this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
174 points (83.0% liked)

politics

19022 readers
3199 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It has been said a gazillion times over the last few months, but is it getting through to those who need to hear it?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago

So glad to see the ratios tipping toward voting! In large communities where it matters, it’s good to know that the bad actors are being downvoted into irrelevance.

[–] [email protected] 60 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Whew the tankies and astroturfers are out in force in these comments. I think we got the gamut going here:

  1. "I don't vote for genocide"
  2. "A vote for 3rd party isn't a vote for Trump"
  3. "If we don't vote 3rd party nothing will change"
  4. "Jill Stein isn't a Russian asset"
  5. "Who cares if Trump wins; they're both bad / nothing worse will happen l both sides"
  6. "I literally don't understand how Trump can win if I vote 3rd party because I don't understand the difference between voting for and against a candidate"
  7. "Liberals / Democrats / Harris voters are the real fascists"

Solid work astroturfers! Glad to see you're still trotting out these arguments despite plenty of Lemmy users discrediting each and every one. Really shows grit and dedication.

Also, calling it now that at least one of them replies with something about how they're true / haven't been discredited.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

“Who cares if Trump wins; they’re both bad / nothing worse will happen l both sides”

Trump's RIGHT NOW basically talking about forming up goon squads and kicking out immigrants on the basis of some law passed in the 1700s and people are still pretending like this dude isn't basically a Hitler.

“I don’t vote for genocide”

Yeah....about that....a vote that helps Trump is one that not only exacerbates the ongoing genocide in the middle east, but starts up a new one right here. He's talking seriously about military tribunal and gas chamber type shit in "Operation Aurora".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I assure you that they don’t care. Single issue voters are the worst.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 hours ago

Even if your single issue is genocide Trump is on the worse side.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 21 hours ago

It makes it easy to tag them for future reference or block them at least.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I wouldn't be surprised if they're actually Trump supporters, just trying to get the swing voters to be all pessimistic and get them not to vote or vote 3rd party.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 13 hours ago

Trump supporters aren't smart enough to understand how the Fediverse works.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 1 day ago

... And the one that's best to vote for is Harris.

[–] [email protected] 117 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (11 children)

And remember: a "protest" third party vote is a vote for Trump.

If neither Harris nor Trump gets 270 electoral votes....

[If] No one gets to 270 and the House of Representatives, voting on behalf of the 50 states, is entrusted to pick the next president. What could possibly go wrong with that constitutionally mandated solution?

-- What if no candidate wins 270 electoral votes?

Edit: I feel like this fact is often overlooked.

[–] xmunk 69 points 1 day ago (7 children)

A protest vote to a third party is actually a protest vote to whoever you prefer less. You're essentially just removing yourself as a voter and making it more likely the person you like less is elected... we often say "third party is a vote for Trump" since most of lemmy is sane - but for a staunch conservative a vote for a third party is a vote for Harris.

I'd encourage everyone to vote regardless of your leaning - having low voter turnout allows more shitty shenanigans.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 day ago (13 children)

Yep, we also say that because there are a lot of astroturf accounts pushing Stein and De La Cruz on Lemmy that are hyper-critical of Harris but suspiciously never want to talk about what a shitbag Trump is.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's because Harris is Satan and Trump is my Daaaaddy

\s

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

I’m really encouraged by the fact that universalmonk and return2ozma’s posts get heavily downvoted when they push this slop in Lemmy

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 day ago

Third parties are crucial and we can't vote for them (intelligently) until we change away from first past the post:

Https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (21 children)

"Instead, protest voting is in fact likely to harm the democratic process, potentially leading to the election of the candidate the majority of voters overall, and protest voters specifically, most dislike."

^ THIS!

In a Presidential election, whoever gets the most votes wins.

If "Not Trump" is split between 5 candidates, and Trump gets the most votes, he wins.

Here's a scenario:

Trump - 40%
Harris - 35%
Kennedy - 15%
Oliver - 5%
Stein - 3%
West - 2%

Trump wins. Even though 60% of the voting public don't want him. The "Not Trump" vote failed to coalesce under one candidate enough to block him from winning.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

On the other side of the Atlantic there's usually two rounds, unless someone gets >50% of the vote in the first round.

The second round takes the top two candidates and then people choose between them.

Well I mean I don't know of all European countries but this is fairly common afaik.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

It doesn't work that way in US Presidential elections.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Yeah. I know.

The US doesn't have a direct presidential election. You have the electoral college, ie an indirect election.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 minutes ago

Correct, but even state by state, if you have multiple people running and nobody hits 50%, Presidential elections are not subject to a run-off election like we saw in the Georgia Senate race.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is what I keep saying. It's like my scenario with the Class President. A Nerd and a Jock are running. 51 kids are nerds and don't want the Jock. 49 kids are jocks and don't want the Nerd. Pretty clear that the Nerd wins, because more people don't want the Jock than the Nerd, right? Wrong. If the Jock can peel just THREE votes off from the nerd coalition, the Jocks win it and D&D night is cancelled.

Now re-read that and replace nerds with Liberals, jocks with Conservatives, and 'D&D night is cancelled' with 'Project 2025 is shoved down our throats.' Then...vote with your fucking head and not your fucking heart!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's like this, but Jocks' votes are worth more than Nerds'.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›