'No,' Kamala Harris Says to Withholding Arms From Israel | Common Dreams
'No,' Kamala Harris Says to Withholding Arms From Israel | Common Dreams
Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris said in a CNN interview that aired late Thursday that, if elected in November, she would not change the Biden administration's policy of steadfast military support for Israel.
"I'm unequivocal and unwavering in my commitment to Israel's defense and its ability to defend itself, and that's not gonna change," said Harris, recounting the horrors of the Hamas-led October 7 attack. "Israel had a right, has a right to defend itself."
You're viewing a single thread.
So genuine question what does this mean for the protestors come election day. Is there only choice to vote Democrat or Republican? Can they vote for an independent? How would it work?
They can vote for anyone on the ballot in their state, or in states that support it, write in a name of their choosing.
It would essentially be a protest vote, telling the big 2: “you might have got this vote if you’d had a better stance on Israel.”
Protest votes are also a terrible idea.
Not only is this not the only issue in the world, but even just on this issue, with both (actual) options being bad, it's still the case that one side is orders of magnitude worse than the other.
Protest votes are also a terrible idea.
Just want to make the point that this was the exact logic we had to stick with the grand malfeasance which was candidate Biden.
So no. Wrong. False.
It's election season brother you'll never outbark them blue dogs. I do appreciate it even so
Idk mang. I'm pretty fucking loud.
o7
If I had the option to vote for someone else in the primary (not counting brain worm or antivax, but even they had dropped out by then) then I would have.
My options were Biden or not vote in the primary. I wasn't happy about that, but I still would have chosen him over Trump in the general election of course.Not voting or voting protest in Nov would still help Trump. That's just how the math works.
They can:
- stay home - this results in whomever gets the most votes from everyone else getting the electoral votes for that district/state. In many districts, this benefits trump
- write in someone else - more clearly shows protest, but what that actually does or if anybody really counts it, I have no idea. Effectively the same as option 1 for the outcome of this particular election
- vote for a third party - basically the same as the above, though certain things do happen if a party gets some percentage of the vote, but not until the next election. The outcome for this election is the same
- vote for one of the two major candidates - self-explanatory
How much not voting or protest voting impacts the actual results kinda depends upon the district and state. However, even in a seemingly secure district or state, enough people protest-voting could actually have a negative impact in that particular election (though I find that fairly unlikely). I vote in a rural district that supports trump. Since he's objectively worse in basically every way and has indicated that he's willing to let Netanyahu's government do whatever they want, I feel it unethical to do anything but vote against trump which, given what I wrote above, basically leaves Harris. If I know that trump will be worse, and I know that doing anything other than voting for Harris in my district helps cement trump, then I must vote for Harris or I'm just helping trump.
We are here because nearly everywhere uses first-past-the-post and voter turnout isn't great, particularly by voters in local and regional elections. I vote as progressively as I can in local elections and advocate for ranked choice or rated voting wherever possible. People in power tend to hate ranked choice voting or similar because it removes what almost always just becomes a two-party fight which often leads to tactical voting rather than properly representing people. The state in which I vote also has a huge gerrymandering problem, but that's another story.
They work towards passing state level electoral reform in their respective states so they are free to vote for who best represents them. All while secure in the knowledge that their vote would still be counted against the republicans.
It is possibly to late for this election without a general strike. But possible it remains. In fact, Alaska and Maine have already done away with First-past-the-post voting.
Democrats believe in democracy right? If so, why do the vast majority of blue states continue to use First Past the Post voting?
Tell any blue conservative that you are considering voting 3rd party and they will show that they understand the mathematical flaws of our voting system. Yet they do nothing to fix the issue between elections. Curious.
They have a choice of staying home and not vote