Here’s the problem: Trump is out to maximize environmental damage and the US Green Party runs as spoilers. Let’s look at three scenarios:
Scenario 1:
Harris: 1001 votes
Trump: 1000 votes
Stein: 0 votes
Harris wins
Scenario 2:
Harris: 1000 votes
Trump: 1000 votes
Stein: 1 vote
Tied vote, which goes to the courts and Congress, putting Trump in power
Scenario 3:
Harris: 999 votes
Trump: 1000 votes
Stein: 2 votes
Trump wins outright
This spoiler effect makes it really imperative to actively vote for Harris if you want to see any kind of climate action going forward. Republicans know this, which is why they’re the ones funding the Green Party.
And that’s why the European Greens want Jill Stein to step down now — they get that what she’s doing is making it easier to elect a fascist bent on environmental destruction.
I’m a hard lefty and even I will tell people not to give any votes to Stein. She rubs shoulders with Putin and a bunch of his cabinet members. There was also the time she called for a recount, took a bunch of donations to get the recount going, and then when it inevitably failed, she vanished with the money.
The US Green party is fully captured. Their presence in any state-level offices has fully waned under Stein. They have no power to affect change anywhere anymore and exist only to spoil.
I agree and would add that they didn’t really have much power to begin with. If they cared about the environment, they would’ve stepped back for this election on principle of what’s at stake.
The fact that they don’t care who wins means they don’t actually care about the ideals the party is supposed to be about. If you don’t live to fight another day, then you’ve ultimately lost.
Or just run in deep blue districts to challenge sure-thing Democratic moderates who slow walk progressive stuff. You’d think that’d be where their best chances are while also being the places where the impact would be strictly beneficial.
Someone else suggested running in places like Alaska, which has RCV, or focus upon local races. The reason Conservatives are having a moment is because they focused on races they could win.
Green Party, meanwhile, seems content to lose and be a spoiler.
Conservatives do well because their ideology is compatible with the interests of capital. No party that is a serious challenge to those interests can win any notable power through elections in the US.
As far as the idea of focusing on local races: If your main concern is immediate and substantial action on climate, what good would winning a local race do for you? Yeah maybe it would be easier to get a left wing candidate on a school board or whatever, but that’s because it holds no meaningful power.
Not that I think they have any particular chance of success at the national level. I’ve just found that “local races” argument… most charitably put, confusing, less charitably: bad faith or willfully missing the point.
It’s too complicated to go into a lot of detail here, but the “local” argument is relying upon the effects of local influence and effects over time. Sure, it won’t move the global needle, but it would affect the local population in a positive way, and many politicians get their start at the local level first. Local laws and ordinances affect your day to day, and that’s why it matters.
However, it’s too late for them to get in locally. They should have been trying 20 years ago, at least. They could still try, but they will have missed the opportunity to actually do anything about climate via the levers of government. It’s essentially up to Democrats and independents who caucus with them, now.
Where o where is UniversalMonk when you want to shove something in his smarmy, trollish face…?
On tons of block lists, probably.
Maybe if the Russian Green Party asked, she would
I guess the US Green party got kicked out of the international federation of Greens? Somehow that’s not surprising…
But then, shouldn’t someone make a “New Green Party” that is a member of the federation? And can claim legitimacy as the true Green party with international support? Pointing out that the other Green party in the US lacks recognition and is thus a sham?
And then … this new Green party - could endorse the Dem candidate for President. Most folks who’d follow the greens would probably follow that endorsement…
You could do something like that, and run local and legislative candidates in states like Alaska and Maine which have ranked-choice voting for their general election, or California which uses top-two primaries. Would probably be easier if there was some way to redirect the existing US Green Party towards a path that might actually gain some amount of power, instead of serving as a spoiler.
This spoiler effect makes it really imperative to actively vote for Harris if you want to see any kind of climate action going forward.
Anyone who call to imperatively vote for the red and blue party is an enemy of the climate cause and of humanity. If you want to see any kind of climate action do not vote or advocate for the parties and politicians that have cycled in power for the past decades and have brought humanity on the brink of extinction.
The difference is that the Biden line keeps all of Biden’s climate laws and the Trump line kills them. So this is not including any climate laws Harris might introduce, however the difference until 2030 between both scenarios is about the annual emissions of the EU and Japan combined! Biden has a lot of flaws, but he has done some actually large scale positive climate action.
The target has not being reached and the government isn’t even considering doing something as simple as banning private jets or yachts. If you care about the climate cause do not advocate for the parties and politicians who have brought us to this point. Instead of defending them and pointing out that one is less awful than the other use your energies to do something better.
Who do you think is a viable politician, who can win the presidential election next Tuesday and bans private jets and yachts?
So we’re at the finish line with two choices, and you’re gonna double down that there’s a third option people haven’t considered?
Did I get that right?
The world is at the finish line and there a thousand things you can do to fight the climate cause. Climate activists are blocking roads they are not advocating for the parties who are responsible for the climate crisis.
They’re recognizing that a first-past-the-post system gives us effectively a choice between two candidates, and are choosing to support the one willing to do more. This is what the Biden/Harris administration got us:
Just look index@sh.itjust.works post history. It is not worth it.
It’s worth it to call out shills so they can’t spew their bullshit uncontested. This isn’t reddit where a barrage of downvotes hides them. They need active pushback.
If we look at the chart the emissions are pretty much as high as they were in 1990, they even went up in the past few years. They could drop these in a day by banning billionares commodities. There’s a reason why climate activists aren’t advocating for the current ruling parties.
To the contrary, when I’ve been doing phonebanks calling climate activists asking them to be involved in actions supporting Harris, I’m finding that I actually know people on the list, and they’re showing up.
I agree that climate change is a global problem, but letting the one candidate who said “drill baby, drill,” got $75mil investments from Big Oil, has indicated he’d be a dictator, and has explicitly called climate change a hoax—we can just let him win, because surely he won’t put the boot upon the climate activists and suppress any effort to do anything meaningful about the climate?
Is that your plan? Because I fail to see how electing Donald Trump will give you the status quo you’re assuming you’ll have to be able to effect any sort of climate agenda.
Do all those activist things, but don’t be so gullible or naive to think that the judges the president will pick, the Congresspersons and lobbying interests they choose to listen to, the people they appoint to their cabinet, and countries they do business with are tantamount to nothing.
Unless you sincerely think that stuff is tantamount to nothing compared to protests, in which case, I wish I could be that privileged and divorced from reality.
I agree that climate change is a global problem, but letting the one candidate who said “drill baby, drill,” got $75mil investments from Big Oil, has indicated he’d be a dictator, and has explicitly called climate change a hoax—we can just let him win, because surely he won’t put the boot upon the climate activists and suppress any effort to do anything meaningful about the climate?
Climate activists are already being beaten and arrested pretty much all around the world.
So, not going to answer the questions I asked you and just pretend it’s going to be exactly the same under both candidates?
Is that your strategy? Are you a troll?
Oh fuck off.
Does it feel dirty as fuck? Of course it does, but if you genuinely think there is no difference at all in climate outlook between the two then I have a billion oil jacks to sell you.
It might be the lesser of two evils, but every tonne less we emit is one less we need to remove.
Scientists have been warning us for years that we are getting past the point of no return. Red and blue party have both led us there and not give a fuck about climate until the pressure was on losing votes because of it. Under the current climate crisis the government isn’t even considering banning private jets and yachts to keep pleasing the 0.01%
Excellent, so you are in the market for premium oil jacks, where should we start the bidding?
I dunno, but the currency should be rubles
Name any realistic scenario where voting for Stein would affect positive change.
Name any realistic scenario where voting for red or blue would affect positive change
I voted for blue in San Francisco and they reduced carbon emissions by 50% despite population growth of 12% and GDP growth of 226%.
I voted for blue in California and they invested $54 billion into transit.
I voted for blue in the US Government and they gave us the single greatest, most ambitious program addressing climate change in the history of the world.
The Democrats are very very far from ideal but they are trying to make the life of the average American better and they’re trying (to little, to late, admittedly) to do something about climate change. The other side actively wants to kill as many Americans as they can and generally fuck up the world in every way possible. If you don’t have your head stuck up your own arse really far, the difference is very clear to see.
I chose to vote for Blue last presidential election and Biden made a real difference with the IRA. Much to my surprise. It isn’t enough, but it is a step.
deleted by creator
This would make sense if Stein was actually taking voters from Harris instead of Trump.
Nobody who voted, or leans Trumps way has ever voted for Jill Stein ever.
And every troll on lemmy trying to get someone to vote for Stein, is lamenting her as the alternative to Harris. Get outta here with this unbelievable take.
Nobody who voted, or leans Trumps way has ever voted for Jill Stein ever.
There’s plenty of people who are not fine with the current system that would vote for a third party. I’m gonna make an assumption less stupid than yours and claim that actually most people are not fine with the current system and would gladly vote for another candidate if it wasn’t for the narrative spinning the fight between red and blue.
the narrative spinning the fight between red and blue.
The fight is between Red and Blue. FPTP election systems don’t really allow new parties to become relevant — and if a new party did gain relevance, it would fully replace one of the existing parties within very few election cycles.
The point is: You need a Democratic or Republican majority to reform the election system first before the Greens or any other party can become a relevant factor. The US democratic system is older than the democratic systems of most other countries. And it shows.
All it takes for a party to become relevant is a pop star with million of followers making a post.
Meanwhile, actual pop stars
The people who are Republicans that would be voting third party aren’t just going to vote for HARD-D. They’re going to vote for someone closer to their home terf. They’re going to vote for Chase Oliver (or maybe RFK in the states he’s still on the ballot) as – at best – a protest vote.
FPTP is going to eventually converge into a 2 party system in the end anyways, it’s basic statistics. Without a different method of voting, third party candidates are a throw-away vote.
You’re not wrong about the rest - but your matchup of “Jill Stein is taking voters from Trump” is waaaaaaaaay off in left field. It’s such a shiitake mushroom that you’d literally have to be living under a rock for the past 20 years to believe such a thing.
The people who are Republicans
The majority of people who vote red or blue are simply picking a side they are not hard core fanatics.
Nah. In many places of the US you’re told that it’s your “identity”. Kentucky, Tennessee, etc – They are told from birth that they “ARE” Republicans. That it’s a physical, tangible thing that identifies them. And yes - when they pick a side, it’s based on their political leanings. Who leans closer to someone who’s going to pick a republican candidate? Jill Stein, or Chase Oliver? – the answer is Chase Oliver.
I’m sorry that you can’t accept that you’re wrong about the Jill Stein thing, but that’s just simply how it be.
Can’t say I’ve met the elusive DeSantis/Green voter.
It’s almost like Newsweek is a rag publication and anyone who actually believes Greens pull from Trump, well, they read Newsweek.
