I am so so divided on if I should vote for biden or not. I wanna vote third party to at least do something or should I just stay home and protest and advocate where I can? Thoughts?
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
486 points (82.5% liked)
Solarpunk
5468 readers
73 users here now
The space to discuss Solarpunk itself and Solarpunk related stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.
Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not what you want to hear but voting third party or staying home is the opposite of doing something. It might feel like a moral victory but the practical result will be a vote for the right-wing. Third party candidates are not viable until we get rid of First-Past-the-Post, and unfortunately I have no idea what a realistic way to go about changing that is.
Exactly.
Not voting supports the goals of people who want less voting.
And voting third party in a FPTP system for a party that hasn't worked through the lower levels of political power is effectively not voting.
Exactly. A third party that only puts up a candidate for President every four years is not a serious party but a joke. It takes years of work, starting with local and state offices, building support and good candidates, to be a serious alternative party with a wide base of support and chance to actually win national offices.
It sends a message to the 2nd party that they're not doing enough for my vote. If they want my vote, they'll have to change their policies to be more like the party I voted for.
If the losing party loses by 10,000 votes, and 10,000 people voted third party, guess what, the strategists are going to try to find a way to capture those votes.
Without those 10,000 votes for 3rd party, the 2nd party either does nothing or tries to get votes from the other side, moving their policies further toward the 1st party.
I would say in the current political climate, 3rd party voting is more important than ever. The idea that it's a vote for the other side is an absolute farce, an attempt at preventing change, and couldn't be further from the truth.
So, if this is true, what have the Democrats done to get your vote since 2016? Because Jill Stein took almost a mil and a half, and Clinton lost by less than that by far. So if this hypothesis is correct, they would have done something since to earn your vote. Also, the libertarian candidate took nearly 4.5 mil. Have the Republicans moved three times further towards the libertarian party as the Dems did towards the greens? Because I don't think that the evidence supports this hypothesis. If you still believe it, what evidence, if any, would convince you otherwise?
I submit that you can accomplish far more shifting by:
Getting your candidates into local elections
Engaging in coordinated contact campaigns to the elected party members of the party you had hoped to shift
Engaging in coordinated contact campaigns to the large money donors to the party you wish to shift
It's not simple, it's not sexy, it's not fast or rapidly gratifying. That's just how the world is. Any low hanging fruit along those lines has been plucked and sucked dry long since, and you'll have to put in the work if you want to change things.
Why would the Democrats ever get rid of an electoral system that ensures that they only have to be "not Republican" to win?