politics
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
view the rest of the comments
the mental gymnastics inside one clause are incredible
If you don't understand how either not voting or voting third party equated to voting for Trump then I guess enjoy riding your moral high horse of superiority.
trump only gets to count votes for him. any other vote is a vote against him, and a non vote is a non vote
See the thing is that a candidate only needs a plurality of cast votes. So every vote that doesn't get cast makes that plurality easier to achieve. If there are 100 people that can vote and all of them do you need 51 for a majority. If 10 of them don't vote at all and there's only 90 left you now only need 46 for that same majority. If another 10 of them vote for some third party that person now only needs 41 votes to have the largest plurality. Every person that doesn't vote lowers the threshold for victory.
It's tempting to think that this benefits both remaining candidates equally since both can benefit from that lowered margin. But in reality it gets skewed based on who stayed home/voted third party and who didn't. This is the spoiler effect.
so you know non votes don't get counted for Trump
Missed the entire point huh? If people not voting lowers the required counts to achieve a plurality, then mathematically speaking it is functionally equivalent to voting for the candidate furthest away from that non-voter's preference.
The only way a non-voter does not work in the favor of in this case Trump would be if there was some absolute share of eligible voters he had to reach. But since only a plurality is needed every non-vote and every third-party vote lowers the amount of votes he needs to achieve that plurality.
This is literally a studied and documented mathematical phenomenon related to first past the post systems.
no, it's not.
You can argue with the math all you like. It won't change.
you're the one who can't seem to count.
Wow it's a good things democrats took those 4 years to make everyone's lives better. They really motivated all those people who didn't vote for them to support them.
I also like how they are championing changes to the electoral process that would help more candidates get on the ballot. Oh wait they aren't doing any of that!
You can blame anyone you want, but when democrats know they have just enough votes to lose without having to concede anything at all they are going to keep playing the lesser of two evils best hits and convince you to blame everyone else.
They will keep voting for war, tax cuts for the rich, and increases to their own benefits and salaries. As long as they do it with an anti-Trump pro-LGBTQ sticker their constituents will blame those who found no resonance within a hollow corporate party.
So what do you recommend?
The base we can start with is never voting for a politician who accepts foreign (even hidden foreign) money.
Vote your conscience - aka things you believe in and want to see happen - not by who is scaring you the most.
Aside from that - try to build up third parties and bring their ideas to the front. This is an answer finding mission many of us are on together.
There's enough blame to go around my love