Don’t Fall for the Third-Party Trick
Don’t Fall for the Third-Party Trick
A progressive who stays home on Election Day — or backs Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West, or No Labels — is voting for Donald Trump.
"Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst Thälmann made in 1932. The leader of the German Communist Party, Thälmann saw mainstream liberals as his enemies, and so the center and left never joined forces against the Nazis. Thälmann famously said that 'some Nazi trees must not be allowed to overshadow a forest' of social democrats, whom he sneeringly called 'social fascists.'
After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, Thälmann was arrested. He was shot on Hitler’s orders in Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944."
You're viewing a single thread.
One, I don't know any progressive that is planning on voting for RFK.
Two, can we stop this lie? Only a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump.
I mean unless you are intentionally being obtuse I feel like you know damn well what people mean when they say "A vote for X is a vote for Trump". It's not a coincidence that so many Republican allies and organizations are promoting and pumping up 3rd party candidates to run in various swing states and pull votes away from Harris, this isn't a new tactic and historically has absolutely changed elections.
A vote for third party is a vote for Harris. You have to hold your nose and vote Trump!
But seriously, Libertarians are the largest third party by quite a margin. So third parties actually help Democrats. It is just the Democrats mentality that they are owed votes for not being Republicans, rather than a candidate's or party's job to try to appeal to voters that this narrative is pushed forward.
I do know what they are saying and I do not approve of the message. It shifts the blame onto people who voted for what they wanted instead voting against what they don't want, which is what people should be doing in a democracy - instead of blaming the people who actually voted for Trump. Those people are the people that elect him, not the people who didn't vote for him.
Well I'm sorry if that's how you interpret reality, honestly I don't care about "the message", I care about the goal of TRUMP NOT FUCKING UP THIS COUNTRY MORE THAN HE ALREADY HAS.
Yes, we should be doing all we can to persuade people not to vote for Trump.
Which means voting for Harris. Not some third party throwaway.
No, I said very plainly what I meant. If you think that Harris is the best choice for the country, I encourage you to speak to people who aren't going to vote for her and to to convince them of that. No more so than people who plan on voting for Trump.
I don't know how you can be this dense. Not voting for Harris means you are voting for Trump. There is only one out of two people that will be winning the election: Trump or Harris.
Voting for anyone else is throwing your vote away and enabling Trump. That's reality. That's how it's going to work, weither you like it or not, and regardless of whatever fantasy you're entertaining.
No, you should do all you can to place an alternative candidate who is competitive
Sure, I'd agree with that too, but I'd say a literal rock should be competitive to Trump in a sane universe.
Fine, declare our universe not sane, we'd agree on that.
In this universe Harris is that only competitive rock.
Until a bunch of morons say "that rock didn't embrace my issue hard enough, so I'm voting for that stick over there instead" and we end up with trump again.
You see, your first mistake here was assuming that America was a functioning democracy.
It's not.
Play the game right or you're gonna have the game taken away from you before you have a chance to fix it. FPTP is a zero sum game.
If America isn't a democracy, the actions of the government don't shadow the will of the people; therefore no American citizen can be guilty of supporting "the genocide", right?
Right?
What you should be voting for is the vote that's going to help the country head in the best direction among the choices you have. Sometimes that's not what you want. It's not what I want. I think Harris is too far right on many issues (though she's def not worse than Trump on genocide) - but I realize that voting for what I want would be selfish because what I want has no chance of winning, but not quite what I want does have a chance. That chance diminishes if I vote for what I want, while increasing the chance of what I definitely DO NOT want winning.
I get what you are saying. I voted for Nader in 2000, still get shit for it today. No one has the right to tell you who to vote for, or to shame you for voting your conscience. But let's not pretend there's any third party siphoning off R votes like there are siphoning off D votes.
Vote your conscience, sure, but don't try to pretend doing so doesn't tip the scales of the actual outcome in a particular direction - it does, and you clearly realize it. That doesn't mean you can't make the selfish choice, but at least own it.
I was young and dumb and oblivious to that reality, and didn't even know I was in a battleground state. If I had, I might (or might not) have voted differently.
I think we would agree on more than some might think. I think we disagree on just some of the nuance.
Very possible! 🙂
A vote not for Harris is one less vote for her too. Not voting for anyone and then waking up getting the person you didn't want winning should not get a Pikachu face. That single vote won't matter statistically, but it's the mindset that if lots of people think the same way, and they do, then it will matter.
It's okay to vote thinking, ugh, fine...I'll vote Democrat even though I hate the choices. If everyone thinking that way votes, we'll have a left wing sweep. That would be a refreshing change of pace...then we can put pressure on those reps who listen to people to make the hard changes that right now always get opposed because of party.
To be clear, I did not advocate for not voting. I actually believe voting should be compulsory.
You do advocate for throwing your vote away and enabling the worst possible candidate though.
I advocate for people voting for the candidate they want to win.
Which you will not do, and you tell other people not to do.
Thumbs up
What? How could you have possibly gathered that from what I've said so far? In another comment I said I think that voting should be compulsory...which you replied to!
I'm able to follow the discussion just fine.
You seem to have a less than firm grasp on how the real world works.Yet you came to the conclusion somehow that I don't vote and encourage others not to vote... Okay mate, we will need to disagree on this one.
Two, can we stop this lie? Only a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump.
You telling others incorrect information, and encouraging others not to vote.
I don't think you need laws to force voting if you can keep the public informed and interact with them. It won't be 100%, but anything has to be better than the low amounts the US has, caused by apathy and oppression.
I'm glad you didn't mean to not vote, however that's almost the default behavior these days because of the above mentioned. A change in the voting system would be another huge help, bringing in third party voters who would get a better chance to have their voice heard and their parties grow with that, as well as having more votes for the main parties with the alternate vote that would come with such voting. But to get that requires a change now with the existing one.
I think we would agree that election reform is sorely needed.
I saw that Canada tried to get election reform passed too (I don't know the details) and it failed. You guys up north aren't trying to follow us as a role model are you? Please don't.
Unfortunately there are already too many up here that trying to emulate the States, even walking around with MAGA flags.
I hope they can follow through!
Voting absolutely should be compulsory, it would be such a moderating force on US politics if you couldn't get more votes just by stirring up your base.
Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen in the States within my lifetime. Too much identity tied up in the idea of freedom.
I've been shocked by the amount of pushback I get when I talk about compulsory voting. I suspect it has less to do with freedom and more to do with how classist US society is.
Many people here seem to have internalized the idea that it's better for the country if 'apathetic' and 'stupid' people don't vote. Of course the bulk of non voters are working people, the poor and those who benefit most from an increased voice in society.
Unfortunately, that's not true. The Trump base is not as fractured as the Democratic base is. Voting 3rd party, statistically, ONLY helps Trump.
A 3rd party will not, cannot win a Presidential election, so Progressives who would otherwise vote for Harris, but instead back a loser like Stein or West are removing their vote from Harris, which has the exact same effect as +1 for Trump.
See here:
"Just 44,000 votes out of more than 10m cast in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin – less than half of 1% – were the difference between the Biden presidency and a tie in the electoral college that would have thrown the election to the House of Representatives, and hence to Trump.
If candidates from No Labels, the Green party and the People’s party peel off just 15% of the anti-Trump vote from Biden, and Trump’s base stays with him, Trump would win all five swing states comfortably and return to the Oval Office."
"Not true"? What part are you refuting? Are you saying that they count non-Trump votes as Trump votes?
Would you agree with me that if no one voted for Trump, he would not win?
You're living in a fantasy. In real life where the rest of us are, a lot of people will be voting for Trump. And yes, any misguided third party vote is a vote for Trump.
Did you even read what this post is?
Yes, I read the article.
So, just to be clear: A progressive who doesn’t vote, or who votes in the general election for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Cornel West or Jill Stein — or whoever No Labels puts up as a candidate — is voting for Donald Trump.
This is precisely the lie I am referencing in my original comment.
I am tired of people blaming voters who didn't vote for the fascist being blamed for the fascist winning. Blame those who actually voted for the fascist.
Why do you think no one is blaming people that vote for him? Absolutely no one has ever said anything like that.
I did not mean to imply that no one is. But those who did not vote for him are not responsible for him winning, and should carry no blame.
I can't talk to you anymore, I'm sorry but you refuse to learn. People like you helped get us in this mess 8 years ago.
am tired of people blaming voters who didn’t vote for the fascist being blamed for the fascist winning. Blame those who actually voted for the fascist.
I did not mean to imply that no one is.
Textbook definition of bad faith arguments.
You're overlooking the fact that it isn't the quantity of votes trump has, it's the quantity of votes that trump has COMPARED to the quantity of votes Harris has.
It is no matter if trump has 100 or 101 votes or any other number, in isolation.
It matters if trump has 100 and Harris has 99.
Especially if 5 people stay home, who would otherwise have voted Harris.
Sure, they didn't vote for trump. They aren't Trumpers. But their behavior directly caused Harris to lose. Therefore their actions, in a constrained system, resulted in trump winning.
It's their ACTION not their VOTE specifically.
I'm not overlooking anything, I'm disagreeing with the framing. If Harris has 99 votes and Trump had 0, Harris wins.
I love how you think your expertise in math a five year old would say some how makes your point valid, instead of just looking dumb.
In what world do you believe Trump will have 0 votes? The only framing you care about is a fairytale.
We do blame those who actually vote for the fascist. We also blame those who effectively vote for the fascist by not voting for the only actual alternative. Your vote is not about you; its about the system you're in. Making material change means working with what you have, instead of voting in a way to preserve a personal aesthetic.
I'm saying the candidate isn't "Not Trump".
If Trump has 47% of the vote, and you allow the "Not Trump" majority to be divided among 3 or 4 people, Trump wins.
Only one person can beat Trump, the Democratic candidate. Voting for anyone else only helps Trump.
We don't have an Presidential election that goes "Well, OK, nobody got 50%+1 so knock out everyone but the top two and do it again..."
I'm well aware of how the election works. You did not answer my most important question.
Would you agree with me that if no one voted for Trump, then Trump would not win?
Would you agree with me that if the sky was a bicycle, then we'd all be millionaires?
"No one voting for Trump" is not an option.
It was a yes or no question. You're as good at dodging them as politicians! You should run third party. ;)
Disingenuous questions get the answers they deserve. :)
I would disagree that it was disingenuous, but i don't think that will surprise you. Agree to disagree on this one!
You are putting out a dangerous assumption that the republican party is voting in a rational way.
They aren't.
Only a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump.
The no vote protesters in 2016 sure helped Trump.
I learned about spoiler candidates in 8th grade civics.
Spoiler about spoilers: spoilers can spoil actively, or passively. It doesn't really matter after the fact, the point is how their words and existence as a candidate influence the success chances for the 2 leading candidates.
They usually do surveys with ranked choice voting and then you can assume who wouldve voted for dem/rep if the third party didnt exist.
lol. That makes no sense.
Let's say Trump has 47% support... his theoretical maximum.
That means "Not Trump" is at 53%.
The problem is "Not Trump" is divided among Harris, Stein, and West. Stein and West draw from the Harris camp, not the Trump camp.
So instead of 47% Trump, 53% Harris, you get 45% Harris, 5% Stein, 3% West, Trump wins.
Do that in a few key states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Trump gets a 2nd term, actively making things worse for all those people who voted for Stein and West.
I believe ravhall agrees with you, they were saying what IAmTheTot says doesn't make sense.
Correct
I could see quite a few older Democrats voting for the name "Kennedy".
Pretty shallow vote of that's all they are looking at, but I certainly can't rule out the possibility I suppose. Don't know if I'd call those people progressive, though.