Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said in an interview with NBC News that he will encourage progressive voters to still back Democrats on the ticket in November even if moderates are victorious in the primaries.
This right here. And it goes for centrist dems too. If a progressive is the candidate on the ticket, vote for them. Don’t let the pedophiles win this one
Turning in a ballot with an empty selection is exactly the way to send the “voting for nobody” message that non-voters convince themselves they are sending, rather than the “you don’t need to care about my opinion on the issues because I don’t vote” message that it actually sends.
I cannot tell you how many sanctimonious jackasses I’ve met in my life that think their non-action is “sending a message”.
Staying home or doing performative nonsense like not selecting a candidate or voting third party is basically non-action, and virtually no one sees the message or cares.
I thought it rather silly when I was still in university and hearing it from peers. These days, when someone my age tells me they have been doing this for decades I usually ask him them who has gotten their “message” and what was done about it?
One of the recent local elections i voted in had a list of 3 shit Republicans for sheriff. I chose to vote for none of them. Every other ballot choice i filled out.
Unless the elections are rigged any party has the same chances of winning, stop spreading misinformation and propaganda, voting a third party is as much action as voting red and blue is.
Unless the elections are rigged any party has the same chances of winning
This is not an accurate statement. Plurality voting inevitably results in a two party system, due to the spoiler effect.
Until we switch away from plurality voting, voting for a third party helps the party you least align with. It’s math. If you’re thinking of a scenario where magically a majority of voters all vote for a third party, you’re not taking this seriously; that is not a realistic scenario.
Now, if you live in Maine, Alaska, or whatever other places that have switched from plurality voting (a) I’m very jealous and (b) you’re encouraged to vote any third party as you see fit.
The overall election rules are rigged in favor of the D/R duopoly. I have several big posts, with sources, on the current statistics. To summarize:
3 out of 535 members of US Congress are independent or 3rd party. One of them elected as R and changed in office. One won the D nomination before turning it down and running as independent
Fewer than 100 out of >7200 state level legislators.
Zero EC votes for a 3rd party presidential candidate since 1968, including Ross Perot when he won 19% of the national popular vote
No 3rd party was on the ballot in all 50 states in 2024, only 3 were in more than 10 states
Unless you have an independent or 3rd party incumbent, or have some form of ranked choice in your district the winner will be either the D or R nominee.
I’m showing the observations that would lead one to hypothesize that the elections are rigged against 3rd parties. If you can look at the gerrymandered districts, the ballot access rules, the minimum percentage of the vote needed for public funding, the plurality-based vote counting, etc and then combine that with the statistically non-existent representation of 3rd party and independent legislators at the state and federal level and not suspect that the elections are rigged against 3rd parties then I don’t know what to else to say to you.
LOL, it’s not misinformation to state the fact that voting third party is basically pissing away your vote. There is no real serious third party option. Maybe we can talk about some other country or some future where a serious party emerges in this country. Until then, what I said is truth.
The only perfect candidate for you is you yourself. If you’re not running, and you don’t have some form of ranked choice, not voting against the worse candidate is one fewer vote they need to overcome in order to win. And for your 1 vote against them, they need two for them to get ahead.
On a practical matter the message is still “both are equally acceptable to me”, with a small shade of a slightly louder “I wish there was someone better”.
Since votes are secret, it really just indicates “I voted is this election and are 50/49/1 percent likely to have voted winner/runner-up/either”
I think not voting at all is a stronger message of “I wasn’t encouraged to actually vote for or against either”, but it’s also indistinguishable from “I just don’t care anymore” or “I was in a coma that November”
Have you observed that to be moving the DNC to the left over the past few decades? My observation is that after Kamala received fewer votes than Biden and lost to Trump, in the face of the historic (yet still measly) 4% of the primary vote being for Uncommitted, the entrenched neoliberals are digging in their heels and continuing to oppose progressive primary candidates in 2025 and 2026 primaries. My conclusion is that they don’t care, and we can’t trust them to get any message other than “you’re fired, and being replaced by this progressive candidate.” And the only way to do that is by voting for a progressive primary challenger in the primary.
I see people who don’t vote saying they never receive any flyers, calls, texts, canvassers, or any other kind of outreach from any campaigns. And then I see people who voted in either the primary or the general say they are bombarded with those types of outreach. So it’s hard for me to conclude anything other than that campaigns by and large ignore people with a public record of not voting. Because it’s harder and costs more to get a non-voter to vote than it is to get a voter to vote against the opposition. And in first-past-the-post, that is truly what your vote is in the general. Not a vote for the best, but a vote against the worst who is most likely to win.
“First-past-the-post” is a terrible moniker to describe the sort of single ballot plurality wins elections common in the USA. It’s metaphor is clumsy to the point of inaccuracy, since there isn’t any predermined scale that declares a winner. Whether only 3 votes are cast or 3 million, the winner is whomever has the biggest pile. A better sports metaphor might be “shotput”, but I think “plurality wins” is clear enough.
That being said, that the democratic establishment is ignoring the signals doesn’t mean that they aren’t relatively strong. The party’s voters are moving to the left, so even if the consultant gang isn’t responding to the collective “ew” of Uncommitted someone is.
What I mean is whether the signal is being ignored or misinterpreted is kind of immaterial. The desired result is not being observed, so a different tactic is required. We consistently have more non-voters than primary voters, so why not try voting in the primaries where each vote carries more weight than it does in the general? It certainly can’t be construed as a tacit approval of neoliberal policies like a vote for such a nominee in the general could be. So you still get a more clear and direct message than you did with non-voting.
Imo, we can fight over what shade of blue after the pedos are out of office.
I’m not sure what you are advocating for but if your argument is to vote for the democrat party to counter evil people such as pedophiles your best option is to advocate for a different party that isn’t affiliated with any pedophile and that doesn’t endorse genocides.
My flow chart represents exactly those people recieving my vote first and foremost if available. The Democrats are only viable in the absence of any decent choice.
In Canada, we have “centrists” that are really just fascists that don’t openly hate gay people. There is almost no difference between our current prime minister and the guy so many people were voting against. The stupid thing is that we have a proper progressive party.
My message to you is this: The conservatives know you’re scared and are using that. Their only tactic is to tell you that you need to vote against someone who is worse than them and then they get their power either way. It’s always “we can argue over the shade of blue once you put this specific shade of purple into power” and then nothing happens. The name-brand conservatives complain about them being woke, the “moderates” act like the problem is solved, and the left has to deal with both those idiots refusing to do any work.
Democrats have won multiple times since Carter and we’re still broke and rent is still insane. You’re preaching to the choir, but we didn’t operate concentration camps on American soil, or start two-three(who knows!?) wars.
Better, at the moment is all I can get. One italian kid having the balls to shoot a ceo isn’t enough for these sheep to actually do what’s necessary to fix the disunited states.
Gotta agree here. In terms of endorsing human rights, Dems have a far superior record to the GOP. However, it’s their motivation that I question. Since most Dems are beholden to their corporate donors, their motivation is “freedom of consumption,” that is, giving access of consumption to marginalized groups to maximize profits. I wonder how much of it is a genuine concern for human rights.
It also explains how Dems don’t go far enough or fight hard enough when it comes to marginalized groups.
I’ll take a win regardless of the motivation, but it’s interesting to investigate the underlying motivations.
That’s the thing, there will always be those COUPLE OF DEMOCRATS that come out of nowhere and flip on ONLY the key issues we care about. Lieberman, Manchin, Sinema, Collins, Fetterman, etc.
Funny how we always just have to vote a little harder, right?
My voting flow chart is socialists, then democrats, then nobody.
Imo, we can fight over what shade of blue after the pedos are out of office.
except Fetterman, fuck that guy
THANK YOU
This right here. And it goes for centrist dems too. If a progressive is the candidate on the ticket, vote for them. Don’t let the pedophiles win this one
Yes. The centrist ass dem I voted for veto’d a pro union bill. I would still vote for her over the alternative.
My primary votes are all left though.
Seems notable that we don’t have a headline with Joe Biden or whoever urging moderates to vote Democratic
That might have more to do with the senile and dying thing. Or he might’ve said it already. He probably did but I’m too lazy to check.
deleted by creator
Turning in a ballot with an empty selection is exactly the way to send the “voting for nobody” message that non-voters convince themselves they are sending, rather than the “you don’t need to care about my opinion on the issues because I don’t vote” message that it actually sends.
I cannot tell you how many sanctimonious jackasses I’ve met in my life that think their non-action is “sending a message”.
Staying home or doing performative nonsense like not selecting a candidate or voting third party is basically non-action, and virtually no one sees the message or cares.
I thought it rather silly when I was still in university and hearing it from peers. These days, when someone my age tells me they have been doing this for decades I usually ask him them who has gotten their “message” and what was done about it?
One of the recent local elections i voted in had a list of 3 shit Republicans for sheriff. I chose to vote for none of them. Every other ballot choice i filled out.
We’ve tried nothing and we’re out of ideas!
Unless the elections are rigged any party has the same chances of winning, stop spreading misinformation and propaganda, voting a third party is as much action as voting red and blue is.
This is not an accurate statement. Plurality voting inevitably results in a two party system, due to the spoiler effect.
Until we switch away from plurality voting, voting for a third party helps the party you least align with. It’s math. If you’re thinking of a scenario where magically a majority of voters all vote for a third party, you’re not taking this seriously; that is not a realistic scenario.
Now, if you live in Maine, Alaska, or whatever other places that have switched from plurality voting (a) I’m very jealous and (b) you’re encouraged to vote any third party as you see fit.
The overall election rules are rigged in favor of the D/R duopoly. I have several big posts, with sources, on the current statistics. To summarize:
Unless you have an independent or 3rd party incumbent, or have some form of ranked choice in your district the winner will be either the D or R nominee.
Your argument is that elections are rigged because a third party never got voted for?
I’m showing the observations that would lead one to hypothesize that the elections are rigged against 3rd parties. If you can look at the gerrymandered districts, the ballot access rules, the minimum percentage of the vote needed for public funding, the plurality-based vote counting, etc and then combine that with the statistically non-existent representation of 3rd party and independent legislators at the state and federal level and not suspect that the elections are rigged against 3rd parties then I don’t know what to else to say to you.
LOL, it’s not misinformation to state the fact that voting third party is basically pissing away your vote. There is no real serious third party option. Maybe we can talk about some other country or some future where a serious party emerges in this country. Until then, what I said is truth.
There’s always a worse choice of the choices for who to vote for.
Vote for the other one.
The only perfect candidate for you is you yourself. If you’re not running, and you don’t have some form of ranked choice, not voting against the worse candidate is one fewer vote they need to overcome in order to win. And for your 1 vote against them, they need two for them to get ahead.
On a practical matter the message is still “both are equally acceptable to me”, with a small shade of a slightly louder “I wish there was someone better”.
But it indicates you actively participate and are therefore a winnable vote. That means campaigns are more likely to reach out to you in some way.
Since votes are secret, it really just indicates “I voted is this election and are 50/49/1 percent likely to have voted winner/runner-up/either”
I think not voting at all is a stronger message of “I wasn’t encouraged to actually vote for or against either”, but it’s also indistinguishable from “I just don’t care anymore” or “I was in a coma that November”
Have you observed that to be moving the DNC to the left over the past few decades? My observation is that after Kamala received fewer votes than Biden and lost to Trump, in the face of the historic (yet still measly) 4% of the primary vote being for Uncommitted, the entrenched neoliberals are digging in their heels and continuing to oppose progressive primary candidates in 2025 and 2026 primaries. My conclusion is that they don’t care, and we can’t trust them to get any message other than “you’re fired, and being replaced by this progressive candidate.” And the only way to do that is by voting for a progressive primary challenger in the primary.
I see people who don’t vote saying they never receive any flyers, calls, texts, canvassers, or any other kind of outreach from any campaigns. And then I see people who voted in either the primary or the general say they are bombarded with those types of outreach. So it’s hard for me to conclude anything other than that campaigns by and large ignore people with a public record of not voting. Because it’s harder and costs more to get a non-voter to vote than it is to get a voter to vote against the opposition. And in first-past-the-post, that is truly what your vote is in the general. Not a vote for the best, but a vote against the worst who is most likely to win.
“First-past-the-post” is a terrible moniker to describe the sort of single ballot plurality wins elections common in the USA. It’s metaphor is clumsy to the point of inaccuracy, since there isn’t any predermined scale that declares a winner. Whether only 3 votes are cast or 3 million, the winner is whomever has the biggest pile. A better sports metaphor might be “shotput”, but I think “plurality wins” is clear enough.
That being said, that the democratic establishment is ignoring the signals doesn’t mean that they aren’t relatively strong. The party’s voters are moving to the left, so even if the consultant gang isn’t responding to the collective “ew” of Uncommitted someone is.
Yeah, agreed on the wording.
What I mean is whether the signal is being ignored or misinterpreted is kind of immaterial. The desired result is not being observed, so a different tactic is required. We consistently have more non-voters than primary voters, so why not try voting in the primaries where each vote carries more weight than it does in the general? It certainly can’t be construed as a tacit approval of neoliberal policies like a vote for such a nominee in the general could be. So you still get a more clear and direct message than you did with non-voting.
you just wrote ‘die’ on a piece of paper…
“I’m aware.”
I’m not sure what you are advocating for but if your argument is to vote for the democrat party to counter evil people such as pedophiles your best option is to advocate for a different party that isn’t affiliated with any pedophile and that doesn’t endorse genocides.
My flow chart represents exactly those people recieving my vote first and foremost if available. The Democrats are only viable in the absence of any decent choice.
Hm, it seems as if this patient is dying from a sucking chest wound. Doctor, how should we proceed?
“First, we need to get his diabetes under control. Then we will stop the bleeding.”
In Canada, we have “centrists” that are really just fascists that don’t openly hate gay people. There is almost no difference between our current prime minister and the guy so many people were voting against. The stupid thing is that we have a proper progressive party.
My message to you is this: The conservatives know you’re scared and are using that. Their only tactic is to tell you that you need to vote against someone who is worse than them and then they get their power either way. It’s always “we can argue over the shade of blue once you put this specific shade of purple into power” and then nothing happens. The name-brand conservatives complain about them being woke, the “moderates” act like the problem is solved, and the left has to deal with both those idiots refusing to do any work.
Democrats have won multiple times since Carter and we’re still broke and rent is still insane. You’re preaching to the choir, but we didn’t operate concentration camps on American soil, or start two-three(who knows!?) wars.
Better, at the moment is all I can get. One italian kid having the balls to shoot a ceo isn’t enough for these sheep to actually do what’s necessary to fix the disunited states.
Gotta agree here. In terms of endorsing human rights, Dems have a far superior record to the GOP. However, it’s their motivation that I question. Since most Dems are beholden to their corporate donors, their motivation is “freedom of consumption,” that is, giving access of consumption to marginalized groups to maximize profits. I wonder how much of it is a genuine concern for human rights.
It also explains how Dems don’t go far enough or fight hard enough when it comes to marginalized groups.
I’ll take a win regardless of the motivation, but it’s interesting to investigate the underlying motivations.
That’s the thing, there will always be those COUPLE OF DEMOCRATS that come out of nowhere and flip on ONLY the key issues we care about. Lieberman, Manchin, Sinema, Collins, Fetterman, etc.
Funny how we always just have to vote a little harder, right?
Fetterman is a Trojan horse. They sent an undercover chud to parade around as woke. Bro looks about as woke as a snorlax
A lot of moderate and right wing Dems here.