193
Biden closes gap on Trump but third-party candidates pose danger, polls show
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2024
193 points (91.8% liked)
politics
19089 readers
3826 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Let us hope that one day the US, or any democracy for that matter, will come together to implement ranked choice voting.
Until that day, let’s hope people recognize that there really are only two votes that will end up counting. I still regret voting for Nader when Bush stole the election in 2000.
Let’s also hope that people realize voters who don’t vote far outnumber third-party voters.
There should be some improved turnout in the 18-24 range now that abortion and marijuana are on the ballot in several states this November.
What you wrote is a simplification and it's also wrong in general. For people who don't live in swing states, one vote more or less isn't going to change the election. This is especially true if you're in an obvious minority in your own state.
Also, the two established parties realize that people think what you think, and that gives them an excuse not to represent their base. The term used back in Bill Clinton's days was "triangulation". One of the ways of keeping presidential candidates honest is to vote for third parties if necessary.
Finally, it's important to keep in mind that the stance you have here is something that many of us have heard for decades.
And it's all still true, as long as we have a voting system that is essentially actively detrimental to yourself if you try to express anything other than R or D on the voting ballot.
I'd settle for Democrats not taking advantage of the situation.
Democrats aren’t taking advantage, republicans are. Why do you think independent candidates are funded primarily by GOP PACs but use moderate platforms? They know anyone educated enough to find value in a moderate candidate would never have voted for Trump.
We can acknowledge that Trump is a fascist and people need to vote for Biden or there is a real possibility of not being able to vote again.
We can also acknowledge that as a result Democrats don't have to try very hard and can present a boring "mostly status quo" candidate under the banner of "what are you going to do, let a fascist win?"
Yes, it sucks. We can acknowledge it sucks. Personally I think the best way to correct course is if the Republicans lose hard to send the message that they need to be putting forward reasonable candidates to stand a chance, at which point it would be reasonable to not vote for disappointing Democratic candidates.
We can still acknowledge that what is being offered isn't stellar.
I agree that he’s not stellar. So do the polls. My point is that third-party candidates aren’t spoiling the republican nomination, even though they’re funded by republicans. They’re running specifically to pull anti-Trump votes from Biden, and have a real effect on the potential for a second term for Trump.
I agree, the point OP was making is that Biden and the Democrats are taking advantage of Trump being the nominee by not trying very hard because "who else are you going to vote for?"
I follow. Biden knows he’s polling way too low to be strong-arming the vote. That’s not what is influencing his lack of action regarding Netanyahu. This is how the US have handled the Iran-Israel proxy conflict since the 80’s. I do not think it’s right either. I do know that republicans have wanted an active Iranian war for decades though. That’s why the House is stalling the Ukraine/Israel support bill that’s already passed the Senate in favor of the new Israel aid bill currently being drafted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_conflict
They are taking advantage of the situation by ignoring voters telling him to stop genocide. They believe they can do whatever they want and voters will still reward him with another opportunity to keep doing it.
The US has always been too easy on Israel. I agree that Biden needs to stand firm on his recent insistence of diplomacy after the attack, and take action if Netanyahu doesn’t agree to follow.
The honest truth is that none of the other choices will be better, and Trump will be far, far worse.
This is exactly what taking advantage looks like.
We’re having the same conversation again, just one thread down. Lol
"You have to vote for us no matter how badly we behave because the alternative is worse."
That is taking advantage. If you don't see that, I can't explain it any more clearly.
Yes, they absolutely are. It's why they're supporting the genocide every last centrist has always wanted. They can get away with it because the other option is worse.
You think Trump would be better? Republicans have been bloodthirsty for an Iran conflict for decades.
No, I don't.
I think Democrats are taking advantage of this in order to move as far to the right as being second worst will allow.
I doubt that.
Australia sends its regards.
It is really nice knowing that I can safely vote for our "green" party without risking our conservative party getting in because the centre-left party loses too many votes.
Also, voting being mandatory (and very accessible) and on a Sunday for federal elections is such a game changer for ensuring participation.
Hopefully you guys can get reforms in at some point.
Low voter turnout benefits the Republican Party in the US because conservatives are more consistent voters. Reform requires 60 votes in the Senate out of 100. That makes it almost impossible because one of the major parties is not interested in reform.
Neither of the major parties is interested in a reform.
I think most Democrats are interested in reform that would boost turnout. Higher turnout is usually good for Democratic candidates.
Sure, but that is not the same as allowing another parties to take their votes that do turn out.
Just look around here on lemmy, the democrats are milking the "we are the only alternative to hate and bigotry" for everything it is worth. I expect they would not even keep half their voters if a better alternative to voting republican existed.
That would take moving to a system like in most European countries where smaller parties are viable in coalitions. Not gonna happen anytime soon.
Yep.
Most countries with presidential systems have two-round voting which is effectively very close to ranked choice voting. That’s why e.g. Macron’s new party could immediately win the presidency.
They also count one vote as one vote instead of this electoral college BS
I know it's a flawed system but how else would you ensure everyone of our 300 million citizens are properly represented? I also recognize the preverse exploitation the EC allows but without it you would have every state voting whichever candidate the lagest Metropolitan region votes. The only presidential election that NY state ever voted republican for was the a Regan landslide which wasn't even a testament to the victor. It was a result of the challenging candidate not winning a single fucking district other than his own and the district for his home town iirc. Yes a lot can be said for the benefits of not having current Republicans in office but this country never stays still very long and there is no way of knowing 10-20 years from now that the democrats won't evolve into a super toxic party. Which without the EC would bind us to the scenario I explained above where we would have no escape.