this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
7 points (65.2% liked)

politics

19145 readers
3226 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. 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.
  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
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] reality_boy 14 points 1 year ago

We need to implement ranked choice voting for all of elections. A third party candidate should not be something scary we hide from.

[–] elscallr 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why does everyone assume that if the third party candidate weren't there the votes would go to the Democrat?

[–] cerevant 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They don’t. That’s why the word “might” is in the headline.

The simple math is that if you vote third party, it always helps the remaining candidate you like the least. This is because it reduces the number of votes needed to win.

[–] Crisps 2 points 1 year ago

If you live in a gerrymandered district (house), or a state (senate, president) with winner takes all then your vote doesn’t count anyway unless the vote s normally close. Voting 3rd party in that situation (most people) is actually less of a waste. If the third party gets starts getting close to being included in debates the two electable parties will strive to do better. Right now the bar is so low because there is no competition.

[–] elscallr -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Being a lifelong third party voter, I've heard the "spoiler" line probably a thousand times, and always from Democrats.

Anecdotal, sure.. but that "might" is a hedge and we both know it.

[–] cerevant 1 points 1 year ago

Well, I lived in Canada over 3 election cycles, and I saw the riding I lived in go to the conservatives with 40% of the vote in 2 of them. If the incumbant MP didn't go to jail, it probably would have been all 3.

Again, it isn't politics, it is simple math. In a plurality voting system, voting for a 3rd party (by definition, the candidate with the least support) always increases your chances of getting what you perceive as the worst outcome.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I don't think everyone assumes this, always. Ross Perot is an old, but good example of the opposite.

But the current state of US politics shows that Republicans are a more loyal and secure voting base then democrats. And there are several examples of the right promoting third party candidates to "spoil" for democrats. Look at the legalize marijuana party in MN, where it was run and funded by Republicans. The "no labels" party that just cropped up also has a lot of Republcan backing.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere 2 points 1 year ago

Now, we should be cautious about reading too much into these surveys. After all, we are talking about small overall movements that lie inside the margin of error for each poll. That consideration also applies when trying to analyze who shifted, given that margins of error are larger for subgroups within a survey’s overall sample. More broadly, surveys conducted this far out from the general election historically have had little predictive value. Additionally, third-party candidates often poll better farther away from Election Day, when the stakes of the election are lower — and millions of dollars in general election advertising have yet to be spent. And finally, not every third-party voter would vote for a Democrat or Republican if their preferred candidate didn’t run, so we can’t assume that, say, a Green Party voter would back a Democrat or a Libertarian would vote Republican.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you enjoy the Five-Thirty-Eight podcast this is the topic for this week.

Podcast

YouTube

[–] stanleytweedle 1 points 1 year ago

We don’t need to have major-party presidential nominees to have a conversation about a third-party spoiler candidate affecting the 2024 presidential election.

I guess that's technically true but it's kind of meaningless until there is one.

[–] Raphael 0 points 1 year ago

Did my time machine work? Have I really traveled to the past?

[–] EndlessApollo -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Democrats aren't owed votes, and even if they were 3rd party candidates don't lose democrats elections. Don't fall for two party propaganda, vote for who you like (unless there's someone on the same level of horrible as trump or desantis running, then probably just vote democrat to maximize your chances of not living in a fascist dystopia)

[–] cerevant -1 points 1 year ago

Don't fall for two party propaganda, vote for who you like

Just because it benefits the two parties to say this doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Voting for a third party always helps the remaining candidate the voter likes least by reducing the number of votes needed to win.

(unless there's someone on the same level of horrible as trump or desantis running, then probably just vote democrat to maximize your chances of not living in a fascist dystopia)

All evidence indicates that this premise will apply for the next few election cycles.

[–] tallwookie -4 points 1 year ago

eh, why not - it's worked before, after all. thanks Bernie! :P