Green Party nominee Jill Stein is expected to use her running mate to tap into the growing anger at Democrats over their support for Israel’s war on Gaza.
Echoing this, if no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes, then the decision goes to the house of representatives, currently majority Republican. Actually voting for Stein or another third party is unlikely to get them elected to office, but introduces multiple potential ways to get Trump back in office.
The Bernie approach of getting into the primaries introduces the opportunity to debate the establishment and better advocate for change from the front runner.
EDIT: Each state gets one vote in the house of representatives when electing the president, so the existing Republican majority doesn’t apply. This probably would make it easier for Trump to get elected because populated Democrat states have the same number of votes as less populated Republican states.
Echoing this, if no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes, then the decision goes to the house of representatives, currently majority Republican.
Then the Democrats should find a candidate that is strong enough to not have to worry about that. That’s what democracy and voting is all about. It’s not just about who YOU want to win.
I don’t like Harris enough to vote for her. So I am voting for Stein. As is my right.
Let’s be real. Votes for third parties in already decided states such as California or Missouri only help promote in some small way a diversity of parties that the US sorely needs.
I think it’s only in battleground states where it would benefit someone to think more tactically about the use of their vote versus participating in the system as intended, i.e. voting for their preferred candidate.
If your state is deeply in the hands of your closer-aligned party, then probably, though down-ballot races are always important to consider too. Even things like school boards.
If your state is deeply in the hands of your most-opposed party, though, you should be aware that flips can and do happen. Our “swing state” system is by no means stable, which states are “swing” changes pretty steadily, and broad waves are still very possible. Additionally, by making a state come closer to even, you can force your opposed party to devote some of their limited resources to defending it in the future. So, you can hurt a party by voting for their opponents even when they have a strong grip.
It’s useful to consider a historical context, where over the 2.5 centuries, the elections have shifted every which way. There really is no predicting what the future holds beyond the most immediate, short-term horizon. It is absolutely not stable, though, never has been. It’s not intended to be, after all, otherwise we wouldn’t have things like term limits.
While I agree with that sentiment, I think it’s more important push overwhelmingly for electoral process reform first - switching to approval, star, or even ranked choice voting is a step up from first passed the post and encourages more honest voting over strategic voting, at least a little bit.
I think entertaining individual third parties shouldn’t come until that’s a bigger issue that America starts talking about.
I understand the need for electoral reform, but waiting for the perfect system before voting for a candidate like Jill Stein ignores the current power of our vote.
By supporting a third party now, we’re signaling to the major parties that a significant portion of the electorate demands something different—whether it’s stronger environmental policies, healthcare reform, or campaign finance reform.
If everyone holds off on voting for who they truly believe in until the system changes, that change may never come.
Voting for Stein now isn’t just about winning this election; it’s about pushing the political conversation forward and showing that there’s real demand for the values she represents. It sends a clear message that voters are tired of the status quo and want real alternatives, even within the current system.
Hear hear. For what it’s worth, I live in a deep blue state and I often vote 3rd party. Not because I believe they are the best candidate, but because I’m assured the DNC will win regardless of my action or inaction at the polls and I want to promote a diversity of parties. Heck, I’ll vote for candidates I disagree with if the race is secure enough (that only really applies to local elections).
The Democratic systems in the USA are highly flawed and we must use them practically in the small ways we can in order to attempt to move the country forward in a positive way.
And I’ve made over 80 comments and posts on various topics. Not just “four posts shilling Stein the Russian asset.”
Do you have any proof that she is a Russian asset? Because that seems like that would be front page news on news sites across the US. Please post your links here and also email the major news organizations with this proof if you have it.
Plus that would be a good way to get rid of the Green Party. Then you wouldn’t have to worry about them anymore!
Meeting with Putin was not a particularly good look, when Russia is one of the largest hydrocarbon producers on the planet and has significant interests in thawing Arctic seaways.
Where Hilary meeting with Putin made a little more sense, as she was the country’s Secretary of State at the time, and talking with rival leaders is very much her job.
More recent stuff is largely about Russian propaganda supporting her, likely just to help Trump though, due to his more authoritarian-friendly positions.
Dude, I’m voting for Jill Stein. And so are many of my friends. You should probably just accept it and let it go. If your candidate is strong enough, then you shouldn’t worry about who we vote for. :)
You asked for evidence that Jill Stein is affiliated with the Russians. I provided some. Interesting how you now feel a need to pivot to me, personally.
The “reality” is that here in the US, we have a right to vote for who we want. You can keep bullying and trying to get me to change my mind, but I am voting for who I want. And this year, it’s Jill Stein.
But the reality is, in the current broken election system,
Very true. And the ONLY way to fix that election system is by voting for who we think will fix that, and not just who we think may win. When do we finally make this move?
Everyone says, “Oh not THIS election. THIS election is too important to try to change things now!”
Guess what? They have been fucking saying that for the last 50 years. lmao
That’s nice and correct, and I would love for the Green party to succeed, break the bipartisan dominance, and finally get a foothold in the government. However, at the moment, Trump needs to lose at all costs. At the moment, I believe all Stein is going to do is draw votes away from Harris and boost Trump’s ratio.
Vote for who you want, by all means, but please, consider the impact in regard to the current political theatre.
You make a fair point, but I would argue that if Harris is such a great pick, then the Democrats shouldn’t have to worry. They should count on the strength of their candidate. My point is that if the candidate isn’t strong enough to win, regardless of “spoiler” votes, then they shouldn’t win.
Let’s face it, almost half of the country doesn’t want Harris to win. And if more of them vote for their candidate than those who vote for Harris, then she loses. That’s democracy in action.
That’s how democracy works in some countries, but not in the United States. We are currently stuck with the Electoral College, where the person who gets the most votes doesn’t necessarily win (see Hillary Clinton). So I’m not sure what you’re saying. I wish we lived in your world, but we don’t.
Let’s face it, almost half of the country doesn’t want Harris to win. And if more of them vote for their candidate than those who vote for Harris, then she loses. That’s democracy in action.
It sounds like you’re saying you want to see Harris lose more than you want Stein to win. More than half the country doesn’t want Trump to win, but he will if Democrats are divided or if no party gets a majority.
I also agree we should get rid of the Electoral College and have ranked choice voting, but that’s not the reality we live in. Voting as if the system is ideal will just result in Trump a Trump presidency like 2016.
It sounds like you’re saying you want to see Harris lose more than you want Stein to win.
Not at all. I’m voting for who I want to win. As is my right.
More than half the country doesn’t want Trump to win
Then you shouldn’t be worried, then. Right?
I also agree we should get rid of the Electoral College and have ranked choice voting, but that’s not the reality we live in.
So maybe we should vote for people who want to change that. That’s what I’m doing.
Voting as if the system is ideal will just result in Trump a Trump presidency like 2016.
I don’t care. The world won’t end if Trump is president. You all said the same thing in 2016. And society is still here. And society will still be here in 4 years. I promise.
almost half of the country doesn’t want Harris to win. And if more of them vote for their candidate than those who vote for Harris, then she loses
And based on how our system works, that’s simply not necessarily true. In this case it might be, but it also might not be. Here are a some examples:
If some of the people who don’t want Harris to win, but also don’t want Trump to win vote for Stein or RFK, then those votes are likely to help Harris, but depending on where those votes are cast, they might also help Trump. If Harris loses Pennsylvania, even if she wins the national popular vote, she still might lose the election. If Harris wins all or most of the swing states, but Trump gets more popular votes, Harris still wins.
See, “we are able to vote for whoever we want to win” is 100% true in theory, but depending on where you live, it’s a sad fact that your vote for the president counts less than someone else’s vote depending on where they live.
We have one vote per person, but each vote does not carry the same weight. Wanting our two party system to change is healthy, casting your vote by pretending it will do something it wont, is not.
That’s 100% right, voting for who you want to is not pretending, but thinking it will do something that it won’t, absolutely is.
I’m sorry if I came across as bullying, that wasn’t my intention. You totally have the fundamental right to vote for whoever you want, it doesn’t matter what I think at all. I just feel strongly that people should have the most information possible about how our system works, because casting a vote for your preferred candidate, doesn’t mean that candidate necessarily benefits from your vote.
I don’t think there’s any issue with voting for Jill Stein, RFK or Mickey Mouse as long as you’re doing so with the full understanding that they will not win. As long as you’ve fully incorporated that into your mental calculus and it still seems to be the best course of action, do as ya like.
While I agree it’s the right of every member of a democracy to vote for the candidate they think best, it’s also important to not be blinded by naive ideology and participate in these incredibly flawed systems pragmatically and practically, as they do not work in the way they advertise and must be manipulated in order to achieve the most positive possible outcome.
Jill Stein winning a single vote in the electoral college is not a possible outcome.
as long as you’re doing so with the full understanding that they will not win.
So should people only vote for who they think will win? Don’t you think that who you WANT to win is pretty important as a voter?
Jill Stein winning a single vote in the electoral college is not a possible outcome.
Because of the line of thinking that people should only vote for who they think will win.
I personally vote for who I think would be best choice to be president. It’s now about who has the best chance of winning, or who I am afraid of winning. It’s who I would prefer to win. And for me, that’s Jill Stein.
That is ideological naivety. You are operating with a belief in the way the world should work but not with an understanding of the way it currently works.
Practically, this is almost a non-issue because as a single person you have so little impact on politics that your naivety is irrelevant. But it means that your actions may be counterproductive to your goals.
You are operating with a belief in the way the world should work
I agree with you. I know I have plenty of ideological naivety, but I believe the only way to change the system is for people to keep pushing for what they believe in. That’s why I’m voting for her.
It’s a “be the change you want to see” situation.
It’s also why, as a 55-year-old man, I decided to switch careers and move into education. I work in an elementary school now, making very little money, because I want to help better prepare our children for the future. Instead of just complaining, I chose to take action.
Yes, I have a lot of ideological naivety, and I’m proud of it.
So Stein is again working to get trump elected
Echoing this, if no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes, then the decision goes to the house of representatives, currently majority Republican. Actually voting for Stein or another third party is unlikely to get them elected to office, but introduces multiple potential ways to get Trump back in office.
The Bernie approach of getting into the primaries introduces the opportunity to debate the establishment and better advocate for change from the front runner.
EDIT: Each state gets one vote in the house of representatives when electing the president, so the existing Republican majority doesn’t apply. This probably would make it easier for Trump to get elected because populated Democrat states have the same number of votes as less populated Republican states.
Then the Democrats should find a candidate that is strong enough to not have to worry about that. That’s what democracy and voting is all about. It’s not just about who YOU want to win.
I don’t like Harris enough to vote for her. So I am voting for Stein. As is my right.
Let’s be real. Votes for third parties in already decided states such as California or Missouri only help promote in some small way a diversity of parties that the US sorely needs.
I think it’s only in battleground states where it would benefit someone to think more tactically about the use of their vote versus participating in the system as intended, i.e. voting for their preferred candidate.
If your state is deeply in the hands of your closer-aligned party, then probably, though down-ballot races are always important to consider too. Even things like school boards.
If your state is deeply in the hands of your most-opposed party, though, you should be aware that flips can and do happen. Our “swing state” system is by no means stable, which states are “swing” changes pretty steadily, and broad waves are still very possible. Additionally, by making a state come closer to even, you can force your opposed party to devote some of their limited resources to defending it in the future. So, you can hurt a party by voting for their opponents even when they have a strong grip.
It’s useful to consider a historical context, where over the 2.5 centuries, the elections have shifted every which way. There really is no predicting what the future holds beyond the most immediate, short-term horizon. It is absolutely not stable, though, never has been. It’s not intended to be, after all, otherwise we wouldn’t have things like term limits.
I agree that the US sorely needs this. Having just two major parties who run (and WANT to run) everything, isn’t helping things at all.
While I agree with that sentiment, I think it’s more important push overwhelmingly for electoral process reform first - switching to approval, star, or even ranked choice voting is a step up from first passed the post and encourages more honest voting over strategic voting, at least a little bit.
I think entertaining individual third parties shouldn’t come until that’s a bigger issue that America starts talking about.
I understand the need for electoral reform, but waiting for the perfect system before voting for a candidate like Jill Stein ignores the current power of our vote.
By supporting a third party now, we’re signaling to the major parties that a significant portion of the electorate demands something different—whether it’s stronger environmental policies, healthcare reform, or campaign finance reform.
If everyone holds off on voting for who they truly believe in until the system changes, that change may never come.
Voting for Stein now isn’t just about winning this election; it’s about pushing the political conversation forward and showing that there’s real demand for the values she represents. It sends a clear message that voters are tired of the status quo and want real alternatives, even within the current system.
Hear hear. For what it’s worth, I live in a deep blue state and I often vote 3rd party. Not because I believe they are the best candidate, but because I’m assured the DNC will win regardless of my action or inaction at the polls and I want to promote a diversity of parties. Heck, I’ll vote for candidates I disagree with if the race is secure enough (that only really applies to local elections).
The Democratic systems in the USA are highly flawed and we must use them practically in the small ways we can in order to attempt to move the country forward in a positive way.
No, she’s working on her own campaign. For people who want Trump elected, they’ll vote for Trump.
I’m voting for Jill Stein, because I want Jill Stein to be elected.
We get to vote for who we want to win. It’s our right.
Day old account who made four posts shilling Stein the Russian asset
2 days old. Because I got banned from Reddit. lmao
And in these last 2 days, I’ve also started lemmy communites for a college, paraeducators, and the green party.
So how long do you think should I wait before I can start posting about stuff I feel strongly about?
And I’ve made over 80 comments and posts on various topics. Not just “four posts shilling Stein the Russian asset.”
Do you have any proof that she is a Russian asset? Because that seems like that would be front page news on news sites across the US. Please post your links here and also email the major news organizations with this proof if you have it.
Plus that would be a good way to get rid of the Green Party. Then you wouldn’t have to worry about them anymore!
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/466594-jill-stein-i-am-not-a-russian-spy/
Meeting with Putin was not a particularly good look, when Russia is one of the largest hydrocarbon producers on the planet and has significant interests in thawing Arctic seaways.
Where Hilary meeting with Putin made a little more sense, as she was the country’s Secretary of State at the time, and talking with rival leaders is very much her job.
More recent stuff is largely about Russian propaganda supporting her, likely just to help Trump though, due to his more authoritarian-friendly positions.
What is your point about hydrocarbons?
You say Russia produces hydrocarbons, the United States is the worlds largest producer of hydrocarbons lol
Correct. So picking one of them to defend is very strange.
All this suggests is that the Russians tried to divert left leaning voters away from Clinton by boosting Stein’s candidacy.
There is zero evidence there that Stein was contacted by Russia or even aware of the way in which her campaign was being hijacked.
Yeah, you apparently did not read the article.
Dude, I’m voting for Jill Stein. And so are many of my friends. You should probably just accept it and let it go. If your candidate is strong enough, then you shouldn’t worry about who we vote for. :)
You asked for evidence that Jill Stein is affiliated with the Russians. I provided some. Interesting how you now feel a need to pivot to me, personally.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13576798/jill-stein-third-party-donald-trump-win
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/gary-johnson-jill-stein-spoiler/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/third-party-candidates-having-outsize-impact-election-n680921
People have been complaining about 3rd party spoilers forever. None of it changes my mind.
Ah the age ol’ ignore reality. No worries!
I’m not ignoring reality at all.
The “reality” is that here in the US, we have a right to vote for who we want. You can keep bullying and trying to get me to change my mind, but I am voting for who I want. And this year, it’s Jill Stein.
Im not bullying you. You can vote for whoever you please, like you say.
But the reality is, in the current broken election system, a vote for 3rd party is the same as putting your vote in the bin, or spoiling it
Very true. And the ONLY way to fix that election system is by voting for who we think will fix that, and not just who we think may win. When do we finally make this move?
Everyone says, “Oh not THIS election. THIS election is too important to try to change things now!”
Guess what? They have been fucking saying that for the last 50 years. lmao
Yes, voting for a candidate who is almost guaranteed to not get elected, and end up with the party less likely to want to fix it.
good plan! good luck 👍
That’s nice and correct, and I would love for the Green party to succeed, break the bipartisan dominance, and finally get a foothold in the government. However, at the moment, Trump needs to lose at all costs. At the moment, I believe all Stein is going to do is draw votes away from Harris and boost Trump’s ratio.
Vote for who you want, by all means, but please, consider the impact in regard to the current political theatre.
You make a fair point, but I would argue that if Harris is such a great pick, then the Democrats shouldn’t have to worry. They should count on the strength of their candidate. My point is that if the candidate isn’t strong enough to win, regardless of “spoiler” votes, then they shouldn’t win.
Let’s face it, almost half of the country doesn’t want Harris to win. And if more of them vote for their candidate than those who vote for Harris, then she loses. That’s democracy in action.
That’s how democracy works in some countries, but not in the United States. We are currently stuck with the Electoral College, where the person who gets the most votes doesn’t necessarily win (see Hillary Clinton). So I’m not sure what you’re saying. I wish we lived in your world, but we don’t.
I think you know exactly what I’m saying. We are able to vote for whoever we want to win. So I am.
And I totally agree we should get rid of the Electoral College.
It sounds like you’re saying you want to see Harris lose more than you want Stein to win. More than half the country doesn’t want Trump to win, but he will if Democrats are divided or if no party gets a majority.
I also agree we should get rid of the Electoral College and have ranked choice voting, but that’s not the reality we live in. Voting as if the system is ideal will just result in Trump a Trump presidency like 2016.
Not at all. I’m voting for who I want to win. As is my right.
Then you shouldn’t be worried, then. Right?
So maybe we should vote for people who want to change that. That’s what I’m doing.
I don’t care. The world won’t end if Trump is president. You all said the same thing in 2016. And society is still here. And society will still be here in 4 years. I promise.
I really don’t. You said:
And based on how our system works, that’s simply not necessarily true. In this case it might be, but it also might not be. Here are a some examples:
If some of the people who don’t want Harris to win, but also don’t want Trump to win vote for Stein or RFK, then those votes are likely to help Harris, but depending on where those votes are cast, they might also help Trump. If Harris loses Pennsylvania, even if she wins the national popular vote, she still might lose the election. If Harris wins all or most of the swing states, but Trump gets more popular votes, Harris still wins.
See, “we are able to vote for whoever we want to win” is 100% true in theory, but depending on where you live, it’s a sad fact that your vote for the president counts less than someone else’s vote depending on where they live.
We have one vote per person, but each vote does not carry the same weight. Wanting our two party system to change is healthy, casting your vote by pretending it will do something it wont, is not.
But voting for who I want to isn’t pretending at all. It’s one of the fundamental rights of being a US citizen.
Even of YOU don’t like my candidate, I can still vote for her. I don’t like your candidate either, but I’m not bullying you to change your mind. lol
That’s 100% right, voting for who you want to is not pretending, but thinking it will do something that it won’t, absolutely is.
I’m sorry if I came across as bullying, that wasn’t my intention. You totally have the fundamental right to vote for whoever you want, it doesn’t matter what I think at all. I just feel strongly that people should have the most information possible about how our system works, because casting a vote for your preferred candidate, doesn’t mean that candidate necessarily benefits from your vote.
I don’t think there’s any issue with voting for Jill Stein, RFK or Mickey Mouse as long as you’re doing so with the full understanding that they will not win. As long as you’ve fully incorporated that into your mental calculus and it still seems to be the best course of action, do as ya like.
While I agree it’s the right of every member of a democracy to vote for the candidate they think best, it’s also important to not be blinded by naive ideology and participate in these incredibly flawed systems pragmatically and practically, as they do not work in the way they advertise and must be manipulated in order to achieve the most positive possible outcome.
Jill Stein winning a single vote in the electoral college is not a possible outcome.
So should people only vote for who they think will win? Don’t you think that who you WANT to win is pretty important as a voter?
Because of the line of thinking that people should only vote for who they think will win.
I personally vote for who I think would be best choice to be president. It’s now about who has the best chance of winning, or who I am afraid of winning. It’s who I would prefer to win. And for me, that’s Jill Stein.
That is ideological naivety. You are operating with a belief in the way the world should work but not with an understanding of the way it currently works.
Practically, this is almost a non-issue because as a single person you have so little impact on politics that your naivety is irrelevant. But it means that your actions may be counterproductive to your goals.
I agree with you. I know I have plenty of ideological naivety, but I believe the only way to change the system is for people to keep pushing for what they believe in. That’s why I’m voting for her.
It’s a “be the change you want to see” situation.
It’s also why, as a 55-year-old man, I decided to switch careers and move into education. I work in an elementary school now, making very little money, because I want to help better prepare our children for the future. Instead of just complaining, I chose to take action.
Yes, I have a lot of ideological naivety, and I’m proud of it.
I, too, wish America worked the way you think it should and admire your passion.
Good luck to you and may we all see a better tomorrow.