PHOENIX (AP) -- The 2024 presidential election is drawing an unusually robust field of independent, third party and long shot candidates hoping to capitalize on Americans' ambivalence and frustration over a likely rematch between Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Donald Trump.
lol if you think I’ve forgotten about the sewage-chugging fest that was the 45th presidency, you’re out of your fucking mind. I’m not thrilled with Biden’s age, but I am dramatically less fucking thrilled with the conservative’s current shitbag choice. Show me a 3rd party with eye-wateringly powerful support from Democrats, and I’ll certainly consider it. But until then, for as long as conservatives are mouth-frothingly determined to usher in fascism unheralded, I won’t be swayed.
Yup, a bunch of people want to push third party candidates.
They either ignore the fact that under FPtP (First Past the Post), a third party candidate is always a spoiler candidate, or they've been paid off by conservatives to weaken the chances of Democrats doing the bare minimum and holding on to power that they should have been actually using.
Which bring up the second evil of FPtP, as long as conservatives are batshit crazy and openly embracing fascism, all the Democrats have to do, it not be conservatives... And sadly, that's a very high bar for them.
The fix to all of this is, of course, to ditch FPtP voting. My current favorite replacement is called STAR. It's about the single best single winner voting system ever created. (another link)
For anyone else who finds voting systems fascinating, there's an entire wiki devoted to just that. I'll admit to having read most of it over the last few years. I might need better hobbies.
I recall learning about STAR a while ago, and I agree that both that FPtP sucks ass, and STAR is vastly better. All we’d need to do is get it instituted to replace FPtP, which is the real hurdle.
That's the neat part: You get genocide no matter what you choose. Even if you vote third party you'll have a "president" you "elected" that kills people all over the globe. Even Mr. Hope & Change came up with the double-tap.
Welcome to being a citizen of a dying empire. Maybe in a 100 years your children will get to vote for someone they actually like, after this decrepit, undemocratic government splinters and falls on its face like all the other presidential republics in this hemisphere
Or you ditch direct presidential elections altogether, vote for congress with a proportional vote and let them decide who’s gonna be president. That way you’ll force the (now more than 2) parties to form coalitions and cooperate.
Republicans are pushing third party candidates HARD. If Biden doesn’t get 270 electoral votes the Republican House appoints the president. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election
I may be off here because this is the first I’m reading about STAR, but it seems worse than instant-runoff ranked-choice voting because of the “top two candidates based on first results are the final two candidates”. It seems like ranked-choice but broken to keep the States in a two party system.
For instance: Let’s say there are 4 parties: blue, red, green, and yellow. Let’s say the majority of people have red (27%) and blue (26%) as their top pick, so those are automatically #1 and #2. Green is a close third (25%). The remainder (21%) vote for yellow, then green, then red, then blue. STAR would say every other candidate is eliminated except Red and Blue, and then redistribute the other votes. Instant-runoff would say: eliminate yellow and redistribute based off their second choice. In this example, all those votes would switch to green and green would become first. Then blue would be eliminated, those votes redistributed, and then you’d have to see what would happen. Instant-runoff to me allows for the opportunity for a meeting in the middle - everyone potentially agreeing on their second choice; while STAR seems like it will just continue to encourage people to put their primary pick up top.
Ranked Choice (otherwise known as Instant Runnoff Voting) is the worse system by far.
It comes down to the mechanics of both.
See, IRV is just a bunch of small FPtP elections all on one ballot. This causes issues and extremely odd behaviors, that can result in the Condorcet winner, actually losing the election.
IRV also has spoiler effects and horrible counting procedure.
Did you know that to count an IRV election, you need to transport all ballots to a centralized location? It literally cannot be counted at the polling location due to the way the counting (and recounting) works.
Also, IRV is one of the only voting systems ever invented to fail the Monotonicity criterion, i.e. ranking a candidate lower can sometimes lead to them winning the election. The likelihood of this happening approaches 100% the more candidates you have on the ballot.
In Contrast, with STAR, You rate each candidate independently of the others on the ballot. You can have multiple candidates rated at the same level.
This independent rating removes the spoiler effect completely, because you're never forced to vote A instead of B.
So, you've rated all your candidates on a scale of 0-5, then the counting happens. It can be done at the polling location. Each polling location reports the number of ballots cast, and the total scores of each candidate.
This gives you a lot of data about each polling location. Particularly, you can average out those scores. This lets you know how the total population feels about any given candidate, not just how their direct supporters feel.
Anyway, the total scores for the election are added up, and the top two candidates are then put into an automatic runoff.
This automatic runoff is done ballot by ballot, if A is rated higher on that ballot than B, the final vote goes to A. If they're rated the same, then the final vote is tallied as "No Preference" and here's the important part, the No Preference votes are also reported in the final count.
So in your example with four candidates, You have to ask more. Do Red voters also like Green? Do Blue voters like Yellow? That actually matters in the final count.
It's not just "my top pick didn't win, so now it's down to my less favorite" (Although that does happen as well).
The best way to look at the results of a STAR election is to average out the scores. So, the candidates with a 3.8 and a 4.1 end up in the automatic runoff, while the candidates who got 2.5 and a 3.6 are dropped from the election.
Then each ballot is checked, and if the candidate with a 4.1 does better on that ballot, they get the vote.
The actual averages will likely be different. Districts that lean heavily one direction or the other might see a candidate with a very high average, districts that are more competitive will see winning averages in the 2s and 3s.
This would also change the strategy around getting campaigning. Less negativity and mud slinging, more focus on issues and driving engagement.
Big thank you for writing all that out. There’s a lot of dynamics here I am not knowledgeable about, so I appreciate you providing links as well. I’ll have to read more on this before getting back to you. After your explanation, I have a much better understanding of the intended value of STAR. My gut is still saying that STAR will not allow 3rd parties into a polarized political environment, but I have no data to back that up. I just feel that people will vote 0 for the candidate they least want, 5 for the one they want, and 3 for the one they’re ambivalent about and that will devolve STAR to a two-round ranked choice that favors the two biggest political parties. Again, that’s definitely possibly me just not fully understanding the system. I’ll have to read more, crunch numbers, and see what numbers others have crunched and get back to you. Definitely very interesting and I love the concept of rating politicians independent of each other.
The main reason why STAR and other Cardinal voting systems can help grow third parties, is they don't punish the voter for supporting them.
That 3 rating that you give someone, You can give a bunch of them and not change the 5 rating that you also gave.
One of the most common attacks against a voting system is called Cloning. You take a somewhat popular candidate and run someone who has almost exactly the same platform. Both then suffer from splitting the vote between the two.
STAR and other Cardinal systems are immune to this attack. There's no vote splitting, because the (initial) votes are completely independent of each other.
Things can get a bit odd if two clone candidates make it to the final two, but even then, they theoretically have the same platform, and the voting public should be mostly happy with either one.
But that's where the tallied "No Preference" votes come in, to tell the winner just how little they're preferred over their closest rival.
It’s always funny to me when these articles claim dems are worried about this No Labels group. It’s kinda asinine. That’s just not the kinda thing that appeals to dems that much. Makes me almost certain it’s just someone writing that kinda wants dems to be worried.
We, honestly, kinda like labels. They’re terribly convenient. Like, when you run into a Jewish-hating, militaristic, strong ethno-state type individual, it’s just really nice if there can just be this one word that can be used to describe that person. Because, y’know, “Jewish-hating militaristic ethno-state individual” is just a pain in the ass to use.
Now, certain types really don’t like labels. They like to whine about identity politics for instance. I think they will like this party.
People want fine-tuned success when we’re still at broad-stroke level of change required.
This go-around, focus on
all people are people
everyone gets a vote
armed demonstrations get Armed Response
lies get lawsuits
prisoners get at least Geneva Convention-level treatment
Later, we can work on the other things we need. You know, allowing for Texit if they build their walls, eminent-domaining prisons back for cruelty reasons, taxing the wealthy, all that. But now, let’s just get the absolute basics in.
I kind of think the 3rd party vote for president is a general election really depends on the state you vote in. If your state is a stronghold for a party and has a candidate that has no chance in losing, I think it makes sense to vote 3rd party if that aligns with your politics. But id voting in a contested battleground state, you have to be more strategic about your vote and be willing to compromise or vote for damage control to prevent the other candidate from winning. I think ideally participating in democracy is an ends in itself regardless of whether your candidate wins or not. All participants in an election should be able to look at results and get a feel for what the voice of the people is, and that does mean knowing what the minority voted for and in what numbers.
Yeah, no one is voting-in a 3rd party. That’s just not ever going to be a thing, sorry. And if through some miracle, they somehow did get elected, what the fuck are they going to do? Not a fucking thing. In spite of Trump’s best efforts, presidents are not dictators. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are going to work with a president who isn’t part of their little clubs. They probably couldn’t get approval for a new brand of toilet paper in the white house bathrooms, let alone do anything meaningful.
During almost any other election, I’d be all sorts of in favor of 3rd party candidates. But I’m also willing to acknowledge the reality of the situation, and the choices are this:
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Donald J. Trump.
A Third Party Candidate Donald J. Trump
Stay Home Donald J. Trump
A Write-in Candidate Donald J. Trump
That’s it. Those are your options. Third party candidates have exactly zero chance in our political system in today’s hyper-partisan environment. If you are voting for anybody other than Biden, or opting not to vote at all, you’re essentially giving your vote to Trump. All of these people refusing to put support behind Biden because he’s too old, or because of Israel, or whatever, refuse to accept that the alternative is exponentially worse for them.
It’s Biden or Trump. There is no choice C. And in the immortal words of Rush, If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Yeah the choice you’re misrepresenting is its own choice. The choice to not participate, or to protest the incumbent. Unless you tick the box next to trump you’re not voting for trump. If Biden wants support he has to earn it like everyone else. Blame all the idiots voting for trump, blame the DNC for shilling trump into the Whitehouse in 2016, or blame the two party system for creating this scenario sure, but blaming the people on the fringe trying to vote their conscious is just reinforcing the system that got us in this mess.
Ex Republican here. We loved people like you. We joked about it constantly. A non voter is seen as a Republican vote because it meant we won in the end. Republican voters sort of understand on some level that they are the minority so they see non or protest voters as a victory.
You vote Republican by not voting if you were planning on voting Democratic. It’s that simple, no nuance needed.
Being wrong when uneducated and indoctrinated is one thing. Continuing to be stupid in the face of overwhelming evidence is significantly worse. You are literally a joke to Republicans.
They are a lot of pig fucking idiots, what do I care what they think? What evidence have you presented, aside from dogma and assertions? I never plan to vote Democrat. Democrats have never won my vote, they have just tried to bully me for it
I just spent a Thanksgiving listening to Republican voters discussing putting liberals and LGBTQ into camps. Stop trying to be righteous. We are living on the edge of the end you fucking idiot.
It’s surprising how complicated life is. I’ve cut off multiple family members but I can’t control who is invited all the time dumbass. Stop being dense.
Republicans love you for voting third party. And would put you in the camps with my educated ass.
And its good to know enlightened Democrats will sit and eat with them as they plan to March me into a concentration camp. Thanks for your service, braver than the troops o7
Oh no, a collaborator called me prideful and sinful, guess ill vote Democrat now!! Its laughable how you spineless fucks rationalize your way through this.
Be heated all you want. You are still acting the way Republicans want. Voting third party is a part of their wet dreams.
Collaborator is a funny thing to call me. I am good at pretending to be Republican, which I will continue to do for my kid’s sake. Is it right? IDK. Like I said before life is complex and IDK what is going to happen in the future.
I guess thats the difference between us, you save your resistance for the ballot and are priveleged enough to pass through their lives in secret and try to do so. I try to live my resistance and the ballot is a small step along the way.
If you and others like you lived your truth in every day life, the Republicans would not have a foothold.
There are 5 people in your family and 2 of them are die hard shit eaters and 1 die hard burger eater. If you vote for a burrito, pizza, or don’t vote you are eating shit.
Except the burger is 50% ground shit. You were forced to est shit your whole life. Your best friend was sent far away by shit enforcement to eat shit somewhere else, and your neighbors are eating shit out of garbage can and lighting shit on fire to stay warm. The only time anyone seems to question why we are covered in shit is when the shit eaters win the vote, otherwise they are completely ignoring the shit eating party and are content to blame anyone who is eyeing the ecoli burrito for the fact we are eating shit.
All of these people refusing to put support behind Biden because he’s too old, or because of Israel, or whatever, refuse to accept that the alternative is exponentially worse for them.
Ok. So you’ve pointed out the reality of the situation. How do we proceed? How do we get them back? “Trump is worse than Biden, moron!!!” hasn’t done the trick. If we need their votes, how do we get their votes?
If we don’t need their votes, we don’t get to retroactively need their votes if we need someone to blame for a loss, either.
I have a few ideas. There’s been a pattern in the Biden administration. I call it “lose big, win small, celebrate huge.”
Example: BBB. We lost big there. Over the course of months, BBB was systematically gutted and then killed. Americans got to watch as things Biden ran on, things that could have improved their lives in tangible ways, the reasons many of them voted for Biden in the first place, get removed, one by one, until the bill was eventually killed, at the behest of a member of Biden’s own party.
This was followed up with a comparatively modest win: The Inflation Reduction Act, which has indirect limited benefits to individuals, like Medicare being able to negotiate prices on a laughably tiny selection of prescription drugs. It’s something, yes, but we voted for childcare and family leave.
Then Biden’s supporters completely ignore the big loss, and instead celebrate the Inflation Reduction Act as though it was a bigger win than passing BBB, with all sorts of puffery about how it’s the least pathetic attempt to address the climate emergency so far.
I can provide other examples, but this is the most glaring one.
Now, compare this to how Biden has handled student loans. Biden started with half measures and his supporters acted like forgiving fraudulent loans for select borrowers was huge, even though it was mandated by existing law. Then Biden actually listened to progressives and tried to forgive student loans. Actual, tangible benefit to voters. That was killed by the courts. Crucially, it was not killed by Biden’s own party. Unlike childcare and family leave, Biden didn’t immediately give up forever. He instead did what he could to forgive what he could. He had a contingency plan and kept going. His supporters could point to the failure, admit it failed, blame those responsible, and show in real terms how Biden wasn’t gonna let that be the last word on the subject.
There’s other examples of this as well, but as before, this is the most glaring.
We need to keep trying to do what voters voted for, not acting like they won the showcase showdown when they’re going home with the consolation prize.
And for the love of god, we can’t keep acting like “not trump” is a sufficient argument to get all the voters we need to win. It might be, but the consequences of failure are so dire that that mustn’t be our only message. That and we need the administration to step up between now and the election. The administration needs a win between now and then.
And before anyone is like “well, you’re not getting one so vote for Biden anyway,” I’m already voting for Biden. I’m saying what I think is needed to convince enough people to vote for Biden so that we can be confident about beating Trump.
If Trump wins, you stop investing your money, pull it completely out of the bank, do not buy anything at all beyond basic needs. You want the economy to implode and your investments are safe at home. Beyond that you can’t do much else.
If we need their votes, how do we get their votes?
In my opinion, the Democrats need to work on broadly popular legislation, like marijuana legalization. Try to push it through, and if it fails, which it probably would in the house, they need to make a stink over it, and then use that for campaign ads, with the promise that if they win all 3 branches next election, they will make it happen. Then they actually need to do that, rather than waffling like they have in the past.
Weary means worn down (it's literally the "wear" as in "wear and tear" with a y on the end to make an adjective), usually signifying tiredness or apathy.
Wary means overly aware (it's literally the "ware" as in "aware" with a y on the end to make an adjective*), usually signifying nervousness or apprehension.
Given the context, they could mean either. Or both.
* Though for orthographic reasons, the e is dropped. I see you, fellow pedants.
Third parties should sit it out until trump is convicted and behind bars. If the third party candidates are serious about the country, they’d recognize the danger that orange moron poses and do just that.
Simply blame the voters for not feeling oblogated enough to pick your party until you win the elections of course. Taking responsibility for their own choices just cuts too much into our donor base.
Many library-goers are worried about ice on the sidewalk to the front entrance due to the extremely cold temperature. A guy pouring his lukewarm coffee on the ground hopes he can help.
Im not supporting this political system anymore. Im voting for whoever is promising ranked choice voting, overturning citizens united, outlawing lobbying, and outlawing all elected officials from investing.
Primaries? Sure. In the general if you do that you are essentially voting for Trump and/or fascism. Third parties are spoilers 100% of the time until they can actually win. And none of them can right now.
There are also other ways than just voting. Joining Unions for example and strikes. In Europe Unions have a massive influence on politics because they have the ability to strike and have huge membrrship numbers
I can tell you that it’s not this upcoming presidential election, but I can’t tell you when it will be. Maybe never. Maybe 4 years. I think there’s a good chance that we see a candidate that supports overturning Citizens United AND supports outlawing elected officials from trading stocks within the next decade. Outlawing lobbying is probably the third most likely, but once we do that we’ll be almost on the right track. It’s going to take a large scale societal shift away from Capitalism for that… so maybe 40 years there. Ranked choice voting is something that will probably never happen in the USA without a full on restructure. Once that happens, it’s probably not the USA anymore.
As opposed to the option where you actively prevent things from getting better? You know, the thing you’re advocating for? Biden winning preserves the possibility that there could be change and improvement. Trump winning eliminates that possibility. Instead of “dealing with it” your solution is to make everything worse?
I think Biden winning is the least possibility of change. Absolutely not the changes Ive listed, which are the fundamental issues specifically preventing progress on political issues.
Outlawing lobbying? So you want to make it a crime to visit your elected representatives in their office? Is that the kind of world you fantasize about?
Also, how the absolute fuck are you gonna get ranked choice voting enacted by the President?? Did you just arrive from the moon?
Youre thinking of the historical definition of lobbying, when citizens would wait in lobbies of legislatures to make their case to a legislator. Thats no longer what lobbying means in the US. Its actually a legally distinguished title, lobbyists are a paid position, generally lawyers or former legislators, representing large organizations, and facilitating giving politicians money or gifts to influence their votes. You can write to your congressman, you can call one of their secretaries voicemails, you can attend any town halls they might hold, but youre not a lobbyist and you cannot go have a personal meeting with your congressman like a lobbyist can.
Im voting on these issues for all elections, not just president. But presidential support is pretty important for any legislation.
The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 starts regulating when a person exceeds 20% of their time spent in that capacity. If you spend less than 20% of your time lobbying, you’re not recognized as a lobbyist per federal law. Jon Stewart was, for example, an unpaid lobbyist for 9/11 first responders.
Its actually a legally distinguished title, lobbyists are a paid position, generally lawyers or former legislators, representing large organizations, and facilitating giving politicians money or gifts to influence their votes.
Wrong. Lobbyists are people who spend more than 20% of their time in that capacity, per the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. Anyone under that threshold is still lobbying, but is not a lobbyist. Nonprofits also have lobbyists, such as Human Rights Watch, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Greenpeace, or the Waterkeeper Alliance. The Cherokee Tribe has a lobbyist. So does the Nebraska League of Municipalities and the Chicago Teachers Union. Not all of them are mustache-twirling supervillains. I’m sure you think it’s nice and neat to write a law that makes “bad” lobbying illegal but keeps “good” lobbying legal, but I can assure you there’s more lobbying happening every minute of every day than you actually realize, and a lot of it is good lobbying.
youre not a lobbyist and you cannot go have a personal meeting with your congressman like a lobbyist can.
Theyre non-profit, but they still spend money. The Southern Poverty Law Center i know does monetary lobbying, contributing to political campaigns. With good intentions sure, but id say theyre being forced to use a corrupt system to try and compete with the mustache twirling supervillains. Im defining lobbying as monetary value contributions to elected officials or candidates, thats the specifics of what i want outlawed. Actual legislation would be even more specific in scope.
All of these meeting links include organization representation. Some of them even say you might only get to meet with a staffer. See if you can get a one on one meeting with your rep.
If the “corrupt” system goes away, the implicit coordination with PACs doesn’t. You will quite literally only be punishing the good guys. You should be far more specific that what you want to outlaw is quid pro quo lobbying, not the whole concept of lobbying itself.
Also I pointed out that you are factually incorrect on being able to meet with a Congressional representative, your goalpost shift notwithstanding.
Lobbying does not exist in its historical definition anymore. Even in non-profit examples, it's still monetary influence rather than just spoken. That's what people are talking about when they say lobbying, if you see a political call to action of writing your congressman, tell me if they describe it as lobbying your congressman.
I aint moving goalposts, I claim you cannot have a personal meeting with your congressman. If you are a representative of some large organization, maybe.
Wrong and wrong. I know and work with several registered lobbyists, as well as people who do occasional environmental lobbying. To say you’re completely and utterly misinformed (on both points) would be an understatement.
you knowing lobbyists changes what? Are they registered with organizations that are doing no political contributions? The fact that they're registered lobbyists is kind of what I've been talking about, you came in talking about how I want to make it a crime to meet with my representative. Im not a lobbyist, I don't represent any organization, I dont have a political fund to influence my representative.
Are they registered with organizations that are doing no political contributions?
Yes. Novel idea, I know. That’s the kind of information you learn from experience, rather than gut hunches and the news media.
you came in talking about how I want to make it a crime to meet with my representative.
And you said exactly that. The kind of activity that a colleague of mine does to advocate for clean rivers would be illegal. Not my fault you used sweeping generalizations that don’t reflect reality.
Im not a lobbyist, I don’t represent any organization, I dont have a political fund to influence my representative.
Yet you are legally allowed to lobby your elected representatives.
I think Trump will win and AGI will be created on the same day, and before the end of his term AGI will solve mortality and we can watch Trump and Biden go back and forth for eternity. I can’t wait.
the proof that biden isnt the guy isnt exactly his age, but its his age.
its that he apparently lacks the awareness required to understand he needs to fucking retire already... that these ancient political monoliths need to go.
that lack of awareness is whhy he personally is not fit to be president.
then theres the whole reality of 'democrats are conservatives' now, so actual democratic voters have to hold their nose and vote non-fascist while the DNC pretends the party is still relevant to the common man somehow.
its been frustrating to watch for decades democrats fumble the ball at literally every play
Dropping out now is ideal, but he'd be forgoing both incumbency advantage and name recognition. I know why he doesn't drop for a younger person. Also because there are no prominent Democrats with enough name recognition right now. People can throw stones about why there aren't all day long but at this point it's too late.
It’s not the best we can hope for, no one ever said that. It’s what we have. 10 times out of 10, I’ll take second worst to fascism as opposed to fascism.
Killing children has no correlation to fascism. You should spend some time learning about different forms of government. Lemmy is not the place to go for education. However, if your comment is meant as an attempt to tie the Democratic party to exclusively supporting Israel, I have bad news for you. There's a significantly higher number of people supporting Palestine that are Democrats than there are that are Republicans. In fact, I'd argue that you would not find a Republican that supports Palestine.
Also, none of this has anything to do with skin-color; but way to show your colors!
Add comment