I don't see how you can say this and still not get it. We're trying to make sure that this calculation is wrong. Because it's only if that calculation is wrong that they would have any reason to change their stance. Voting for them regardless would mean that their calculation was easily correct and they should keep making the same calculation in the future. If you aknowledge that such a calculation is being made, then surely you can understand the rationale for making the decision more costly.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But it isn't wrong. I'd like it to be wrong, and I can appreciate wanting to shift the Overton window, but that's not where we are and it won't change before November.

There are more single issue voters in America that support Israel and won't support Harris if she wavers than there are single issue voters in America who will start supporting her if she threatens to withdraw US support of Israel. That's the reality of the world we live in. If she changes her position on Israel, she will definitely lose the election, just as De La Cruz and Stein and West will lose the election.

The margin of error is already razor thin, and it's never been more important for America to run up the score. Winning isn't going to be enough. Harris needs to make the legal challenges and ballot shenanigans look frivolous and absurd.

You want to convince me to support a third-party candidate, first we need to put Trump in prison, then we need to roll out Star Voting, and then we need some third-party alternatives that aren't obvious Russian assets.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

But it isn’t wrong. I’d like it to be wrong, and I can appreciate wanting to shift the Overton window, but that’s not where we are and it won’t change before November.

Cool, so which other groups are acceptable sacrifices for the sake of political convenience?

The rights of any minority are always precarious because the majority has the ability to fuck them over. The only way to protect ourselves is by banding together in solidarity with other vulnerable groups and drawing red lines and treating an attack on one as an attack on all. A group I belong to could very easily be the next in the crosshairs. "We will hang together, or we will hang separately."

You want to convince me to support a third-party candidate, first we need to put Trump in prison, then we need to roll out Star Voting, and then we need some third-party alternatives that aren’t obvious Russian assets.

Oh, is Star Voting part of Kamala's platform? Is that listed on her campaign website? Has she talked about it in speeches, rallies, or debates? Has she ever even mentioned it once?

Your plan is, "unconditional support of the Democratic party whether or not they provide any sort of voting reform, until they voluntarily choose to give us voting reform, in direct contradiction of their interests, and if they never do then just unconditional support to the democrats forever." In other words, talking about voting reform is just a red herring to obfuscate that your actual stance is just unconditional support to the democrats forever.

You know who does support voting reform to make third party candidates more viable? Third party candidates. So if you wanna talk about voting reform, in order for that to happen, we would need to get a third party candidate to win first. Or, alternatively, we could say that our support for Democrats should be conditional on them supporting voting reform, so that when they do their calculations they realize that they need to incorporate that into their platform to have a better chance of winning. Because why on earth would they ever support it otherwise?

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

For the record, the Constitution requires that each state decide how its electoral college votes will be distributed. The federal govt has no authority to intervene.

What dems in federal govt could potentially do is some campaign finance reform, to add some transparency to all the money that flows into PACs since the Citizen's United ruling.