Joe Biden's choice for VP

[Eunos_Cosmo]

All this talk about not voting and I’m like:

Third-party candidates: Are we jokes to you?

I think it’s cool that Biden selected Harris as his running mate on the virtue of being a woman of color, but the important part to me is if she can handle the responsibilities of being the President in the event that Biden would die if he gets elected because strong leadership is something I value in all my representatives regardless of physical traits and political ideologies. I mean, Trump and Biden are pushing past the life expectancy age now, so I guess the vice president has never been this important.

I sound like I’m pushing the two-party system. Ugh.

-ahem-

Kamala’s cool and all, I genuinely like her, and I wouldn’t mind her being next in line to the presidency, but I’m still leaning on Jo Jorgensen/Spike Cohen simply because the Libertarians are the party that’s closest to my stances... even though Vermin Supreme promised that Cohen would be his running mate.

We need ranked choice elections.

 

[Joey D]

Wait, you're not voting for Biden or Trump?

I can't bring myself to vote for either. Both are terrible choices and I was waiting to see who Biden picked as VP to see if maybe I could bring myself to vote for him. After researching Harris, I don't care for her and can't justify using my vote on the Biden/Harris ticket. Trump is so terrible that I have to imagine you actively want to take a dump on the Constitution to vote for him, so he was never going to get my vote in the first place.

While Jorgensen isn't my ideal Libertarian candidate, so far she's the one that's closest to what I'm looking for, so she will likely get my vote. Do Libertarians have a chance? Nope, but I believe I should vote for who I think is the most qualified candidate and not the lesser of two evils. If Biden had gone with Tammy Duckworth, I might have reconsidered my stance since on the surface I rather liked her.

 

[TheGeologist]

I count one. Two if you include the individual who won't again not after having not.

But there are thousands of people that think just like you. Instead of falling in line, help bring change.

The US has never had more than 45% of the population vote.

Be the change.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Change we can believe in

 

[UKMikey]

Yeah, I don't understand it either. Were I voting in this election and neither of the main candidates floated my boat, I'd at least "waste" my vote on a candidate whose policies were nearest my views in the hope that enough people agree with me to make other parties take that collective vote more seriously next time.

I don't think I could simply abstain and complain about the result with a clear conscience. Even defacing my ballot sounds preferable to me.

 

[DesertPenguin]

I think that's something people don't realize about the right to vote. We also have the right to NOT vote and by doing so make a statement in and of itself.

 

[Famine]

I think that's something people don't realize about the right to vote. We also have the right to NOT vote and by doing so make a statement in and of itself.

And that statement is indistinguishable from apathy.

Votes not cast are not counted in the results*. Nobody says "well, you got 49% of the votes cast, but you haven't won because 60% of all possible votes weren't cast for you". You need to cast your vote if you want to make a statement - whether that's for one of the two main candidates, the third person on all the ballots, a separate third party, a write-in, or a spoiled ballot.

Not voting only means you didn't vote and, just as one cannot divide a vote to only count for the polices you liked, not voting cannot be divided into reasons either. There is no difference between someone who didn't vote because they wanted to make a statement, someone who didn't vote because they couldn't be bothered, and someone who didn't vote because they're dead. There's no statement to be made there - a non-vote for political reasons is indistinguishable from a non-vote due to apathy or death, and will as such be ignored.

Cast your vote if you wish to make a statement.


*The only place they're almost counted is in voter turnout. This means that votes not cast are only counted as voters who didn't show up rather than any statement you wish to make by not voting.

 

[DesertPenguin]

I get your point and my statement holds no weight but you can't tell me I can't make it.

 

[NotThePrez]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I personally vote because, as an African-American, I'm very aware that a good number of people have had their lives ruined (willingly or otherwise), have endured bodily harm, or even died for my specific right to vote. I was someone who thought voting was wasteful until it truly dawned on me how much was sacrificed for me to have this one, very simple, but very important liberty. Even if I don't care for the major candidates running (which was the case in 2016 and is the case in 2020), I still personally hold the electoral process in high regard. While I don't care for the man, I'm probably gonna end up voting for Biden, primarily because A) I don't see the Libertarians getting a significant enough number of votes (though, if I understand the system correctly, this is their best chance to get funding from the government for the next election[?]), and B) as far as I'm concerned, Trump and his administration are effectively enemies of The Constitution, and I'm gonna vote for what I think is the best bet to remove said threat.

All that being said, while I hold the electoral process in high regard, the fact of the matter is that it and the 2-party system are way overdue on an overhaul. Abstaining from voting, whether it be out of "protest" or otherwise, is still a vote for an ineffective system, and the proponents for said system, to keep chugging along.

Of course, all that being said, I definitely cannot (and would never) force you to vote @DesertPenguin , but I also want to say not to underestimate how important of a duty it can be/is.

Edit: Tree'd.....I think....?

 

[DesertPenguin]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I personally vote because, as an African-American, I'm very aware that a good number of people have had their lives ruined (willingly or otherwise), have endured bodily harm, or even died for my specific right to vote. I was someone who thought voting was wasteful until it truly dawned on me how much was sacrificed for me to have this one, very simple, but very important liberty. Even if I don't care for the major candidates running (which was the case in 2016 and is the case in 2020), I still personally hold the electoral process in high regard. While I don't care for the man, I'm probably gonna end up voting for Biden, primarily because A) I don't see the Libertarians getting a significant enough number of votes (though, if I understand the system correctly, this is their best chance to get funding from the government for the next election[?]), and B) as far as I'm concerned, Trump and his administration are effectively enemies of The Constitution, and I'm gonna vote for what I think is the best bet to remove said threat.

All that being said, while I hold the electoral process in high regard, the fact of the matter is that it and the 2-party system are way overdue on an overhaul. Abstaining from voting, whether it be out of "protest" or otherwise, is still a vote for an ineffective system, and the proponents for said system, to keep chugging along.

Of course, all that being said, I definitely cannot (and would never) force you to vote @DesertPenguin , but I also want to say not to underestimate how important of a duty it can be/is.

Edit: Tree'd.....I think....?

I believe as an African American you have an even greater and more significant responsibility to vote for the reasons you said.

 

[TexRex]

But there are thousands of people that think just like you. Instead of falling in line, help bring change.

The US has never had more than 45% of the population vote.

Be the change.

That think just like me? I'm thinking you misunderstand how I think.

I've never not cast a ballot where I've been eligible to do so in the three decades that I've been eligible to do so.

I vote for individuals that represent me and who are likely to vote/act on issues in a manner that reflects my own views, insofar as I can expect them to do so. If someone doesn't represent me, they don't get my vote. Far more people have not represented me than have, and so I've seldom voted for individuals, instead opting to focus on ballot measures.

A ballot measure may or may not represent me, however those that do represent me don't have the opportunity to be abhorrent in the way that individuals do. Biden may or may not represent me from a policy perspective, but he's entirely too much like Trump for me to be willing to vote for him. Like Trump, he's demonstrated a propensity to say spectacularly stupid things, and like Trump, he's very likely guilty of sexual assault.

Sure, Biden may be less inclined to surround himself with inept sycophants, and may actually allow those he has appointed to fulfill the duties of the offices to which he's appointed them, but he, as a person, doesn't rise above the ridiculously low bar that the other ****er has set. I don't like him, much less respect him. He doesn't represent me and I won't vote for him.

If someone comes along to simultaneously represent me and not very likely be a piece of garbage, they've got my vote. One wouldn't think it that difficult a request, but here we are.

 

[Biggles]

We need ranked choice elections.

Who decides the way the vote is conducted in each state? I have a sense that the individual states could make changes - is that true? In any case, It's extremely unlikely it, or some form of proportional representation, would ever happen. So, the US is stuck with a rigid two party system.

IMO opinion, the best chance for change would be the two major parties splintering into factions. It could happen to the GOP if (as I expect) they lose the Presidential vote by a wide margin & also lose control of the Senate, something which is looking more likely by the day. The same could happen to the Democrats with the left wing splintering away ... however, nothing succeeds like success & I doubt Democrats would be tempted to rock the boat if they controlled the House, the Senate & the Executive.

 

[Dotini]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I personally vote because, as an African-American, I'm very aware that a good number of people have had their lives ruined (willingly or otherwise), have endured bodily harm, or even died for my specific right to vote. I was someone who thought voting was wasteful until it truly dawned on me how much was sacrificed for me to have this one, very simple, but very important liberty. Even if I don't care for the major candidates running (which was the case in 2016 and is the case in 2020), I still personally hold the electoral process in high regard. While I don't care for the man, I'm probably gonna end up voting for Biden, primarily because A) I don't see the Libertarians getting a significant enough number of votes (though, if I understand the system correctly, this is their best chance to get funding from the government for the next election[?]), and B) as far as I'm concerned, Trump and his administration are effectively enemies of The Constitution, and I'm gonna vote for what I think is the best bet to remove said threat.

All that being said, while I hold the electoral process in high regard, the fact of the matter is that it and the 2-party system are way overdue on an overhaul. Abstaining from voting, whether it be out of "protest" or otherwise, is still a vote for an ineffective system, and the proponents for said system, to keep chugging along.

Of course, all that being said, I definitely cannot (and would never) force you to vote @DesertPenguin , but I also want to say not to underestimate how important of a duty it can be/is.

Edit: Tree'd.....I think....?

That's a thoughtful and interesting post.

On August 28, 1963, ~250,000 mostly African-Americans marched for civil rights to the Federal Courthouse in Washington, DC, led by Martin Luther King Jr. As it happened, on the opposite coast on that very same day, I marched for the same cause when I joined a ~1000 person, mostly African-American march to the Seattle Federal Courthouse. Almost two years later, the historic Voting Rights Act was passed. IMVHO, if there had been more than two major parties, the Act would not have passed. At least not then.

My thought is to vote for the person who explicitly, when asked, endorses the fundamental principles I believe in.

I try not to vote for the politicians who when asked about principles, say something like they are running "to serve the wishes, interests and the needs of the people/voters".

Instead, I vote for the person who states their own actual principles, such as following the Constitution, specifically including the 15th Amendment.

 

[Swagger897]

It could happen to the GOP if (as I expect) they lose the Presidential vote by a wide margin & also lose control of the Senate, something which is looking more likely by the day.

The same has happened to both parties over the last ten years, and yet no one split and it's highly unlikely they do. In fact, the left put on a show after 2016 to become even more left, and it seems to have failed them (You have 'Settle for Joe/Biden' now a popular trend/movement because he isn't progressive enough). Why would either party openly give up millions of potential votes because they think a name change is in order? Baffling....

 

[Joey D]

Who decides the way the vote is conducted in each state?

Yes, the states get to decide how they conduct elections. We use ranked-choice voting for some things here in Utah at the city level, and used to do it for state-level leadership. We could, in theory, do it for all elections.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

And that statement is indistinguishable from apathy.

Votes not cast are not counted in the results*. Nobody says "well, you got 49% of the votes cast, but you haven't won because 60% of all possible votes weren't cast for you". You need to cast your vote if you want to make a statement - whether that's for one of the two main candidates, the third person on all the ballots, a separate third party, a write-in, or a spoiled ballot.

Not voting only means you didn't vote and, just as one cannot divide a vote to only count for the polices you liked, not voting cannot be divided into reasons either. There is no difference between someone who didn't vote because they wanted to make a statement, someone who didn't vote because they couldn't be bothered, and someone who didn't vote because they're dead. There's no statement to be made there - a non-vote for political reasons is indistinguishable from a non-vote due to apathy or death, and will as such be ignored.

Cast your vote if you wish to make a statement.


*The only place they're almost counted is in voter turnout. This means that votes not cast are only counted as voters who didn't show up rather than any statement you wish to make by not voting.

There is a situation in which not voting makes a statement...and that's the case when it is evident that the election itself is rigged / not legitimate, in which case any participation can unjustly lend the "winning" party legitimacy. Thankfully, we don't seem to be there yet.

The same has happened to both parties over the last ten years, and yet no one split and it's highly unlikely they do. In fact, the left put on a show after 2016 to become even more left, and it seems to have failed them (You have 'Settle for Joe/Biden' now a popular trend/movement because he isn't progressive enough). Why would either party openly give up millions of potential votes because they think a name change is in order? Baffling....

The most likely, in my mind, split is between the moderate and left wing of the democratic party...especially if moderate republicans see an opportunity there. I think it would be more productive if that didn't happen as there is at least some good-faith interparty dialogue between those factions in a way that hasn't existed at all between the democrats and the republicans since Barrack Obama was elected...

The other, admittedly less likely, scenario I see is if Trump manages to hold onto political power (whether or not he holds onto the executive branch) and the Lincoln project becomes the Lincoln party...which I think I could get behind.

 

[FoRiZon]

Reddit does a propaganda in a rather unsuitable sub, but this time, the comments are not pleased and it is mostly consists on calling out such practice.

I hope common sense wins again this time forward, unlike the crap show that is the 2016 onwards.

And I'm not a fan of Trump, btw.

 

[Biggles]

The same has happened to both parties over the last ten years, and yet no one split and it's highly unlikely they do. In fact, the left put on a show after 2016 to become even more left, and it seems to have failed them (You have 'Settle for Joe/Biden' now a popular trend/movement because he isn't progressive enough). Why would either party openly give up millions of potential votes because they think a name change is in order? Baffling....

The two major parties will never voluntarily give up their duopoly, which is why there is never any challenge to the two party system in the US. Some manoeuvring takes place within the party structure, but when push-comes-to-shove the troops rally around & nothing changes. Change would have to come from individuals or groups within the parties - like Bernie supporters or Tea Partiers. If one of the parties suffers a crushing electoral defeat it might be more likely to lead to significant change.

 

[McLaren]

Reddit does a propaganda in a rather unsuitable sub, but this time, the comments are not pleased and it is mostly consists on calling out such practice.

I hope common sense wins again this time forward, unlike the crap show that is the 2016 onwards.

And I'm not a fan of Trump, btw.

Not really Reddit though, just a user using the sub for it's purpose, posting a random pic. But, you'll find this kind of outspoken reaction on almost every sub since politics devolve into a real circus on Reddit. I believe a ton of subs ban politics to keep the peace & most major political subs ban obvious brigading both ways. This picture will really only fly on r/politics, a US news subreddit (as r/worldnews tires of US topics dominating it), or an obvious Democrat/left subreddit.

 

[Swagger897]

The most likely, in my mind, split is between the moderate and left wing of the democratic party

I believe this is what almost happened last year with "the squad" but they failed miserably at it and have come back fully under the democratic party. Either they were attempting to leave or just wanted to maintain their rank in the party but call themselves out? Not entirely sure as it was a bit of a comedy show and even Pelosi had a fit over it. And I'm not sure there are any moderate republicans who would switch over and form a secondary party. I know there have been 1 or 2 democrats who have but I've not seen the other way.

IMO opinion, the best chance for change would be the two major parties splintering into factions. It could happen to the GOP if (as I expect)

The two major parties will never voluntarily give up their duopoly,

Dude, you have to pick one or the other with your theory crafting.... Between the two you pick the GOP which compared with the democrats has been much more stable over the last four years. Sanders nearly had a movement by his base to leave the party, AOC and her gang belittled the democratic party while maintaining membership, but you think the GOP is more likely to split from within?

Like I said, baffling...

 

[Biggles]

I believe this is what almost happened last year with "the squad" but they failed miserably at it and have come back fully under the democratic party. Either they were attempting to leave or just wanted to maintain their rank in the party but call themselves out? Not entirely sure as it was a bit of a comedy show and even Pelosi had a fit over it. And I'm not sure there are any moderate republicans who would switch over and form a secondary party. I know there have been 1 or 2 democrats who have but I've not seen the other way.

Dude, you have to pick one or the other with your theory crafting.... Between the two you pick the GOP which compared with the democrats has been much more stable over the last four years. Sanders nearly had a movement by his base to leave the party, AOC and her gang belittled the democratic party while maintaining membership, but you think the GOP is more likely to split from within?

Like I said, baffling...

There's big difference between the party establishment of the two major parties - who will never choose to move away from the duopoly that allows them to control political life in the US - & grassroots political activists. The control of the two major parties is so complete that, for instance, Bernie Sanders felt he had no other option than to run as a Democrat & (on the other hand) Ron Paul ran as a Republican.

You're right that there have been grumblings from the left wing of the Democrats, but it hasn't amounted too much so far. AOC & her ilk still choose to run under the banner of the Democrats.

Going into the 2020 election Democrats are pretty united in their determination to oust Donald Trump. You're also right that the GOP has appeared to be more united than the Democrats over the last 4 years ... but I think that is somewhat of an illusion, created by the power Trumpism has exerted over the Republican base. It could change dramatically if the GOP loses the White House & (especially) if it loses control of the Senate. The knives will come out. Moderate Republicans who have been nursing their dislike for Trump & biding their time will make their move. Trumpists will fight back - it will get acrimonious. The fact that there is a group of "Lincoln Republicans" actively supporting Biden over Trump is an indication of where things are going.

Do I think the parties actually will splinter in the next few years? Probably not. The inertia in the system is strong. However, I think that kind of splintering of the GOP - possibly accompanied by a splintering of left wing Democrats disillusioned by the Democrat establishment dragging their feet on reforms like universal health care - is the best chance for there to be a reconfiguring of the political landscape in the US, because I really don't see the emergence of a viable 3rd or 4th party in any other way.

 

[UKMikey]

Somehow, I suspect these Republicans' hearts aren't quite in it when it comes to ths video. But needs must when the devil drives, even if he happens to be orange.