US Election 2024: Grumpy Old Men

[Ralin]

That logic seems a wee bit self-fulfilling though. The parties aren't supposed to have special legal status or privileges. We know that because the people who drafted the Constitution and founded the country repeatedly said "lol fuck political parties we don't need that shit." And they're only effective spoilers if people want to vote for them. If the Democrats (or Republicans) can't counter that by convincing voters they're the better choice, I mean... fuck em, that's their problem?

[bilateralrope]

Did the Nevada Greens get enough signatures ?

Because if it looks like they didn't, then this lawsuit seems reasonable.

It's unclear at this point. All that's come out is that of the ten thousand required, they submitted nearly thirty thousand. But a certain amount of said signatures also need to be from each district. It'd be weird to see a party fuck up such a basic compliance.

The two big parties challenging the right of third party candidates to appear on the ballot is nothing new - it's been going on as long as I can remember (back to the Nixon administration) and is a standard tactic to reduce competition at the polls.

Yeah, that's certainly how it looks. I really hope that it's a weird misstep, and that it's indeed not the Nevada Democrats just suing to keep an opponent off the ballot.

This seems like something the courts should be able to resolve quickly. Especially if the Nevada Democrats have a good reason to suspect that the signatures aren't in compliance. Which should point the way to finding out what the truth is. If they are willing to take the PR hit and spend the money for the legal action without a good reason to suspect non-compliance, that would be a stupid move from them.


As for a party fucking up basic compliance, remember that we are talking about 3rd party presidential candidates. If they think they have a chance of winning, I have doubts about how well they understand the US election system.

[Gandalf]

It's not some cut and dry the Dems are being meanies to keep off the competition. Jill isn't actually competing to win against Dems. She is being employed as a spoiler by opposition parties. In many circumstances allowing these third parties is the anticompetitive choice not the pro competition choice because these parties don't exist to compete.

Fuck that. If the Dems are so worried about losing votes, they should be better at politics. If major parties disallow smaller ones because they fear the smaller one will take "their" votes, then that really undermines their legitimacy.

It would be like letting a soccer team who exists not to win but to try to injured the most opposing players and saying that not allowing them to do so is anticompetitive.

A sports league exists for the entertainment of its spectators, and the enjoyment of the players. Not really a good 1:1.

[Dark Hellion]

It's not some cut and dry the Dems are being meanies to keep off the competition. Jill isn't actually competing to win against Dems. She is being employed as a spoiler by opposition parties. In many circumstances allowing these third parties is the anticompetitive choice not the pro competition choice because these parties don't exist to compete.

Fuck that. If the Dems are so worried about losing votes, they should be better at politics. If major parties disallow smaller ones because they fear the smaller one will take "their" votes, then that really undermines their legitimacy.

It would be like letting a soccer team who exists not to win but to try to injured the most opposing players and saying that not allowing them to do so is anticompetitive.

A sports league exists for the entertainment of its spectators, and the enjoyment of the players. Not really a good 1:1.

Gandalf, the Green party is not a legitimate political party. They don't generate their funds from the electorate, they get money from outside sources, often washed foreign sources. They rarely run candidates for local elections. Except for Jill Stein running for president I do not believe I have ever seen another green party candidate on a ballot I have voted on. The purpose of the green party is not to compete. It is to draw votes away from the Dems to favor conservative parties. It is funded by conservatives and outsiders to do this.

You cannot compete with a party that doesn't exist to actually win the contest but only to make sure you lose. So, now do you understand why the Dems sue to keep them off the ballot? Because they aren't trying to get onto the ballot to participate in democracy, they are on the ballot to disrupt democracy.

[Ralin]

Can't help but notice that still seems to remove the agency from anyone who does choose to vote for them. Which leads right back to the "If they're so bad and the Democrats still can't convince people not to vote for them why should the courts cover for the Democrats' incompetence? question.

[bilateralrope]

Disqualifying a party because they are not "legitimate" is a worrying route to go down. Especially when the claims of "washed foreign sources" are presented without evidence.

The way I see this lawsuit is simple. If The Green party met the conditions to be on the ballot, they should be. If not, they shouldn't be. The signature requirement seems low enough that any party who can't meet it doesn't even stand a chance of being a spoiler. I don't like that a lawsuit from another political party is required to enforce it, but it seems to be the only viable option the US has.

[Dark Hellion]

I am not a Dem. If the Green party were a legitimate party that stood for their stated goals and ran legitimate candidates in local elections I would be voting for them on occasion. The fact that I am calling them out is because they don't do that. I can't vote for the Green party mayoral candidate because they aren't a legitimate party. They literally have no mayors in the 100 largest cities. The libertarians though do have 1. The Wisconsin Green party is literally running 0 candidates in the whole fucking state according to their webpage. They are endorsing 1 socialist candidate for city Comptroller.

So, you see why we might be a tad suspiscious of them considering the only seem to pop up when the Dems and Reps are within striking distance of each other and a spoiler on the ballot might push things in favor of the Repubs?

And look up Jill Steins cozy relationship with Putin.

[Ralin]

Counterpoint: Why is it the court's (or your) business to decide that 'fuck the Democrats and the Republicans, and also tbh I kinda like Putin he's really cool' isn't a legitimate political position all by itself?

Again... Them being a spoiler only seems like a legit issue if you accept that their voters don't have the agency to decide that themselves.

[Crazedwraith]

Does the Green Party field its candidate in enough states that it at least mathematically has chance to win the election?

[bilateralrope]

A better question would be to ask if Jill Stein is polling well enough to have a chance of being a spoiler.

Because if she isn't, then a lot of what Dark Hellion is claiming doesn't matter.

Again... Them being a spoiler only seems like a legit issue if you accept that their voters don't have the agency to decide that themselves.

Right now I think that the best solution to the spoiler problem is to educate people so that they understand the reality of US presidential elections. Any rules that allow the exclusion of someone who might be a spoiler seem too easily abused by someone who wants to exclude an opponent who stands a chance of winning if the two major parties ever shifts.

[Dark Hellion]

Does the Green Party field its candidate in enough states that it at least mathematically has chance to win the election?

Elections for what? You realize as a federal system we have a huge number of offices that the greens could be running for. Instead, they put up a spoiler candidate for pres every 4 years and that's mostly it. Some local parties may have more but like I said, my state (which has a bigger pop than New Zealand btw) has 0 green party people running for any office.

So, if a party almost never runs any candidates in any local, municipal, or state level election would you think that party is actually legitimately trying to participate in the democratic process?

[Dark Hellion]

A better question would be to ask if Jill Stein is polling well enough to have a chance of being a spoiler.

Because if she isn't, then a lot of what Dark Hellion is claiming doesn't matter.

Again... Them being a spoiler only seems like a legit issue if you accept that their voters don't have the agency to decide that themselves.

Right now I think that the best solution to the spoiler problem is to educate people so that they understand the reality of US presidential elections. Any rules that allow the exclusion of someone who might be a spoiler seem too easily abused by someone who wants to exclude an opponent who stands a chance of winning if the two major parties ever shifts.

In 2016, in Wisconsin, Jill Stein was literally a spoiler candidate for Hillary. Had her votes gone to Hillary, she would have won the state. Same in Michigan. Same in Pennsylvania. This would have meant a Hillary Clinton presidency. So, yes, she is a spoiler candidate.

[Crazedwraith]

Does the Green Party field its candidate in enough states that it at least mathematically has chance to win the election?

Elections for what?

Well since we talking about her being challenged about whether she could run on the presidential ballot, that's what I was talking about wasn't it?

[bilateralrope]

In 2016, in Wisconsin, Jill Stein was literally a spoiler candidate for Hillary. Had her votes gone to Hillary, she would have won the state. Same in Michigan. Same in Pennsylvania. This would have meant a Hillary Clinton presidency. So, yes, she is a spoiler candidate.

That was 8 years ago. What about this year ?

[Dark Hellion]

So, your argument is that in 8 years they have become a legitimate party, despite not running a single candidate in my state which has more people than your entire country?

Ok, so, if a "party" didn't run a single candidate in any new Zealand election except for one really close election would you not be suspicious of why they are running?

Also, who else is supposed to adjudicate if a party, any party, met the legal requirements to be on the ballot without the courts and a lawsuit under the US system? And improper signature collection is a real issue. Numerous Republicans in Michigan were found to have submitted fraudulent signatures in an attempt to make it on the ballot.

For fucks sakes guys, learn a bit about how the us system works and the recent electoral context of this.

[Dark Hellion]

Does the Green Party field its candidate in enough states that it at least mathematically has chance to win the election?

Elections for what?

Well since we talking about her being challenged about whether she could run on the presidential ballot, that's what I was talking about wasn't it?

They do run in enough states. But considering they generally get around 1% of the vote they have no mathematical chance to do anything other than be a spoiler. And they don't run in local elections unlike a real 3rd party like the libertarians. I can vote for a libertarian candidate for local coroner or school board or mayor or sheriff or attorney general or state Assemblyman or state senator or US Congress man or US senator or for president if I so choose.

See why one might be legit and the other might be a spoiler party?

[Gandalf]

They do run in enough states. But considering they generally get around 1% of the vote they have no mathematical chance to do anything other than be a spoiler. And they don't run in local elections unlike a real 3rd party like the libertarians. I can vote for a libertarian candidate for local coroner or school board or mayor or sheriff or attorney general or state Assemblyman or state senator or US Congress man or US senator or for president if I so choose.

See why one might be legit and the other might be a spoiler party?

Seems like a legitimate but none too popular party.

Maybe Genocide Joe and his allies should be better at campaigning as opposed to trying to disallow competition.

[Dark Hellion]

They do run in enough states. But considering they generally get around 1% of the vote they have no mathematical chance to do anything other than be a spoiler. And they don't run in local elections unlike a real 3rd party like the libertarians. I can vote for a libertarian candidate for local coroner or school board or mayor or sheriff or attorney general or state Assemblyman or state senator or US Congress man or US senator or for president if I so choose.

See why one might be legit and the other might be a spoiler party?

Seems like a legitimate but none too popular party.

Maybe Genocide Joe and his allies should be better at campaigning as opposed to trying to disallow competition.

I couldn't tell you if they are popular or not because they aren't running in any elections in my entire state. Which you would think a grassroots party would be running in lower level elections that are cheaper and require much less personal. Instead they only run a presidential candidate every 4 years which requires millions of dollars...

Also, it may be different in Australia but in the US the only people calling him genocide Joe are stupid college kids and the neo fascists and I don't think you are a college kid...

[Gandalf]

I couldn't tell you if they are popular or not because they aren't running in any elections in my entire state. Which you would think a grassroots party would be running in lower level elections that are cheaper and require much less personal. Instead they only run a presidential candidate every 4 years which requires millions of dollars...

The presidential election is the biggest stage. Not the strategy I'd pick, but I'm not them.

Also, it may be different in Australia but in the US the only people calling him genocide Joe are stupid college kids and the neo fascists and I don't think you are a college kid...

[Dark Hellion]

I couldn't tell you if they are popular or not because they aren't running in any elections in my entire state. Which you would think a grassroots party would be running in lower level elections that are cheaper and require much less personal. Instead they only run a presidential candidate every 4 years which requires millions of dollars...

The presidential election is the biggest stage. Not the strategy I'd pick, but I'm not them.

Also, it may be different in Australia but in the US the only people calling him genocide Joe are stupid college kids and the neo fascists and I don't think you are a college kid...

So, I'm just not supposed to take you seriously, correct? I should just assume you are a disingenuous quisling troll?

And especially, I am to assume you don't give a shit about the Palestinian people because you are holding water for the side (republicans) that is discussing the luxury apartments that will be built on the lands of the ethnically cleansed Gaza and that you are opposed to the side that is negotiating ceasefires? Because like it or not, the US is a two party system and no amount of snark from overseas will actually change that. So if you oppose the Dems and work against them you are working for the Republicans, like it or not.

[Dark Hellion]

Ok, I want to put something out and make it crystal clear:

Donald Trump may be a buffoonish figurehead, but he is the buffoonish figurehead of a very real neo-fascist movement who have very real plans (project 2025) for a fascist takeover of the US. Much of this movement basically wants to take right back up where the Nazis left off, only replacing Aryans with some kind of syncretic Anglo-Saxon Whiteness.

Instead of Israeli planes dropping US made bombs on Gaza, it will be B-52s dropping napalm and shooting cruise missiles at Gaza. Because these people don't see anyone who is darker than a Klan sheet as being human or deserving of rights; they see them as impediments that lower property values. And unless you are a pretty Northern European, you definitely don't deserve rights if you are a foreigner, regardless of if you are white or not.

My parents live near MAGA country, I grew up around these assholes who became MAGA my whole life. Trust me, these motherfuckers will not blink about marching you into the showers.

So you can shout Genocide Joe all you want. And you can be the most righteous corpse in the oven when they win.

[Gandalf]

So, I'm just not supposed to take you seriously, correct? I should just assume you are a disingenuous quisling troll?

And especially, I am to assume you don't give a shit about the Palestinian people because you are holding water for the side (republicans) that is discussing the luxury apartments that will be built on the lands of the ethnically cleansed Gaza and that you are opposed to the side that is negotiating ceasefires? Because like it or not, the US is a two party system and no amount of snark from overseas will actually change that. So if you oppose the Dems and work against them you are working for the Republicans, like it or not.

Nothing disingenuous or trolling. I just like it when people can vote for their candidate of choice in elections.

Third parties keep major parties honest. In Australia, our Greens party is pushing Labor to the left on some issues. They'll likely never form a majority in my lifetime, but they can apply pressure and get outcomes. While a US presidential election has its own idiosyncrasies, a third party becomes a place for disenchanted voters to express themselves.

If a major party is losing votes to a minor, it's time for introspection. The party doesn't own the votes. The voter does. So if the voters are going to the minor party, be they Green or Libertarian, then the majors need to ask why, and maybe drop their sense of entitlement.

Done right, democracy is a wonderful thing which allows a population to get the governance which best suits it. It also needs a lot of work.

[bilateralrope]

So, your argument is that in 8 years they have become a legitimate party, despite not running a single candidate in my state which has more people than your entire country?

No. My argument is that you need to show that she is doing well enough that she might be a spoiler this year. You need to rule out the possibility that the voters learned that voting for her was a bad idea. Or anything else that might have changed the mind of people who voted for her in 2016. You need to prove that she is a spoiler like you claim.

I feel the need to point out that you didn't talk about how well she did in 2020. Only the election before that one.

[Dark Hellion]

So, your argument is that in 8 years they have become a legitimate party, despite not running a single candidate in my state which has more people than your entire country?

No. My argument is that you need to show that she is doing well enough that she might be a spoiler this year. You need to rule out the possibility that the voters learned that voting for her was a bad idea. Or anything else that might have changed the mind of people who voted for her in 2016. You need to prove that she is a spoiler like you claim.

I feel the need to point out that you didn't talk about how well she did in 2020. Only the election before that one.

So you argue that a spoiler candidate is only a spoiler candidate if they work? Like if I try to rob a bank but don't get any money I'm not a bank robber?

[Gandalf]

Interestingly, Joe Manchin has started using his PAC to donate to Republicans.

https://punchbowl.news/article/senate/j ... publicans/