- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
“With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.”
You must log in or register to comment.
And Stein’s answer every single time this comes up?
“What about Gaza?”
She is literally an operative for Russia and the Republicans. This isn’t even a meme or conspiracy theory, it’s simply a plain truth.
I don’t understand how a genocide can be taken so lightly. Some people have trouble casting a vote for any political party that sponsors one.
I’ve given more details elsewhere, but the short version:
We can classify US presidential votes into three categories:
- Vote for the Democrat
- Vote for the Republican
- Vote third-party/independent or don’t vote
The most effective vote to make on an anti-genocide platform is #1.
Voting for a Republican is voting for a party that appears to be profoundly okay with the genocide in Gaza AND wants to start some genocides of their own (e.g. against trans folks, immigrants and racial minorities). This is the most pro-genocide vote.
Voting for a Democrat is voting for a party that has a fairly significant group that opposes the genocide, and which appears to be movable on the topic.
Any other vote is roughly equivalent to not voting. On the presidental front, there is no chance in this election that anyone other than a candidate from one of the main two parties is elected, and that’s also true for most senate or house races. (Possibly all, but I don’t want to make that strong claim since I haven’t actually researched all the races.) Voting for a candidate who you know won’t win is explicitly choosing not to have a say between the tho feasible candidates.
I do have one caveat though…
If you live in West Virginia for example, it’s a bit more complex. There your choice is essentially “the Republican or not the Republican,” so third-party/independent moves into category 1. However, then I’d argue that voting for the Democrat for president may still be the preferable response because if the Republican wins the electoral college but, (as has happened in every presidential election since 1990 except 2004) the Democrat still wins the popular vote, it further delegitimises the Republican’s presidency and the electoral college.
Every vote for Harris is stealing a vote from third-party candidates who represent real change. By sidelining those voices, you’re indirectly helping Trump win!
Is she really responsible for the problems of the US Green party?
As near as I can tell the EU Green parties had a different trajectory. They initially started winning seats in parliaments on purely environmental platforms. Those MPs actually started pushing green agendas in various parliaments. That, in turn led to more people voting for them. Eventually that had to adopt policy positions beyond the environment and they tended to be pretty left.
The US never had Green party members in a position where they could actually do anything useful about the environment. That means they could never fulfill their primary goal in the US. So when they tried to branch out the same way the EU Green parties did, they just turned into a vague hodgepodge of leftists ideas.
Is there any suggestion that Jill Stein’s replacement would have any chance of saving the US Green party?
The Green party is doing exactly what it was designed to do. It’s siphoning off eco-conscious Democratic voters just significantly enough to affect voting margins but not enough to win. To be clear I’m not saying that Even a significant number of people in the green party have that as a goal, but top down, that’s all it’s about.
We are a two-party system and they are allowing the green party to exist to use it as a wedge.
Every vote for Harris is stealing a vote from third-party candidates who represent real change. By sidelining those voices, you’re indirectly helping Trump win!
Hahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahah. You’re hilarious!
Right?!
