politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Jill Stein and the Green Party have achieved literally nothing in their 22 years of existence.
They haven't elected anyone significant at any level of government, haven't authored any significant legislation, and have done the bare minimum to shift political discourse. They also have to earn our votes, and so far they have done very little to earn mine.
Even discounting the obvious statistical reality of the spoiler effect, is Jill Stein really the best candidate the Green Party has to offer? How on Earth can a party with so little to lose be so obviously out of fresh ideas already?
Say what you will about the libertarian ideology, but at least I can give the Libertarian Party credit for putting a couple asses in seats at various levels of government. The Green Party, in comparison, has had no such success, and the fact that they're going back to Jill Stein (a weak candidate who's buddies with Putin and didn't perform well) shows that they have very little intention of improving.
I'm sorry but you are absolutely delusional if you really believe this.
Whether you like it or not, vote splitting and the spoiler effect are well-documented statistical realities based on the flaws of our current first-past-the-post voting systems. This is 100% a math problem, and it's one that's been written about a lot by many different people.
If that bothers you (and it should) then I encourage you to read up on alternative, more democratic voting systems like Ranked-Choice (aka Instant Runoff) and STAR voting systems, which are generally more fair and far less susceptible to problems like spoiling and wasted votes.
You mean like the ones that the DNC is suing to keep off the 2024 ballots? Democrats have this crazy idea that even with rank choice voting we would check off any of your shitty candidates. This is not about compromise, rank choice voting is based on compromise. Trying to work within the systems that created the situation we are in, will never fix the situations that we are in. There is no reforming the party, there is no pushing them left after the election, there is no lesser evil. The entire system needs to be upended and then changed