration so basically adopting trump policy from 2016.
so yes she is a token candidate from establishment.
i am not even going to address other points as i am not voting or supporting gop. if a vp and presidential nominee don’t not even have power of condemning mass killing of children with our money then what’s the point of voting for them. choosing lesser evils never works it only brings more evil as we saw in 2020.
then there are stunts like this which confirms to me that she is just a lobbyists placeholder.
You're what's called a 'single issue
cuntvoter' and frankly it's stupidAre you voting for the only other viable candidate?
No?
Then you're supporting the GOP.
Remember when abortion was legal?
Still is federally
That's news to a lot of women's corpses in Alabama, Georgia, and Texas
I don't think it is?
Sounds like a alabama, Georgia, texas issue. Easily handled by the people in those states. Just like it has been in every other state. Harris isnt even the solution for abortion nationally, she even admitted this; she wouldn't do anything differently than biden. Congressional dems are.
Learn to properly focus your energy.
Except, I'm reasonably happy with what Biden's done in his term. Especially when one considers what a second Trump term would be.
agreed, its too bad harris is fumbling the ball on such minor issues too, like labor rights and genocide. 🤷 no one to blame but herself.
You sound like someone who would have questioned the need for ending segregation because it "Sounds like a [Spanish Word For Black] problem to me!"
mmmmmm; probably would have been shot in the war fighting against it more honestly. let me know when harris can single handedly pass abortion rights on her own that the discussion can go somewhere. as I said the fastest route to protecting access is via state legislatures. hence why what 8 states have it on the ballot this year? would I prefer it federally? sure. sadly for you all my reps already support such a position and I doubt trump would block it if the bill passed. but since such a bill won't pass congress shrug.
Its not a compelling reason by itself to vote for harris; since you know... she can't single handedly make it happen.
"why don't those people just immediately and magically fix their problems?" -this guy
I swear, some people should not be allowed to reproduce. Understand nothing, but the first to speak up and argue.
All I said was that at the federal level abortion still is legal(which it is), and you just went on a tirade against me...
lol, says the person ignoring the literal mountains of evidence saying an abortion ballot measure will pass literally in any state. it literally passed in kansas. Now if you want such a bill elect congress critters that will pass it. harris is immaterial until that happens. for some reason I doubt trump would veto such a bill; not because he said it but because he doesn't generally care about shit unless it impacts him personally. But given congress has avoided passing such a bill in the past color me doubtful it will now. what else will they run on if not abortion and not trump? looks at harris' policies
frankly if abortion is your defining reason to vote for harris well shrug that makes you a single issue voter and I thought they were bad? but maybe I'm fairly indifferent since my state already has enshrined abortions as law and I can't solve all the worlds issues. especially the ones that are easily resolved at the ballot box.
so again, trump is an abomination, and learn to focus your efforts. harris isn't some magic solution to americas problems. I'll be over here getting ranked choice in my state.
No its neutral federally which is to say it is neither legal or illegal.
Anything that is not illegal is legal. Federally abortion is not illegal.
This is how unaware and/or uneducated some people are. It's been over two years since federal protection was removed.
And people like this are voting. Given licenses to drive. Reproducing. Totally oblivious.
What? It is federally legal, it is just some states have bans. Contrast that with something like weed where its federally illegal but some states say they won't prosecute.
this excuse again ? talk to some women in real life ? they don’t want this cause insulted by even comparing it to butchering of all the women and children by our money ? what choice they had on getting aborted by idf ?
did she got a choice ?
or them https://truthout.org/articles/idf-shot-at-pregnant-civilian-outside-gaza-hospital-under-siege-staffer-says/ ?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israeli-t-shirts-joke-about-killing-arabs/
Checks watch: phew, only 4 days left before the "gEnOcIdErS" leave forever.
RemindMe! 4 days "Has Lemmy stopped talking about the genocide?"
Not forever, they go off to join the 'immigrant ms13 caravans!!!!!' people, we'll see then again in time for midterms.
Make another named "gramar"
Think you need to lay off the crack.
Pff, eleven year olds doing crack nowadays.. what is the world turning into.
Block button: a thing that exists.
Goodbye.
Blocking them won't work. They'll be back on a new account within the day as soon as this one gets banned. They're approaching 35 accounts now.
Maybe if your candidate were more popular than a rapist felon you wouldn't need to worry about the Greens.
Maybe if we had an election system that wasn't broken we wouldn't need to worry about the Greens.
Maybe if the electoral system hadn't been specifically designed to give extra votes to slave states from the beginning this wouldn't be a problem.
That would be against the entire purpose of her campaign.
Havent they pretty much admitted that shes running cause republicans have paid for her campaign, to try and split votes from democrats?
Sheesh, you're a bit late, folks. Besides, Stein is in the race specifically for the purpose of helping Trump win, so she wouldn't listen to them anyway.
Response from Jill: Can you outbid Putin?
Stein should shove off to fucking Moscow.
"Why do you think I'm running? Isn't this like telling me not to drink water to prevent hydration?" - Jill Stein probably
Too late. Ballots printed.
European Greens have always hated the US party. This may seem like politically aligned people asking a fellow traveler to stop but it's not.
Too bad she's a ruzzian shill and supports the whole of Europe being nuked by the orcs
Why can't a Democrat with a lot of money ask her what it would cost
Cuz Putin can outbid all democratic politicians put together
This notion is probably the must infuriating thing. A foreign head of state can use cash to influence our election overtly with no criminal charge for those involved.
Thank you Republicans and Clarence Thomas specifically.
It's so messed up.
Third party candidates. The real threat to america. /s
Will she get any votes? Tune in next time on Election Ball Z!
No joke, I know two people voting for her because they believe it demonstrates people want a third choice. Sigh.
So they're delusional idiots.
If they live in swing states they are.
Ideally third party candidates could get concessions from either Republicans or democrats in exchange for an endorsement. Kennedy got some completely insane concessions from trump for example.
But Stein hasn't been reported to have asked the dems for anything. Which means the green party is trying to get trump elected. My guess is that Stein got concessions from trump to stay in the race.
harris can get a big push just by saying civilians casualties in gaza are way too many and israel need to do better. this has been a non-negotiable for grreen party so its her fault that they don’t want to endorse.
and they are very much right. current dnc is more pathetic that any republican govt before. they could have won it by landslide by having aoc or even just putting even symbolic sanctions on israel. but they don’t to set a precedent that people’s opinion can be taken into account. instead they continue spitting on us forcing lobbyists controlled genocider to spit on their voters. not everyone is going to fall for this trick third time in a row.
🇷🇺
Jill Stein
🇷🇺
a post I made earlier:
If Harris loses California, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, Hawaii, Vermont, DC, or Maine-1 because of vote-splitting by Stein, it will be Harris’s fault. If you’re voting in these states, you might as well vote your heart.
https://lemmy.world/post/21147692
The Green party isn't a party worth anyone's heart. It's all a big grift funded by conservatives that only puts any effort into the scammy presidential run. I don't want more of that, I want progressives that challenge moderate Democrats in safe seats to give people a real option to move left.
I'm in Hawaii, and we're solid blue but last election the Greens had a whole of 2 candidates across the entire state. Some random party I'd never heard of had more candidates on the ballot. My state rep won with something like 2000 votes, no Green challenger in sight. If the Greens were a real party they'd jump on that opportunity. A little sweat and door knocking can pull off 2000 votes. Hell, we have Ed fucking Case in Congress. I'd kill to vote against him, but my only other option is a MAGA conspiracy theorist.
The GPUSA isn't a real party.
wp:2020 United States presidential election in Hawaii#Results
wp:Howie Hawkins
wp:2024 United States presidential election in Hawaii#Results
Apparently RFK, Jr isn't on the Hawaiian ballot, though your state has write-ins.
slim pickings here:
wp:2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Hawaii
however,
wp:2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Hawaii#Results 2
Aloha ʻĀina
Jonathan Hoomanawanui
6453 votes
2.37%
wp:Aloha ʻĀina Party
Why on earth would you feel compelled to educate me about my local politics by pulling up some wiki pages and then refusing to even format your message? And why the fuck would anything in this post indicate RFK might be someone to vote for? The theoretical appeal of the Greens is progressivism, not the unfortunate antivax shit that's glommed onto it.
And Aloha Aina is the local party I had never heard of before seeing them on the ballot, which may sound good to you because you know nothing about Hawaii, but is something in the vague realm between nutjob sovereign citizen types and conservatives that can't bear to be Republicans due to history.
(my bold)
and,
TIL
I don't know, but it might be saying something about ballot acess laws in Hawaiʻi.
fair enough.
according to WP:
Dude, I live here. I looked them up when I saw them and read the same dumb statements you're copypasting from Wikipedia. Which, surprise surprise, is not the whole fucking story. You don't live here and don't know anything about the politics here, so stop relaying useless wiki text.
The fuck...?
See this is your issue assuming we give a shit about jill or the green party. 😂
We dont. it was just a convenient box to tick because harris' campaign tried to remove her from the ballot, and fed their bullhorns the line about splitting the ticket. The vote would still have been cast for a different third party candidate unless Harris' position was corrected. It wasnt so the box gets ticked away.
Learn to properly focus your political energy: its much easier to get harris to flip than getting a million voters who have morals to flip.
So unless you want what is happening in gaza: learn to lie to your politicians.
Are you saying that if Stein dropped out, her supporters would have voted for De la Cruz?
possibly. cruz is a little bit too nutty. might have also left the presidential ticket empty. I probably would have gone the latter route. jill was just amusing due to the harris campaign trying to get her rejected from ballots.
Learn to read:
You don't counter this with "we don't really care about the Green party". Go repeat your argument somewhere that makes sense. I don't care about the 5D chess you think you're playing.
I'm sorry you made an assumption about what jill stein represents to people like me who checked that box knowing full well who she is, what she represents and that it made your entire argument fall flat. 🤷
Its not my fault you don't get why harris is a shit candidate. we've been warning you for months now. thats why harris is struggling. not because of anything jill has done. I certainly didn't make the democrats try to ban jill from ballots. now she just represents a convenient protest vote. if harris loses in the next 5ish days after the ballots finish being counted, well it certainly will be unfortunate. I'm 🤞 she doesn't but we tried to get her to change her policies before it was too late.
I think Europe's Greens can calm down at this point. Trump is doing enough to prevent his own victory. I'm looking forward to Tuesday night, and the ensuing impotent shenanigans the Trumpublicans are going to entertain us with as they piss all over themselves.
Hes actually still projected to win by a lot of stats. For example, the FiveThirtyEight simulated election outcomes LINK and also the 270towin polling map no-tossup LINK
So I guess prep for the dissolution of NATO and the final world war culminating with the end of mankind.
Or just wait until the election is over, because fretting about these fearful scenarios won't change anything.
Or, that person can do whatever they want, what do you care if they want to fret and express their concerns? You aren't the wise sage of the internet you think you are.
Wow. If that's your response to every idea you don't agree with you must be a busy little beaver.
Why does she need to do this before the election? They can just form a coalition after the election if Kamala doesn't win
That’s not how the US electoral system works.
This is to elect the President. In a presidential system, as in the US, you choose the leader of the executive portion of government separately from the legislative leader. In a parliamentary system, as many countries in Europe use, the public doesn't choose the leader of the executive portion of government. Instead, they just vote for representatives in the legislative portion, and then those legislators form a coalition (if necessary) and choose a leader of the executive (the prime minister). The closest analog to coalition forming in the presidential election is doing exactly what the Greens are proposing above -- having a candidate drop out and endorse another, with the hopes that they can sway their supporters. It's basically what JFK Jr did, for example, with Trump.
While hypothetically the US could form legislative coalitions, in practice, due to the way the US electoral system works, US parties are essentially equivalent to electoral coalitions in parliamentary systems already -- we already form "big tent" parties necessary to control a house. In the US, the closest analog to this sort of thing actually happening after the elections is when you hear about something like "an independent legislator who caucuses with the Democrats". The US also has weak party discipline compared to many countries in Europe, so legislators are much less constrained to vote along party lines anyway.
Different systems, function kinda differently.
But I keep hearing how the American system isn't democratic since you don't directly vote for the president, you vote for some middle person who promises to vote for your president? Those people might not be members of the parliment but they can still form coalitions after the fact by voting for who has a chance to win
If Stein is fantastically successful, beyond her wildest dreams, and got 15% of the vote she will win zero electors (the intermediaries that then make the official vote for president). They're awarded winner take all for each state, and there's no conceivable way she reaches a plurality anywhere. But if she takes those 15% disproportionately from people who would have otherwise voted for Harris, she could very much make it so Trump wins a plurality and gets all the electors for a state. The structure of the first-past-the-post system always devolves into two parties being viable, and any third parties can only practically influence the outcome in the votes they take away.
Some states are proportional for pres. (Maine Nebraska)
They aren't proportional. They're winner take all but at the district level as opposed to the state level.
That's not a bad point. We consider what Maine and Nebraska have implemented as proportional, but it isn't truly. It's a better system than WTA, but it still essentially nullifies a significant number of votes.
districts tend to be proportional but whatever, at that distinction its immaterial to the discussion.
No they don't. Just having smaller units you take-all in doesn't make something proportional. Proportionality means that minority vote totals result in a proportional number of seats, but getting 25% everywhere still gets you zero seats. Jill Stein, in her maximum success, will not win a single district.
Well, okay, so, the US does have the electoral college, and strictly-speaking, you're choosing electors that choose the President, but the election is and has for a long time functionally been a direct one. That is, you know the person that you are voting for in voting for the elector. Some states don't even constitutionally let electors vote for anyone other than the person they have pledged to vote for, and in any case, the electors are chosen by the parties, who have no incentive to choose someone likely to vote for anyone other than the candidate that they've pledged to vote for, so it's not really an aspect of the electoral system in the normal case. While false electors exist, normally as a protest vote if they know that their candidate can't win, they're rare and have never altered the outcome of an election.
This came up this year in some discussion in the context of what happens if a President drops out after being placed on the ballot but prior to becoming President, which I assume is what you're thinking about, so that the electors cannot vote for the person on the ballot, and in that situation, yeah, they'd have to find some kind of fallback.
But that's a pretty limited corner case. That is, they don't just have a blank check to go out and build coalitions and select someone.
The US doesn't really do coalitions. In Congress we kind of do, but since the presidency is elected by the citizens, not like a prime minister being elected out of the legislature, they only have their own party membership.
Ie. All elections are for single member districts using a first past the post system, which means only one person can win and any vote for someone who isn’t in the top two is pretty much a waste.
It’s a shitty system.
Parliamentary systems basically do the same thing as presidential systems, just in a different way.
There are only two really viable parties, and other parties can only really influence things via the spoiler effect in the US.
Yes. However, there are also very few actually viable party coalitions in most parliamentary systems. Like, the far-left party probably isn't going to enter into coalition with the far-right party. And neither has anywhere near enough support to actually determine the executive. Any coalition they enter into is going to mandate a lot of compromises from what their particular party program -- what we in the US typically call a "party platform" is. So...they aren't really an option for running the executive, even if they show up on the ballot.
In a parliamentary system, the parties make their promises to the public. Then the vote happens. Then there's some horse-trading, and parties throw out some -- not known to the public at the time of election -- of their electoral promises, and create a coalition.
It's true that in the US system, you basically only have two viable parties...but that's because in the US, parties are more analogous to party coalitions in some parliamentary systems. Basically, in the US, the horse-trading happens before the election, so you see the coalition that you can vote on at the time of the election. The parties in a parliamentary system with many parties are maybe more analogous to the caucuses. So, we don't have a "party for black people" in the US...but we do have the Congressional Black Caucus, which (mostly) operates inside the big-tent Democratic party.
The fact that parties expect to likely have to throw out some promises in a parliamentary system also comes with some issues. The UK uses FPTP rather than proportional representation, so tends away from having coalitions, but is a parliamentary system, and can do so. It is very likely, from what I've read, that the reason that the UK Brexited was because of some jiggery-pokery associated with this. Basically, the Conservative Party in the UK had promised its voters a referendum on UK membership in the EU. However, at the time this promise was made, the Conservative leadership expected not to be able to achieve a majority, that they would have to form a coalition with the Liberal Democratic party, as they had previously. The Liberal Democratic party was strongly in favor of being in the EU, and probably would have required them to not hold such a referendum as a condition of being in coalition. Holding a referendum is not actually something that the Conservative Party likely wanted to actually do. As a result, the Conservatives could make such a promise and get the electoral support from doing so...with the expectation that they would never have to actually follow through on it, because they'd get the opportunity to throw out some of their electoral promises to voters during the coalition-forming process. However, they did better than expected, and didn't form a coalition, and were stuck holding a Brexit referendum. You won't get that in the US, since the executive makes their promises prior to the election.
NGOs, like the EFF or Greenpeace or the like, also tend to play a larger role in the process in the US, which provides for a lot of options as to involvement in advocacy. In Europe, some countries developed "Pirate Parties", political organizations that work something akin to the EFF here (though there's also the EDRi in Europe, it acts as more of a coordinating institution).
One other issue that parliamentary systems run into is that after the election, they have to decide on a coalition to choose the new executive. This usually doesn't take too long, but sometimes the legislators don't agree in the post-election horse-trading process, and the result is that no executive gets chosen (or, in some cases, as in Italy, a "technocratic" executive gets chosen for the public). Belgium and Northern Ireland have recently had extended periods without an executive (which, in their terminology, is "without a government"), which hampers their ability to do much. In a presidential system, after the election, you know who is going to be running the executive.
In the US, the Big Two parties also hold primary elections, which permits you, as a member of the public (usually registered as a voter of that party, though there are even some exceptions to that), to choose which candidates you want your party to run. That isn't a constitutional requirement, and some parties do not do that. However, it's also input that frequently isn't available to the electorate in Europe, where legislative candidates are selected internally by the party.
ah if only they could also ask harris to tell israel to stop bombing medical supplies and food for kids. i mean israel is going to say fook off to us anyway to us. but just issue a statement. is that too much too ask ? they can still kill any kids and civilians they can get their hands on but atleast don’t let them starve to death ?
the extent of indecency of both campaigns. god i hope there is a hell in afterlife.
seems like you eat up the propaganda full spoon
are her own interviews also propaganda ?
https://youtu.be/KikC4Bm8FXc
if they get cut up so the context and meaning changes, then yes of course. What, were you born yesterday?
what’s the propaganda here ? that israel is not a genocidal apartheid state which has been sponsoring settler terrorism for decades but are now systemically murdering civilians and any journalists covering their warcrimes ?
None of that would happen if they hadn't been terrorized first.
now you are the one spreading propaganda here. israeli settlers have been butchering people for more than 70 years. idf is full of scum who have been murdering people living there for centuries to take their lands. israel provides weapon & spyware to most brutal dictators around the world. they rig elections and bribe politicians in america to continue their terrorism with our money and protection.
they are the most vile terrorist country in the world.
you are a terrible human likely part of israeli propaganda but providing links for others who reach here.
here is one from their own newspaper: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/reservist-eulogized-for-desire-to-take-revenge-against-gazans-setting-home-on-fire-to-boost-morale/
this pos had already killed someone in westbank before his kids and wife before oct 7. anyone really believes idf full of slime like this aren’t murdering civilians even kids the moment they see.
here are openly bragging about murdering pregnant women and kids : https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/israel-condemns-soldiers-t-shirts-depict-shooting-arabs/
thsi has been ongoing since 1948: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjTxDYtNhno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/17r3a1z/an_old_footage_of_idf_soldiers_snipping_an/
https://www.reddit.com/r/iamatotalpieceofshit/comments/1aboasr/idf_forces_shoot_elderly_palestinian_woman/
It's not propaganda to point out the fact that no Israel invasion into Gaza would be happening now if there hadn't been those horrible attacks by Hamas beforehand. It's actio-reactio, with Hamas throwing the first punch. I'm not saying Israel has reacted in a measured manner, but then again it's a reaction to an action. But who am I kidding, you're a link posting foaming at the mouth internet warrior, no common sense will wake you up from your bubble, just like Trump supporters.
If she didn't her Votes wouldn't go to Harris lol. If people don't want to Vote Dem they aren't going vote Dem. Harris has had all the time in the world to put effort into courting voters the same way she did Republicans. I plan on voting Third Party only for future elections. I want nothing to do with people who excuse genocide and link up with Dick Cheney.
I think from a third party point of view that makes no sense. It's not for her to prop up the broken electoral system. Harris is essentially the lesser evil in this argument, but the real problem is the electoral system.
Arguably the "better" outcome for third parties is for Harris to win the popular vote and lose the election because of the stupid electoral college system. That may actually get Democrats more serious about electoral reform which would benefit everyone. They've already lost twice despite winning the popular vote (Gore and H Clinton). Yet they continue to support broken electoral systems across the country at national and state level as all they care about is Dem vs Rep. Not actual democracy.
The Democrats didn't even have a proper primary contest in this election, they value democracy so little. They tried to forced Biden on the party and voters and it blew up spectacularly. The party needs a shake up and frankly losing may be better for them than Harris saving them from the party's own disastrous mismanagement.
I'm no fan of trump, but Americas problems run far deeper and are far more systemic than one election.
So voting for a hand puppet with no serious program, credentials, infrastructure to govern is better? Stein has no ambitions to make american do anything better, else she would be front and center actually doing something between election cycles.. but she does not. If anything you have more risks, cause in the case she would magically win, who would become het cabinet? You have no clue who and what they stand for.... And that should worry you ... A lot.
The electoral system will be fixed if Trump wins. He will just dissolve it and end the election process. Voila! Reform!
🙄
While the electoral college is problematic, it isn’t relevant in this regard. First past the post is the issue.
It wouldn’t be this close if Harris just came out against the genocide in Gaza. Instead she has shunned Arab and Muslim voters.
I am in Pennsylvania and I am voting for Jill Stein. Everything I could have done to communicate my grievances I have tried, including meeting with my representative who just insulted me instead of even feigning humanitarian concern.
People really need to stop assuming every Stein voter is a stolen Harris vote. I’d rather stay home than vote for Harris.
I suspect the actual pushback is to prevent the Greens from reaching the 5% voter threshold, and making them a more viable party.
This is you. You're the middle path. It's the scenic route to the worst outcome.
I think it's the 3rd party voters here that are implying that.
now redo the meme with harris at lever and put not sucking up to lobbyists & mim in the first track. we shouldn’t even be debating about this as requirement to be worthy of being a president.
Now do the same for the only other viable candidate in this election.
dnc made him viable because they are corrupt hacks who many people have begin despising after being betrayed by them repeatedly. obama got the most one sided victory in last few decades including many red states. but now they have magically became racist ? or is that they hate dnc and voting trump out of spite & anger. or just voting 3rd party or sitting it out. a reason why many minorities are not going to vote for harris.
i always remember this clip from wire whenever harris start bullshiting on camera
Nah, chief. There are only two viable candidates in most of our presidential elections due to how the system is set up.
But keep making shit up and spewing nonsense for the next few days. Momma always said "stick with what you're good at."
thats some very solid advice you get there, what was i thinking not following the system. germans solved so many problems following the system.
You need a few more rail forks downstream represent the groups getting protected by local governments. Which is the reality many states.
Which also allows you to make more informed decisions.
Everyone gets downvoted from time to time. In this case the reason is that you’re pro Trump. Perhaps not in philosophy but certainly in action. Which is all that matters.
By that logic, Kamala Harris is pro-Trump for her actions driving away voters.
My favorite bit here is looking at down/up vote ratios and translating that to the upper bound on the worst case scenario for harris.
3 hs account 🤔
Please don't kill me, I'm not american here.
Another 2 hs account
They've made over 30.
I was permabanned from Reddit today for my lack of sympathy for Liz Cheney. Figured I’d check out lemmy.
Not going well so far. Already banned from politicalmemes for disturbing the pro-Harris echo chamber.
What you’re experiencing is a strong anti-Trump sentiment. Most people realize the way to prevent another Trump presidency is to vote Harris.
Doesn't mean we need to hand it to her though make it hurt in deep blue states.
Funny, I realize I haven't read the words 'echo chamber' since i left reddit some 15 months ago.
I was really surprised to see the election season bots here too. They really don’t want us talking to each other.
But I guess they’re not really hiding the panic now: https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/10/07/hillary-clinton-warns-we-lose-total-control-without-social-media-content-moderation/
Everyone else is the asshole, right?
Tell me you don't understand a first past the post voting system without telling me.
For real though, you sound like an idealist, a perfectionist, who lets good be the enemy of perfect. I don't think you actually want a conversation - you want others to hear your voice and opinion.
They understand FPTP. They know what they're doing here.
Indeed we do.
Yep.
But you're in lemmy.world, and the commenters here are just looking to pick fights with rational thoughts like yours.
They are scared and are lashing out; I get it. But it's still not okay. Randos telling you you're supporting Trump is disingenuous garbage. They won't care that you still voted in congressional races and local issues.
I appreciate comments such as yours. Please don't be dissuaded from making them in the future.
"Rational thoughts"
"A vote for a third party candidate in an election with two viable candidates doesn't benefit the party I'm least aligned with."
Choose one. Both can't be true.
Ah, shit, I forgot... you lot are awful at understanding how binary decisions work.