Vote for a candidate who has a chance of actually winning or don't vote at all
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Democrat Jim Glenn wins Kentucky House Race by ONE vote
- Thread starter TerminusFox
- Start date
Vote for a candidate who has a chance of actually winning or don't vote at all
Aren't Bernie and King both Democrats just labeled as independent?
They always vote for the democrat to be leader, I didn't see any suggestion that, for instance in a 49-49 republican-democrat senate outcome that King might caucus with republicans instead.
I would assume that's how Mainers voting for him are thinking anyway.
As long as they dont want to complain about the outcome. Ranked choice is the only thing these people need to be pushing politicians on
I dont care if its condescending. Complaining about trump in a swing state when you voted for fucking jill stein is stupid
Don't want to link because dragging off-thread drama into another thread is frowned upon, but I will say that frustrated the hell out of me. Especially in the light of this news.
Congrats to Jim Glenn (and Mary)!
It should be condescending.
Green, libertarian, weed party, ect ect
They're joke parties that do more harm than good in a democracy.
They're voting for who they think is the best candidate.
If you want their vote the onus is on you to create a system that allows their vote to count for your preferred candidate.
I mean I get this point (as republicans are so much worse than others) but at the same time it's rather sad that this kind of thinking is why US is doomed to be two party state forever.
"Don't tell people not to vote against their own interests"
We need ranked choice voting countrywide. It'd solve so many of our problems.
angus king isn't "not bothering to run as a dem." he's doing it so the kinds of voters that put lepage in office as governor of maine are less likely to strive to replace him with a republican.
but yes "reliably votes D for president while electing lepage" is some lunacy and hopefully RCV helps now.
you get to list second/third/etc choices on your ballot. if nobody gets to 50% of the vote in the first count, they take the people who voted for the last-place candidate and check their second-choices to see if that pushes anyone over 50%. etc etc until someone breaks 50% or you're down to a clear winner.
Nah Mary is great but fuck yeah to ever dem that came out and voted. Literally all of them did this
Republicans have known this forever. That's why they spend so much effort making sure people can't vote. Even when they only get a few voters kicked off the roles, a few votes rejected, a few votes declared too late, etc. They know it's worth it.
We're trying to pass a bond to build schools in my district because we are super over crowded. We are at 59.18% because Washington State constitution requires 60% super majority to pass bonds. It's obnoxious
So if a Democrat candidate is a long shot and doesn't have a chance of winning, don't vote?
That's a great episode. It's all about the hypocrisy of people, as well as how awful enfranchised politicians typically are, and does a great job of showcasing it cleverly. If people take the wrong message from it, oh well.
The only thing you can really do, effectively, is convince your peers to vote. You can't control who they vote for, but if you get people excited about voting (for whichever party) and spend enough time with them, eventually you'll probably get their vote for your particular party/view. Every vote counts, even future votes. If you tell your friend who's voting Libertarian "fuck you, don't vote", you may lose their vote for your party in the future.
Man, the posts doing backflips in that thread to explain why it made sense not to vote have aged like sour milk :
https://www.resetera.com/threads/am...-a-statement-alright-f-ck-you-got-mine.78865/
https://www.resetera.com/threads/am...-a-statement-alright-f-ck-you-got-mine.78865/
local races especially are decided by surprisingly small margins. I live in a town of 30k people and the race for mayor and things like state rep sometimes get decided by a couple dozen votes.
I SUPPOSE there are safe districts where you could fool around. This isn't the political climate I want to fuck around in though.
Deleted member 37235
Guest
Ironically you have no clue how much your second clause undermines the first.
Stop this shit already, this is Fisher Price level politics
In the US, in a primary, sure.
But in the actual election, if not voting for the person -closest- to your ideal that has an actual shot at winning ends up getting the person with the opposite ideal in office?
Fuck that.
Sinema just eeked out a win in AZ. She used to be a Green candidate.
If the Green party candidate had not been on, or had urged her voters to vote Sinema, she probably would have won the night of the election, no contest.
You should go a step further and try to implement our nation's Single Transferable Vote method, which is more proportional than Instant Runoff.
You can't though. You would have to switch to a Parliament style democracy to have viable third party or multi-parties. Our Senate system is highly biased towards a two-party system. In history there have been times where a third party was viable but it was short-lived in favor of two party rule.
Unless they would have voted for the other guy or not at all.
You'd have to have a constitutional amendment to change how we vote to make a three+ party system even feasible. As it stands a third party would just be a spoiler for one side or the other, never both.
That's not a democracy. If it was you could vote for who ever you wanted. You're basically advocating eliminating parties when there should be proportional representation in the first place
There are loads of "safe" districts, depending on where you live. In my county, Republican candidates trounced Democratic candidates in every seat by 40-60%. Of course, only about 1/4 to 1/3 of the total population voted, so this might change if people would actually get out and goddamn vote.
Who are you again, who can decide what people can vote for or not?