Why do people get offended when it's pointed out that not voting for Harris helped Trump win? (1 Viewer)

[L88]

Had Harris won, Trumpbots would be saying the same thing about me from the other side. So you have something in common with them.

This^^^

 

[Brack]

Third party voters have long wanted a single party state and they know with certainty and confidence Trump is their guy for it. See: the Heritage Project 2025.

If Trump was their guy, then they would have voted for him instead of Trump. Those who are responsible for Trump having won are those who voted for him and/or donated to his campaign. Those who voted for third-party candidates aren't responsible for Trump having won.

 

[Brack]

I liked the Nevada ballot, "None Of The Above" received 19,625 votes, or 1.3% of the votes cast.
That should be an option on every State's ballot.
Those who don't really support the candidate they vote for aside from being seen as the least worst candidate could check both boxes and remain a valid vote, with each candidates "None Of The Above" totals shown along with their vote count.

I wished that "None Of The Above" received more votes within Nevada because Trump still received at least 50% of the vote within that state.

The problem during the 2024 election wasn't those who voted for third-party candidates or those who didn't vote for President. The problem is that too many folks voted for Trump. Trump received about 16.1 million votes within the main 7 swing states while he received about 77.3 million votes nationwide.

 

[lynnwinslow]

If Trump was their guy, then they would have voted for him instead of Trump. Those who are responsible for Trump having won are those who voted for him and/or donated to his campaign. Those who voted for third-party candidates aren't responsible for Trump having won.

Do the choices of eligible voters determine the outcome of elections?

 

[lynnwinslow]

As you should. There are going to be people who didn't vote for Trump but also did not like the Harris option either.



Of course, you being anti-Trump and thereby in this case apparently pro-Harris, would prefer anyone who did not vote for Trump then choose YOUR candidate.

However, that is not how everyone thinks. For example, in my case I have voted Third Party several times in the past when I did not like either Republican or Democrat candidate. While my vote was not likely to succeed, what it did show was I did not want EITHER of the Big Party candidates to win. It was a rejection of BOTH!

This is an important option, because it puts BOTH major Parties on notice that there is a significant group of citizens who don't like either of the options and/or party planks provided.

It might compel future candidates to give some credence, and thus some consideration in adding issues they would otherwise ignore.

Reread the OP again.
It all boils down to this.
Do the choices of eligible voters determine the outcome of elections?

 

[Brack]

Do the choices of eligible voters determine the outcome of elections?

Those who voted for third-party candidates or didn't vote for President didn't determine the outcome of the 2024 election. Only those who voted for Trump and/or donated to his campaign are responsible for him having won.

 

[lynnwinslow]

Those who voted for third-party candidates or didn't vote for President didn't determine the outcome of the 2024 election. Only those who voted for Trump and/or donated to his campaign are responsible for him having won.

That's an answer to a question that I didn't ask.

 

[Tangmo]

I don't think anyone in the Green Party considers Trump their guy. Otherwise they would have voted for him instead of Stein.

Jill Stein is a Putin cutout.

The USA Green Party is a Putin subsidiary.

In 2016 Jill Stein threw the election to Trump in PA, MI, WI.





Jill Stein has been a Putin cutout in 2016 and in 2024. Indeed, a vote for Stein is a vote for Putin-Trump.

It's been true for decades that third party voters have been an active menace against The American Experiment in Democracy. For decades third party voters have been either malign or ignorant saps.

 

[Tangmo]

If Trump was their guy, then they would have voted for him instead of Trump. Those who are responsible for Trump having won are those who voted for him and/or donated to his campaign. Those who voted for third-party candidates aren't responsible for Trump having won.

No matter how you slice that it's still baloney.

Garble.

Sophomoric -- if that.

Another incompetent voter.

 

[Lursa]

So when you said:


You just meant that those vote numbers would be a record of "a number and a name, and a region/location. Period."? You weren't suggesting that the record over the years would suggest anything related to policy?

How exactly is a "a number and a name, and a region/location" supposed to be a "basis for change?

Yes, a change. Who said the change had to do with a 2 party system? That's what you keep going on and on about. There are other changes possible/to be considered as well.

And the numbers for popular vote are a different indicator...they show actual individual voter numbers. Is this news to you? That number is an indicator for showing how representative the electoral college for that state is, for example.

The two-party system is created by people voting for Republican or Democratic candidates.

That's not what created the 2 party system

Everyone who votes for a candidate from one of the two major parties is supporting the two party system. That is how the two-party system is supported. The two party system literally would not exist without the support of people voting for candidates from those two parties.

That's BS. Many people voted for other candidates leading up to the final election. In other races, third parties CAN win. They CAN also influence who the final candidates are in races. Third party votes CAN influence any election because they are votes that dont go to either candidate in one of the 2 parties.

So in some races, people may vote for one of the 2 party candidates because they want, for example, the lesser of 2 evils to win. Or they want their vote to count in that specific election. Again, you're views on people's motivations/reasons for voting is sorely lacking. Very limited.

"You had to remove most of my post to even respond to it. Why is that?" - @Lursa

Yes and I said why...because you started out wrong and dishonest. Not worth my time to respond to more that is so tone-deaf and grimly attached to a personal and inaccurate narrative.

 

[Phys251]

If you live in a deep blue state, the EC votes for your state were going to go to Harris, no matter what you did. If you live in a deep red state, the EC votes for your state were going to Trump, no matter what you did.

On the other hand, by voting third-party, your party of choice is one vote closer to the 15% threshold required by the CPD to get a seat at the table for the debates. Regardless of who eventually ends up in the White House, getting to use the Presidential debates as a platform would be a big win for the Libertarian or Green party.

And unlike a vote for Harris or Trump, your vote could actually have an effect on that outcome, even if you don't live in a swing state.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, everyone's vote affects the popular vote, which does have an effect on tRump's psyche. Those who threw away their vote enabled tRump.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Yes, a change. Who said the change had to do with a 2 party system? That's what you keep going on and on about. There are other changes possible/to be considered as well.

Are you talking about a change of number, a change of name, or a change of region/location?

And the numbers for popular vote are a different indicator...they show actual individual voter numbers. Is this news to you? That number is an indicator for showing how representative the electoral college for that state is, for example.

I'm aware. But how is that supposed to relate to whether or not someone voting third-party is responsible for Trump getting elected?

That's not what created the 2 party system

That is what created our current two party system. There have been other two party systems, but our current two party system exists because of people who vote for one of the two largest parties.

That's BS. Many people voted for other candidates leading up to the final election. In other races, third parties CAN win. They CAN also influence who the final candidates are in races. Third party votes CAN influence any election because they are votes that dont go to either candidate in one of the 2 parties.

That's a delightful tangent, but does not address my claim. My claim is that "the two party system literally would not exist without the support of people voting for candidates from those two parties."

So demonstrate how our two party system would continue to exist if 25% of people voted for the Whigs, 35% voted for the Green Party, and 35% voted Libertarian.

Our current de facto two party system would no longer exist. It should be self-evident that the existence of our two party system relies on the vast majority of people continuing to vote either Democrat or Republican.

So in some races, people may vote for one of the 2 party candidates because they want, for example, the lesser of 2 evils to win. Or they want their vote to count in that specific election. Again, you're views on people's motivations/reasons for voting is sorely lacking. Very limited.

Sure. But they are still supporting the two party system when they vote for one of the two major parties. Maybe you buy and iPhone because you need a convenient way to check your email while out and about. Maybe you buy an iPhone because you need a camera with better resolution.

It doesn't matter what your motivation is for buying an iPhone. Everyone who buys an iPhone is supporting Apple by buying their products. Apple is able to stay in business because of that support from their customers. Whatever other motivations you may have, it is a fact that buying Apple products supports Apple.

Likewise, voting for a candidate from one of the two major parties supports the two party system, regardless of your motives for doing so.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

As has been repeatedly pointed out, everyone's vote affects the popular vote, which does have an effect on tRump's psyche. Those who threw away their vote enabled tRump.

Voting for Stein or Oliver didn't give Trump any more votes in the popular vote.

 

[Phys251]

Voting for Stein or Oliver didn't give Trump any more votes in the popular vote.

If you want to play that game, Stein voters swung the 2016 election to tRump.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

If you want to play that game, Stein voters swung the 2016 election to tRump.

In swing states perhaps. Stein voters in states that went to Hillary didn't swing the 2016 election to Trump. All the EC votes for their state went to Hillary regardless.

As I've said, voting for the lesser of two evils makes sense in swing states. In deep blue or deep red states though, voting third party makes sense if you think it would be cool to have more than two viable options at some point in the future.

 

[iguanaman]

That's a cute opinion. You're entitled to it, but I do not share it. I vote for the person I want to win. You vote your method, let me vote mine, and let's have an old fashioned by the fireplace and talk about something cooler than presidential elections. Deal?

You throw away your vote because you want to shirk responsibility for it. That is the case with far too many Americans who either decided not to vote at all or throw away their vote on someone they knew could not win. It is the same thing really.

 

[iguanaman]

If you want to play that game, Stein voters swung the 2016 election to tRump.

Actually it was Bernie supporters who voted for Trump out of spite. Their votes were greater than the margin of victory in the 3 blue States that gave Trump his EC win.

 

[Phys251]

Actually it was Bernie supporters who voted for Trump out of spite. Their votes were greater than the margin of victory in the 3 blue States that gave Trump his EC win.

It was both.

In swing states perhaps. Stein voters in states that went to Hillary didn't swing the 2016 election to Trump. All the EC votes for their state went to Hillary regardless.

As I've said, voting for the lesser of two evils makes sense in swing states. In deep blue or deep red states though, voting third party makes sense if you think it would be cool to have more than two viable options at some point in the future.

All votes count towards the popular vote.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

All votes count towards the popular vote.

Stein's popularity does not reflect on Trump's popularity, and voting for Stein doesn't make Trump any more popular.

 

[Phys251]

Stein's popularity does not reflect on Trump's popularity, and voting for Stein doesn't make Trump any more popular.

No, but it fails to take away from his popular vote.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

No, but it fails to take away from his popular vote.

Voting for Hillary didn't take any more votes away from Trump than voting for Stein did. Trump would still have the exact same number of votes regardless of whether you voted for Stein of Hillary.

 

[Tangmo]

The only way possible to stop Trump in '24 was to vote for Harris.

There was no other realistic possibility than to vote for Harris, win or lose.

Voters who refused to vote for Harris did so because they were and are just fine with Trump.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

The only way possible to stop Trump in '24 was to vote for Harris.

There was no other realistic possibility than to vote for Harris, win or lose.

Voters who refused to vote for Harris did so because they were and are just fine with Trump.

People in blue states who voted for Oliver or Stein had zero impact on Trump getting elected. If they had voted for Harris instead, it wouldn’t have magically created more EC votes for their state.

 

[Phys251]

Voting for Hillary didn't take any more votes away from Trump than voting for Stein did. Trump would still have the exact same number of votes regardless of whether you voted for Stein of Hillary.

More Hillary votes than tRump votes in a state = she wins that state. This is not a difficult concept. Stein helped swing the election.

 

[Tangmo]

Stein's popularity does not reflect on Trump's popularity, and voting for Stein doesn't make Trump any more popular.

As I've posted in scrolling Stein has been a Putin cutout since the 2016 election and again in the '24 election. Putin gets a lot of votes and a huge bang for his buck when third party voters in the USA vote for Stein of the USA Green party that keeps nominating their comrade leader.

Third party featherweight but mule headed voters are always ripe for misuse and abuse in any given quadrennial election. That is when third party candidates show up again and suddenly to set up their snake oil stand, then disappear until they crash in and fly out again four years later. All these third party candidates do is leave behind the shit mess they have created and that we have to clean up after 'em. Each third party quack candidate knows they'll never have to spend even a single day in government doing governance.

Indeed the only kind of third party candidate we get in government is the Kennedy Junior nutcase whackjob psycho.