this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
26 points (78.3% liked)

politics

19120 readers
3176 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
26
Ralph Nader Would Like to Stop Having to Explain Why the Spoiler Coverage Is Stupid (www.motherjones.com)
submitted 7 months ago by mozz@mbin.grits.dev to c/politics@lemmy.world
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago

People blame Nader for 2000 Florida, but the truth of the matter is that, had the counting been allowed to finish, Gore would have won.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa

The other interesting bit is that the butterfly ballot they used siphoned off enough votes from Gore to Pat Buchanan to make the difference.

Here's how it looked:

Bush was the top choice, Buchanan was 2nd, Gore was 3rd. But reading down the left hand side of the page, a significant number of otherwise Liberal Democratic voters, punched the 2nd box instead of the 3rd.

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/butterfly-did-it-aberrant-vote-buchanan-palm-beach-county-florida

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 17 points 7 months ago

From the article:

[Nader]'s efforts resulted in the creation of some pillars of the regulatory state: the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Consumer Product Safety Act, among others.

He got his start with auto safety, which has probably saved millions of lives by now, but he proceeded from there to pretty much tireless work on progressive issues in Washington for his entire life. He was successful enough to fall into the groundbreaking musician's trap, of "I don't see what difference he made" because the things he created were so seismic that now they seem like part of the landscape.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca -4 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I think people should vote their conscience. I respect people who bothered to vote, even if it is for Kennedy, a third party, Abraham Lincoln or Hitler incarnate, or went to spoil their ballot. The ones that say it doesn't matter and stay home is what I have a problem with.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't and I'm all for voting your conscience. I'm also for voting solidarity and strategically. My conscience votes for making the outright fascist lose by as much as possible. And never standing a chance of winning.

I live in a red state that Biden stands no chance of winning ever. But I will be damned if it's close and I happen to be one of the chucklefucks that could have made a difference but didn't. Because I felt it was more important to protest vote in one of the most useless elections to protest vote. A Presidential election.

If you want to send one of the major parties a message start voting in state and local elections. Start filling their ranks with progressives socialist and communist. They will take notice. They will start appeasing them or risk losing their power.

They can safely ignore each and every single presidential protest vote in the history of the United states. Because since the country's founding. The structure of presidential elections have always put it outside the reach of all third parties everywhere. And even if the unthinkable happened. A third party candidate made it into the office of the president. They would be a lame duck for change. Unable to make a difference without any sort of coalition or party to back them. Bad presidential candidates is a symptom of a greater disease in the body politic. You don't solve the problem by doing a little pruning at the top. Pruning the top won't change the underlying structure. You have to go for the root of the problem so to speak.

Each and every 3rd party or independent presidential candidate is either a grifter themselves or a tool for grifters. Jill Stein couldn't win city dog catcher. Let alone president. The fact that every 4 years the money is there to run that moron for president. But the green party can't be bothered to push candidates elsewhere. Where they might accidentally stand a chance of wining. That should tell you everything. There are thousands of state and local offices throughout middle America that Republicans run for and win unopposed. Almost as damming of Democrats as it is of every single other party in American politics.

3rd party presidential candidates almost always guarantee a fascist/Republican win. Coupled with the fact that most people can't be bothered to vote on non-presidential years for anything ever. It pretty much guarantees that nothing will ever change and the status quo will stay in place. It's a pretty Insidious and ingenious system. The perfect political hamster wheel if you will. Designed to keep the public tiring itself out getting nowhere. Where those in power can just continue to get worse and worse with impunity. As we argue and fight amongst ourselves.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Vote strategically, don't vote strategically, I honestly don't care. Even if your party has a 0% chance of winning I don't care either. All I care is you cast your ballot in a way that you think is the best option, it shows you did something to advance your cause.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You should care. They should care. The whole point of voting, is because you care. You're statement makes no sense.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

I care that people care. I don't value the political opinions of those who aren't arsed enough to vote for anyone or at the very least make the effort to vote for no-one.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They're functionally the same people.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

From the presidential, DNC/RNC perspective yes you are correct. From my perspective and a civic duty perspective, people who don't vote even if they reasonably could have (so excluding people in areas specifically disenfranchised by stupid voting rules and ID laws etc.) are lazy.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 3 points 7 months ago

Nader actually talked about this and he has a significant experience with bringing progressive agendas to success in Washington. One of his big methods from early in the article was, build a big coalition and then promise votes to the Democratic candidate if they get on board with particular parts of the agenda you're asking for.

But the point is, it's targeted and there's strategy. It's not just this "both parties are the same!" (they aren't) or "I'm just frustrated things are bad, I won't vote!" (which will make things worse)