this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
1853 points (100.0% liked)
People Twitter
7694 readers
1047 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wow, it's almost as if there wasn't a proper candidate?
Harris was the correct option.
Harris was the better option. That's not the same as a good one.
only option.
Clearly not, she lost
Left? Like Dale Earnhardt and Hillary Clinton, she failed to turn left, then smashed into a fucking wall.
Not my favorite candidate. By any means. Better than what we have with Trump? Absolutely undisputed. It's not even a conversation. Wild that someone would even try to contend it.
Welcome to the reality of the broken US voting system bud
And instead of doing anything to fix it, I'm jerking off to what would have happened if another terrible candidate would have won.
In most of the US, who you vote for literally doesn't matter, because your state will go to the candidate from whatever party has won your state for the last couple decades. Unless you live in the 8 or so states that could actually, realistically flip in a given election cycle, there's literally no point in voting for the lesser of two evils.
Going into any given election, I can say with high certainty that my state will go to the dominant party with a 15% split with very high confidence, and that all votes outside of the top two will be under 5%. The only way for this to not happen is for the minority party to run a very strong candidate, the majority party to run a very unpopular candidate, and for a large third party to steal a ton of votes from the majority party.. And even then, you'll probably trim the gap to 5% or so and the majority party candidate will still win by inertia.
If you understand that, you can be free to actually vote your conscience and pick one of the third party candidates. If third party candidates collectively get enough votes to actually spoil an election in your area, maybe you have a chance to get voting reform discussed on the media, and if the majority candidate doesn't get 51% because of it, maybe it features in the debates.
So until the gap between the top two candidates narrows to where all third party voters collectively voting for the second candidate could actually flip the state, I'll keep voting for a third party candidate.
To your point, at least for third party voters, only two states had enough third party participation to even theoretically move the end result: Michigan and Wisconsin. So even if every person that voted third party instead voted for Harris, she would have still lost 287:251 (though she would have won the symbolic victory of popular vote).
Of course, there's more than just a single election in the country, so more important to keep active in down ballot races.
The biggest potential complaint of consequence would be non-voters/people who boycotted the election, but no way of knowing anything about it.
Still it is utterly obnoxious when someone seems to act all high and mighty that they didn't vote for the lesser of two evils.
I'm still looking for the point that anybody did this? Are Kamala voters not allowed to criticize her platform and point out that there was no good option for the working class? What's obnoxious to me is putting Kamala up on a pedestal next to Al Gore despite the absolutely pitiful losing campaign she ran. Her loss was obvious to anyone honestly paying attention. There was so much more she could have offered to the people if she really wanted to win, but instead her campaign chose to use Trump as a bludgeon against anyone left of center in the American working class.
Are we really more upset at the third party voters that voted their conscience, and resisted the coercive campaign practices, than the million-dollar campaign itself that utterly failed to appeal both to them and to non-voters on its own merits? Are we really eating up this slop right now? Harris was not owed any votes, it was up to her campaign to earn them. This is a time that we need to come together as a people and struggle outside of the electoralist system, but so many of us are too busy pointing fingers at people who are just as powerless as them, for all the reasons this country sucks right now. Really??? Can this energy not be used more productively???
The election is over, let's move on now and stop idolizing these traitors. This is not a person that deserves to be defended like this. She has made it clear that she doesn't give a fuck about us, she cannot be moved an inch even to win an election and her donors come before anyone else in the country. We need a system that works for us, and we need to get it through our domes that the ruling class is not going to put that on a fucking ballot.
It's almost as obnoxious as people claiming I somehow voted for Trump by voting third party in my state, which is definitely not a swing state.
I'm only going to vote for the lesser of two evils if the lesser of two evils has a realistic chance of winning a close race. The closest election to that in my voting history was 2020, because my state is pretty deep red (Utah), didn't like Trump (Kasich got more votes than Trump in 2016 in my state and he had already dropped out), and the whole attack on the electoral system rubbed people the wrong way, so I voted for Biden and Trump still won by 20%. Even in 2016, when McMullin stole a ton of votes, Trump still won by almost 20% (though he got <50%, which was funny).
Voting third party is the ultimate protest. If you don't like the terrible candidates and your state won't flip, protest!
I am aware of this, last I checked there were number electorates where non-voters (as compared with 2020) and third-party voters could have swayed the outcome. My assertion that not voting for the lesser of two evils where possible to do so is dumb in general. I am aware that certain places it is pointless to vote for the democrats.
Especially with the hodge-podge nature of it not really bring a federal election, and instead being a bunch of state/territory elections with different rules for each (gross).
I agree. Where I draw the line is in seats where it is possible to vote lesser of two evils.
Seems you understand tactical voting quite well! I have no issue with you.
I only have a problem with the drop-kicks that assert tactical voting is morally wrong, instead of necessary.
Godspeed on fixing your voting systems friend
I love how any criticism of your chosen deity makes you think I didn't vote, or believe that there's no difference between the two.
Incredible.
Voting? You must love genocide...
/s
There was a correct candidate and an incorrect candidate. America chose incorrectly.
If she had run a competent campaign she would have won, I'd say that the DNC chose incorrectly but that's not true either, they chose a candidate that aligned with the interests of their billionaire backers because they knew they'd get paid whether she won or not