MADISON, Wis. – Four independent presidential candidates have filed signatures and paperwork to appear on the November ballot, the Wisconsin Elections Commission announced Tuesday.
MADISON, Wis. – Four independent presidential candidates have filed signatures and paperwork to appear on the November ballot, the Wisconsin Elections Commission announced Tuesday.
I hear you. But proclaiming that third party candidates are intentionally trying to dilute the vote, as the commmentor I replied to implied, is no different than Harris’s response at the rally.
It’s meant to shame third parties for not getting in line behind the Democratic candidate. Instead of listening to people’s grievances, they both weaponize shame.
It’s hard to feel otherwise when operating under a FPTP system, which is basically intentionally built to shut out third parties. In fact, one of the prominent benefits of FPTP is that it’s incredibly difficult for an extremist party to find foothold - as opposed to what is seen all over Europe currently in places with party-list proportional representation.
Whether the third party candidates are naive about their chances, putting themselves out there as an act of protest or intentionally diluting the vote is impossible to say (and I suspect there are some out there in each category).
In the end however intentions don’t really matter - the practical impact of third parties in an FPTP system is diluting the vote.
First, let’s be clear: voting is a fundamental American right, and every citizen has the right to vote for the candidate they believe in, without being accused of ulterior motives. The idea that supporting a third party is somehow working for Trump or any other major candidate is both historically inaccurate and logically flawed.
Throughout American history, third parties have played a crucial role in shaping political discourse and pushing important issues into the spotlight.
The abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and labor rights were all advanced by third parties before being adopted by the major parties.
By voting for Jill Stein and the Green Party, I am supporting a platform that aligns with my values, particularly on issues like environmental sustainability, social justice, and democratic reform.
The notion that a vote for a third party “dilutes” the vote is rooted in a fear-driven mentality rather than in democratic principles.
It assumes that votes are owned by the two major parties, which they are not. Our electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate, not just those of the dominant parties.
Thank you!
You do realize there have been many cases of third party candidates being explicitly on the ticket to confuse matters and pull votes from opposition, do you not?
Though admittedly that’s usually with a similar or identical on the ballot name: https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2024/06/florida-dem-latest-victim-of-same-name-ballot-confusion-scheme/
First, let’s be clear: voting is a fundamental American right, and every citizen has the right to vote for the candidate they believe in, without being accused of ulterior motives. The idea that supporting a third party is somehow working for Trump or any other major candidate is both historically inaccurate and logically flawed.
Throughout American history, third parties have played a crucial role in shaping political discourse and pushing important issues into the spotlight.
The abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and labor rights were all advanced by third parties before being adopted by the major parties.
By voting for Jill Stein and the Green Party, I am supporting a platform that aligns with my values, particularly on issues like environmental sustainability, social justice, and democratic reform.
The notion that a vote for a third party “dilutes” the vote is rooted in a fear-driven mentality rather than in democratic principles.
It assumes that votes are owned by the two major parties, which they are not. Our electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate, not just those of the dominant parties.
That was a great 6 paragraph comment, but you didn’t actually address the literal one topic I was referring to. Like, at all.
I think I have made myself clear. Thank you!
Me: “You didn’t address the topic…”
You: “I spoke clearly!”
Good job, buddy. Good job.
I have made myself clear. Please stick to information that is in the news article posted.
This Lemmy community explores and respects diverse viewpoints.
And thank you for respecting the right for me to vote for who I want to vote for, even if it’s not your candidate. Let’s keep this sub civil.
I appreciate your perspective, but I’m trying to understand how your response relates to the specific topic I raised. It seems like you sidestepped the issue I mentioned regarding third-party candidates and their potential impact on elections.
I also want to clarify that I’m not being uncivil; I’m simply expressing my concerns about the broader implications of voting choices. It’s important to consider how those choices might affect the country as a whole.
Are you suggesting that the viewpoint about the intentional confusion created by some candidates isn’t worthy of respect? I’m a bit confused, and I’d appreciate your help in clearing this up.
And I appreciate your perspective. But I’ve made my point clear in many posts, and from now on I will only discuss information that is in the actual news article that I posted.
And I respect your right to think that. I, however, disagree. I like the fact that there are more voting choices.
The notion that a vote for a third party “dilutes” the vote is rooted in a fear-driven mentality rather than in democratic principles.
It assumes that votes are owned by the two major parties, which they are not. Our electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate, not just those of the dominant parties.
Voting for the candidate who best represents my beliefs is not just a right—it’s a responsibility.
Democracy thrives on diversity of thought.