this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024

-62 points (12.2% liked)

politics

19089 readers

3848 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

• 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

-62

A new poll finds a surprising presidential choice for Muslim American voters in Michigan (www.michiganpublic.org)

submitted 2 months ago by UniversalMonk@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

68 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago (19 children)

Wow statistically supporting Trump is a very bold move. Considering that he wants to ban them and Deport them at best.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I also find it funny that during the debate, you had Harris advocate the 2 state solution, and treating them with the dignity they deserve, and Trump didn't even mention them, lol

They will be in for a very rude awakening if he wins.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Republicans have a long and storied history of convincing people to vote against their best interests.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

That's very true. And I have a pretty big feeling that puttenstein gets her funding from a lot of the same people.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (16 replies)

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

Getting really tired of the continual misinformation on 3rd Parties, Monk.

https://www.thirdway.org/memo/the-data-how-third-parties-could-be-spoilers-that-elect-trump

"The Data: How Third Parties Could be Spoilers that Elect Trump"

https://web.archive.org/web/20240122162245/https://theintercept.com/2024/01/22/biden-trump-president-election-third-party/

"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."

A more damning quote is at the very end of that article:

"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."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/11/robert-reich-third-party-candidates-will-help-trump-win

"Third-party candidates will help Trump win"

https://www.thirdway.org/report/the-dangerous-illusion-of-a-presidential-third-party-in-2024

"The Dangerous Illusion of a Presidential Third Party in 2024"

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

While I generally agree with your sentiments. In this instance at least I don't know that I would call it misinformation. Ignorant people do ignorant things out of emotion very often. And I'm sure that a lot of people in those populations are being a heavily propagandized and feel a need to do this despite how much they stand to suffer from it.

Portraying third party presidential candidates as anything more than an ineffectual handwavy the way to absolve yourself of responsibility without actually taking responsibility. Absolutely is misinformation. Highlighting that the misinformation and propaganda are working, which is ironically all this really does. Despite OPs intentions. Does have some value. Though I understand your frustration with them.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[–] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

DISCLAIMER: America has a two party system. In the current political climate, both parties are supportive of Israel and voting therefore offers no way to solve this issue. Trump is also worse than Harris on this issue. Not voting or choosing 3rd party only helps the republicans, and if you don't agree with their platform, the only rational electoral choice is to vote blue. While you may disagree with some policies, one has to make a pragmatic decision on election day. Voting is a chess move not a love letter. The death will continue regardless, we have no power to stop it.

Now that's over....

Wow wouldn't it be nice if the democratic party didn't insist on arming an active genocide and alienating large numbers of would be voters through their uncritical support of an apartheid state.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a candidate who did not support acts which are fundamentally evil

[+] anticolonialist@lemmy.world -8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The glaring issue is we do have a nonevil anti genocide candidate in the ballot, but people are more comforted by their preferred and familiar evil

[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Do you mean Russian Asset Jill Stein who also actively opposes Ukraine?

[–] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

No, that's not it at all. The glaring issue is that the 3rd party candidates have ZERO chance of winning the presidency. None, zilch, nada. Comprendez? Simply put, they almost certainly aren't on enough state ballots to get the required 270 EC votes, but even if they did they wouldn't even come close.

And I'm sorry, you're saying people that vote for the only 2 plausible candidates are evil? Sounds like trying to justify crashing planes to me.

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

Stein is on enough ballots to get way past 270. But voters cling to their oligarch bread crumbs too tightly to do the right thing. Their biggest fear is losing those bread crumbs

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But voters cling to their oligarch bread crumbs too tightly to do the right thing.

Yeah that's called the spoiler effect. The spoiler effect hurts 3rd party candidates too.

[–] anticolonialist@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Spoiler effect only exists in the mind of Liberals.

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

Good thing I'm not a liberal, and I have hard mathmatical evidence. Here it is!

Total voters: 1214
52% of voters approved of the results.

cocina - 626 votes - WINNER
owen - 588 votes

Total voters: 1214
48% of voters approved of the results.

owen - 585 votes - WINNER
room - 317 votes
cocina - 312 votes

These two randomly generated elections are identical, with the exception that the second election has a newly introduced candidate, who is irrelevant.* Yet despite their irrelevance, their introduction has changed the outcome of the election. That means this is a failed electoral system, and this is what people are talking about when they talk about the spoiler effect, as per the definition:

In social choice theory and politics, the spoiler effect refers to a situation where a large group of like-minded voters split their votes among multiple candidates, which can affect the result of an election by allowing a candidate with a smaller base of support to win with a plurality. If a major candidate is perceived to have lost an election because a more minor candidate pulled votes away from them, the minor candidate is called a spoiler candidate and the major candidate is said to have been spoiled. This phenomenon is also called vote splitting.

* Irrelevent meaning they had no chance of winning. In the second election, the voters colored lime green and light blue would never have voted for the new purple candidate, because the lime green and blue candidates were closer. So telling those voters to "quit voting for the establishment, vote with your heart" is meaningless, because that's already what they're doing, they're just voting for whoever is closest to them.

[–] anticolonialist@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That is based on the assumption that a 3rd party voter would vote for a right wing duopoly party to begin with if there were no 3rd party options. We would likely leave that box empty and vote down ballot or simply not vote at all.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That is based on the assumption that a 3rd party voter would vote for a right wing duopoly party to begin with if there were no 3rd party options.

Not really. It's the subset of voters that have an effect on the votes of the doupoly candidates, and 3rd party voters who would never vote for the doupoly candidates by definition aren't in that subset to begin with.

Zooming out/accounting for voters abstaining doesn't actually change anything:

Election report for election "Plurality 2 Candidates"
Total people: 1047
11% of people supported the winner.

Kruger - 112 votes - WINNER
Sahl - 111 votes

Election report for election "Plurality 3 Candidates"
Total people: 1047
10% of people supported the winner.

Sahl - 109 votes - WINNER
Kruger - 93 votes
Maikol - 91 votes

The overwhelming majority of Maikol's votes came from voters who didn't vote for the preexisting duopoly. However Maikol's entrance into the race was enough to split the vote with Kruger, causing the election to be won by Sahl.

The math is the same math, it still shows the spoiler effect.

[–] anticolonialist@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Then the best solution is create an create an environment where Democrats are the 3rd party.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That just kicks the can down the road instead of actually solving it. The spoiler effect is still there.

And you should be especially motivated to remove the spoiler effect from our electoral systems, since it is in large part what is stopping your 3rd party from being successful. Everybody should be able to vote for who they most like, without having to worry about the spoiler effect.

load more comments (3 replies)

[+] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Trump is also worse than Harris on this issue. Not voting or choosing 3rd party only helps the republicans, and if you don’t agree with their platform, the only rational electoral choice is to vote blue.

I disagree, but you have a well-written post. So I appreciate your contributions.

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

Thanks! What part do you disagree with? On the merits of 3rd party voting?

[+] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What part do you disagree with? On the merits of 3rd party voting?

Yeah, you said that "choosing 3rd party only helps the republicans" and that kind of thinking is exactly why third parties have such a hard time. Everyone is so afraid of the "other side" that they hesitate. In addiction to the bullies that yell at them about it.

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

Yeah I totally understand where you're coming from. The problem is the first past the post system, but changing to another one isn't in the interest of the major parties so it's unlikely they'll do it.

You're right that this kind of thinking is why third parties have a tough time. But if you do vote third party, most other people still won't and you will just take away from your preferred option out of the two main parties. It's a terrible system where the fear of the spoiler effect takes any chance away from other candidates and from the voters who they represent. Ross Perot was the most successful 3rd party candidate in recent memory and he wasn't even close to winning.

Literally the only way out is to force the issue through protest etc.

But honestly I would never criticise you for not wanting to vote for these people. I totally get it. My disclaimer was a semi joke intended to keep people from turning my criticism of the dems into a conversation about Trump and the election

load more comments