Really, I think you’d have a really good point if winning were all that mattered.
Election turnout is used to determine all kinds of stuff like funding, ballot presence, event eligibility, media coverage and it does a lot for public awareness.
Plenty of consultants, analysts and workers from the two major parties themselves examine third party turnout when triangulating their platforms and policies.
I don’t think the idea that only candidates who are already in a position to win the presidency should be considered is a very good tack. It’s really hard to defend, relies on some easily disproven misconceptions about the electoral system and if you succeed it just drives people who would vote away from voting at all.
If I cared more about supporting the democrat or republican policies than about building an alternative, yes.
Of course, I came to the conclusion that I didn’t want to support republican or democrat policies and don’t trust the democrats to do what they campaign on almost a decade and a half ago, so personally I would never do that.
And I’m here voicing support for a third party which has a platform wildly different than the republicans and democrats so it’s pretty clear I don’t want to support republican and democrat policies at all.
I don’t want to support republican or democrat policies.
Voting for a candidate who is running at the head of either of those parties tickets would be supporting their policies and platforms.
So no, that wouldn’t work.
Don’t worry, I’m gonna vote party for socialism and liberation wherever I can on the ballot too and my distaste for the two major parties softens the more localized the race is, both because the outcomes at stake are unique and the candidates are less doctrinaire.
But no, I’m not gonna vote for a democrat or republican for president but then put the party for socialism and liberation in downticket.
As I said above, I have no interest in supporting republican or democrat policies. The existence and age of genocidal options doesn’t change my aversion to them.
Again, you’re skipping the question and throwing out meaningless catchphrases.
Why would I want to build parties that are already built when my goal is to topple the existing ones and replace them with ones that are younger and hungrier for change?
Farting in the wind by voting a third party presidential candidate isn’t going to do that.
I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say here but i directly answered why I wouldn’t vote for a democrat at the top of the ticket. Because I don’t support their policy positions.
What are the meaningless catchphrases?
What did you mean by your sentence in the middle there about building parties? I read it a few different times but couldn’t tell what you were trying to say.
As I said before, way up at the top of our replies, there are real effects that come from voting for a third party candidate, although I appreciate the phrasing given out usernames.
I just told you explicitly that I’m going to vote for party for socialism and liberation in every race they’re running a candidate in.
Wouldn’t wouldn’t not voting for their presidential candidate be like not putting a roof on your skyscraper?
And I don’t fault you for not catching my edit, but what’s the deal with claiming that the non presidential stuff is what really matters? If that’s true then why do you care who I cast a ballot for in the presidential race?
The time to show support for third parties was months ago. Not less than a month from an election
No one in good faith remains to support any third party. It’s mathematically and empirically known there no third party has a remote chance to ever win at this point.
You appear to me- to be here in bad faith and only in bad faith to disrupt an election.
Oh the time to work towards the change I want to see in my country is months ago? Back then people were saying it was years ago. Years ago people were telling me the same as you, I should have been at it months ago.
I’ve been doing the same thing that whole time.
The best time to support party for socialism and liberation was months ago, the second best time is now.
I explained in my comment that you replied to how there’s so much more than winning to take into account. Surely you aren’t just gonna accuse me of bad faith actions after you ignore my ideas? That would almost be like arguing in img_megamind.jpg bad faith.
She can win if you vote for her.
Really, I think you’d have a really good point if winning were all that mattered.
Election turnout is used to determine all kinds of stuff like funding, ballot presence, event eligibility, media coverage and it does a lot for public awareness.
Plenty of consultants, analysts and workers from the two major parties themselves examine third party turnout when triangulating their platforms and policies.
I don’t think the idea that only candidates who are already in a position to win the presidency should be considered is a very good tack. It’s really hard to defend, relies on some easily disproven misconceptions about the electoral system and if you succeed it just drives people who would vote away from voting at all.
Maybe try a different line of reasoning?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to vote for the better of the two presidential nominees then vote all PSL down ballot where they can make real change?
Why wouldn’t that work?
If I cared more about supporting the democrat or republican policies than about building an alternative, yes.
Of course, I came to the conclusion that I didn’t want to support republican or democrat policies and don’t trust the democrats to do what they campaign on almost a decade and a half ago, so personally I would never do that.
And I’m here voicing support for a third party which has a platform wildly different than the republicans and democrats so it’s pretty clear I don’t want to support republican and democrat policies at all.
You kind of clumsily skipped over the main question here.
I promise you I didn’t.
I don’t want to support republican or democrat policies.
Voting for a candidate who is running at the head of either of those parties tickets would be supporting their policies and platforms.
So no, that wouldn’t work.
Don’t worry, I’m gonna vote party for socialism and liberation wherever I can on the ballot too and my distaste for the two major parties softens the more localized the race is, both because the outcomes at stake are unique and the candidates are less doctrinaire.
But no, I’m not gonna vote for a democrat or republican for president but then put the party for socialism and liberation in downticket.
To address your edit, both the republican and democrat parties are already built.
Have been for a couple years.
As I said above, I have no interest in supporting republican or democrat policies. The existence and age of genocidal options doesn’t change my aversion to them.
Again, you’re skipping the question and throwing out meaningless catchphrases.
Why would I want to build parties that are already built when my goal is to topple the existing ones and replace them with ones that are younger and hungrier for change?
Farting in the wind by voting a third party presidential candidate isn’t going to do that.
I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say here but i directly answered why I wouldn’t vote for a democrat at the top of the ticket. Because I don’t support their policy positions.
What are the meaningless catchphrases?
What did you mean by your sentence in the middle there about building parties? I read it a few different times but couldn’t tell what you were trying to say.
As I said before, way up at the top of our replies, there are real effects that come from voting for a third party candidate, although I appreciate the phrasing given out usernames.
But that isn’t building a party.
That’s like building a skyscraper by putting together the top floor first.
I just told you explicitly that I’m going to vote for party for socialism and liberation in every race they’re running a candidate in.
Wouldn’t wouldn’t not voting for their presidential candidate be like not putting a roof on your skyscraper?
And I don’t fault you for not catching my edit, but what’s the deal with claiming that the non presidential stuff is what really matters? If that’s true then why do you care who I cast a ballot for in the presidential race?
I already responded to that, you edited your comment after I replied.
I just saw, no harm meant by it :)
The time to show support for third parties was months ago. Not less than a month from an election
No one in good faith remains to support any third party. It’s mathematically and empirically known there no third party has a remote chance to ever win at this point.
You appear to me- to be here in bad faith and only in bad faith to disrupt an election.
“Support 3rd parties all you want except when it’s time to vote”
“Democracy is voting for my guy”
Oh the time to work towards the change I want to see in my country is months ago? Back then people were saying it was years ago. Years ago people were telling me the same as you, I should have been at it months ago.
I’ve been doing the same thing that whole time.
The best time to support party for socialism and liberation was months ago, the second best time is now.
I explained in my comment that you replied to how there’s so much more than winning to take into account. Surely you aren’t just gonna accuse me of bad faith actions after you ignore my ideas? That would almost be like arguing in img_megamind.jpg bad faith.