“According to FEC filings, the Synapse Group has worked for Republican Governor Doug Burgum of North Dakota, who ran for the GOP presidential nomination this cycle, as well as GOP candidates for Congress. Synapse has also been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for field and canvassing work by America PAC, the outside spending group started by allies of Musk that has spent millions of dollars this election cycle to boost Trump and oppose Democrats.”
With a tip of the keyboard to a certain someone who has blocked me and won’t see this (a shame really):
Since many in this community have a habit of resorting to personal attacks when responding to posts recently, I’ll say this: I support and respect everyone’s right to vote for who they want to. Just as I support the ability of anyone to point out to someone the consequences of their actions. ;)
I’m just posting this article that’s already available on a much bigger platform than Lemmy—I didn’t write it, just sharing it for discussion.
What this? Oh just Jill Stein enjoying dinner with known traitor Mike Flynn and the guy who wants Democracy destroyed and Trump in office— Pootie.
Yep, she’s the greenwashing candidate who comes out every four years to collect a paycheck and espouse Libertarianism. An absolute grifter.
Hey, you never need to apologize for sharing news unless it’s fabricated - some people may downvote articles they disagree with but most of us just appreciate the folks that find stories to share.
They are being facetious because the user they mentioned constantly posts in favor of third party candidates and had taken to writing a bizarre disclaimer like this to essentially troll the many users they’re pissing off with their behavior
Lol I love it. It’s almost a badge of honor to be blocked by that user. They seem to want to be aware of people countering their troll campaign so they can bait those people into saying something that will get them banned. So you really must have upset them to get blocked.
I did the math last night. On average they’ve posted or commented about every twenty minutes, assuming they sleep 8 hours a day, since they created their account a month ago. Posting at this rate, almost entirely in favor of third parties. Hmmm… I wonder why. They don’t give a shit about third parties; only about keeping Democrats from getting votes.
Oh, I saw the numbers! That was terrific that you pulled that together!
And yeah, their history shows that they’re either chronically and desperately online (sort of sad actually) or posting like they’re getting paid for it. I don’t envy the mods for having to deal with all the chaos that user causes, but the user is almost preternaturally good at threading the needle of the rules.
Luckily the election will be done in less than two months and then I have to guess we won’t seem them again for another four years ;)
Lol they just banned me from their super legitimate “socialism” community because they wanted to keep tabs on me but not be countered in public as much.
Ha! Congrats! <fist bump>
Yeah I agree with all of this. I do think it’s a shame though that the rules are all they will go on. There ought to be some algorithm for determining likelihood of trolling. This dude would definitely be way over the threshold of any such algorithm that was worth a damn.
With all the news about the Russian campaign with influencers, I had to wonder if the Feds are even aware enough of the Fediverse to even begin to look at what’s happening here. We certainly know state sponsored misinformation campaigns are active and in place and targeting folks who are disaffected for a variety of reasons, so if Russia and China had networks specifically targeting various corners of the Fediverse, I wouldn’t be surprised at all. Theoretically we’re a much richer ground for them than corpo-sponsored sites filled with normies (which we now have proof they’re already active with).
In an election where the margin of victory in some states will be on the scale of a few thousand (or maybe even hundreds), it would seem a likely strategy.
Yeah I definitely think you are onto something. The audience is much smaller but the advantage is that a lot of people here really are so left they despise Democrats and would probably be easier to convince not to vote than your typical Democratic voter. Trolling campaigns here would have a much more concentrated target audience. They already know they don’t need to convince conservatives on mainstream social media.
And not one post about efforts to advance alternative voting systems.
It’s worse, if you try to suggest that the problem is the system they’ll instead blame anything else.
Which user? Sorry I’m out of the loop
With a tip of the keyboard to a certain someone who has blocked me and won’t see this (a shame really):
I can take a pretty educated guess as to who that is. You’re not wrong for posting this in the slightest.
These shenanigans are the exact type of bullshit that shows the U.S. is a failed democracy, and is in need of severe election reform. That goes for the form of financial reform, switching to more representative types of voting like approval voting, measures taken to make gerrymandering impossible, etc.
The irony in my discussions with that other user is that I wholeheartedly agree we need viable third parties. And to your point, we desperately need election reform. But their willful ignorance of the fact we need to put out the house fire before we start discussing changes to building codes is the kicker.
The sad thing is that all the current third party candidates are useful idiots and not viable alternatives. And with democracy literally on the line, there’s not any real option other than acting like an adult and casting a ballot for the only option that moves us forward. And then the day after Election Day, start doing the real work to fix this for every Election Day thereafter.
It’s insane. It’s like trying to debate a wall. At this point, I’ve resigned myself to just trying to counter the wrongheaded arguments if I don’t see anyone else doing so.
sounds like I had the exact same conversation with this person not long ago.
So many of us have - it’s sort of amazing. It doesn’t help that they often copy and paste common responses to different people, so in some cases the conversation is pretty much the same verbatim on their end.
As I said yesterday, I can’t believe he is not banned yet. Repeatedly claiming that he doesn’t care about the spoiler effect because he “doesn’t believe in it” and copy-pasting long (often unrelated) walls of text at people verbatim sounds to me like multiple violations of the “good faith discussion” rule.
Yeah, there are several ways I think they are violating rules. Copy pasting long walls of text should be an open and shut case of spam, for one.
It’s almost like they have an agenda.
You’re being too generous by thinking they give two shits about third parties. That’s just the angle they’ve chosen for Lemmy.
Oh, I have my suspicions about their motivations but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that they’re coming from a genuine but terribly misguided point of view. Sort of Hanlon’s razor :) Like many of the third party candidates they so fervently support (not even sure who they’re voting for now, it seems to change frequently), they don’t need to be knowingly in on the con to still be useful - and perhaps more useful to certain parties if they are unaware.
Yeah. I mean, them posting every 20 minutes starting 3 months before the election thing, despite getting constant pushback, makes me feel quite justified in my conclusion. Normal people just simply would never do what they’re doing. Their motivation could be something else. But whatever it is, the behavior is very unhealthy and suspect.
In posts that user has given different replies to the same comment of mine multiple times, minutes apart, seemingly unaware they were doing so. Sus to me.
Back when twitter was a thing, for my rep had a social media ‘minion’ army that managed propaganda accounts, multiple people per account to pretend to be voters with ‘concerns’ about Dems. This felt the same.
They’ve done that to me too. They accuse me of stalking them sometimes too, seeming excited to do so, so I feel like they do that to a lot of people but it’s hard to keep track of who is who for them
I have to be extremely careful with my words here since calling someone a troll is against the rules, and the user has also shown he’s very happy to report even the slightest perceived rules violation.
I think the agenda hypothesis is possible, but I’m getting more and more convinced he’s doing what he is doing because it gives him some sort of pleasure. I think he enjoys getting people to argue with him. I think he enjoys knowingly dancing around the letter of the law whilst ignoring its spirit - gleefully reminding others to “please be civil”. I think he enjoys getting others to lash out and subsequently reporting them.
That’s what I think their motivation is.
You might be right that this is all their motivation is, but the timing and singular topic of interest is far too suspicious for me to ignore. I mean they definitely take pleasure in being a deranged hall monitor, though, don’t get me wrong.
As for accusing them of being a troll… We are simply discussing a hypothetical user. No one has mentioned any username. No rules broken here! </HallMonitorVoice>
You’ve read my mind.
If your second paragraph is implicating who I’m thinking since you’re basically using a direct quote of theirs, then I’m not at all surprised by them blocking you. They love to take quotes out of context or ignore half of a quote for their own benefit. I love that you’re directly calling them out. Good on you for actually knowing how our election system works.
deleted by creator
Oh lord, don’t normalize this drivel.
I don’t believe anyone else will do it, but based on the article, I couldn’t help but be a bit cheeky this once.
Haha I thought it was pretty funny
Democrats should combat this by advocating for ranked choice or approval choice voting which is a fairer voting system and won’t allow for “spoilers”
They should.
They won’t because they benefit from the system too.
But they should.
That’s the thing about these viral talking points they’re making though - this can be used as a launch pad for approval choice voting if we all bring it up every time it’s mentioned in conversation. Using improv’s “Yes, and,” to further leftist causes. With enough peer pressure it’s possible to change public policy.
Yeah, election reform should be the first priority …once this election is done. And age limits for federal offices and judicial appointments. And federal standards for how federal elections are held. And roughly dozens of other things :)
Disagree, I think any Democrat worth voting for will bring this up. I think this is a “right now” topic which is a perfect rebuttal to their annoyance with third party candidates.
The problem is that some form of ranked choice voting is the right choice, but have you ever tried to explain RCV to anyone over the age of 50? I have had to in a professional setting, and it’s nearly impossible. It just makes them confused and angry. Unfortunately elections are not the greatest forum for explaining new ideas, and if Harris were to come out for it, she’d likely lose more votes than she’d get.
Can you imagine the headlines and tv news chyrons from certain sources if she even mentions “needed election reforms” right now? The whole race would become about how she’s trying to “break elections” and take over the country. We’ve got people right now seriously talking about Haitians eating pets based on absolutely nothing - and you think her talking about changing how we hold elections is going to help?!
However, during the honeymoon of a new administration and if we get enough seats in Congress, it might be possible to start the conversation that would lead us down that road. Especially if folks are willing to make it obvious that we’re going to hold their feet to the fire when it comes time for the mid-terms.
We’re not talking about something even within the purview of the President - we’re talking Congress and state legislatures. The only way to do it is to have a President using the bully pulpit and citizen groups with such overwhelming activity that the politicians know their jobs are on the line.
I have no personal experience of explaining ranked choice.
I can imagine calculating ranked choice vote outcomes is probably pretty labour intensive (without computers).
However people generally understand the concept of how someone comes 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in a race, and I’m sure most people have thought about a ranked list of their favourite movies or football players, so it’s not some completely alien concept.
Instead of just choosing who you want to win, you fill out the ballot saying who is your first choice, second choice, or third choice (or more as needed) for each position. https://time.com/5718941/ranked-choice-voting/
That seems pretty simple to me, unless I’m missing something?
And finally whole bunch of countries manage this without any issues …
Internationally, it is used by voters in Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Malta, Northern Ireland and Scotland. https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/politics/what-is-ranked-choice-voting-and-where-is-the-system-used/2638554/
Coming from a two party country (UK) the only real issue I see is the fragmenting of power and subsequent need to form endless alliances in parliament. (If I voted for the Greens but the Greens need the the votes of another party and end up doing deals is that really representing my vote…)
That seems pretty simple to me, unless I’m missing something?
This is a good video that gets into the issues of various forms of voting, and argues “approval voting is the best option”.
Because it is the best option. It’s dead simple, it’s easy to give updates mid count, it’s easy to audit, it’s no more expensive than any other form, etc.
This is not to say it’s perfect, but it’s easily the best.
Look at the Examples section on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting and I think you’ll see it’s probably more complicated than anticipated. And everyone has an opinion on which is the “best” method (which is fair as they are each optimized for different goals).
In theory it shouldn’t be hard to explain, and yep, lots of places all over the world manage it without a problem. But remember in the US we’re so idiotic we can’t even accept the metric system. And a fair numbers of folks are absurdly proud of that fact. We’re also not smart enough to handle health care like everyone else does or provide real parental leave. So while ranked choice voting is objectively superior to first past the post and even aligns with a lot of people’s stated goals for fairness, etc., it’s still a huge uphill climb and many folks will reject it outright without even really thinking about it.
So in summary, it can be done, but not likely to be something you want to run on as a presidential candidate.
All valid points, and I didn’t realise the differences in outcomes based on the various counting methods!
That would be complex to explain to many people I’m sure. However, and I’m possibly biased here, there’s a whole bunch of systems I don’t fully understand (car engines, encryption methods, football tournament knock out rules) but I know they work and tend to accept them and at least understand their limitations and outcomes.
I can totally see how people would reject things they don’t understand, and could be easily pushed in to rejecting a new system.
Also I agree that winning an election based on the change could be hard, and perhaps attempting to introduce this change later would work. Though I’m not sure the big parties (labour and conservatives in UK) really want to change a system that works for them!
The sad thing is that RCV might require a constitutional amendment to make it happen nationwide. See for example https://www.pressherald.com/2017/05/23/maine-high-court-says-ranked-choice-voting-is-unconstitutional/
I like it but I don’t see it happening without some other major reforms. Hence why I keep hoping for the 127 DC states plan…
but have you ever tried to explain RCV to anyone over the age of 50?
Just call it instant runoff then. It’s the same thing (as I understand it) and has been in the American lexicon for some time now.
Democrats benefit from the current system. How many times to hear “Biden may not be great, but you have to vote for him to stop Trump?”
When you’re running against the “let’s be dictators” party lack of voter choice is an advantage. You don’t have to have any policy other than “we won’t be dictators” and voters can’t hold you accountable for anything without letting the dictator take power.
A major systematic change is never “right now” - progress at that scale is only made incrementally, through continuous work.
Oh yes. I remember Woman’s Suffrage and Civil Rights being incremental changes done by Congress after every election. Something, something, overton window. No, not forcing legislative action with civil unrest.
The sad thing is, watching those old speeches idk if those people would make leeway today. Love their arguments and bravery, and sometimes Madalyne Murray O’Hair is absolutely hilarious, but idk if they’d actually make legal progress today like they did then. Idk if Mr Roger’s would have gotten funding from his famous speech. We’ve regressed as a society.
Its always “next time”
Well, as magic wands are in short supply, how do you propose we deal with the practicalities of getting it done? A bit flippant, but it’s the kind of issue that needs to be worked on all the time, not just every four years.
🖐🤚We need to bring the wand-manufacturing jobs back to America 👐, it’s terrible👆 they’ve all closed up shop and moved to Narnia.
Well, as magic wands are in short supply, how do you propose we deal with the practicalities of getting it done?
Well, since Democrats ain’t gonna do it and Republicans sure as hell ain’t, let’s quit using it as a prerequisite for fixing things that centrists don’t want to fix but also don’t want to be pressured over.
The last time that was introduced was 2021. They WERE. They currently are not.
They still are, the Wikipedia page just hasn’t been updated.
Edit: Actually, if you’d just look at the “Legislative History” section of the wiki article instead of reading just the top summary, you’d see it got reintroduced in 2024.
That’s not ALL the democrats. That’s not a message by the entire party.
Eta: yes since my last comment it was reintroduced by the same guy, at the time I commented it had not been reintroduced in 2024
It’s from some of the most senior democrats from the progressive and centrist wings and would permanently destroy Gerrymandering, I’m pretty sure most democrats would support it given the chance.
Then the public should demand their representatives talk about it more
Really? You think the Democrats should be spending valuable time in an election year talking about a niche electoral reform that most people would need explained?
There’s a reason 99% of political rhetoric revolves around bread and butter issues or something that can be used to scare people. RCV is neither of those, and most people who are actually dedicated to getting RCV already know about FairVote and the Democratic party’s willingness to pass RCV.
Moving the goalpost
Putin’s Jizz Stein wants Nato disbanded, the US to give up their SC veto, and revoke weapons to help Ukraine defend itself while simultaneously forcing ‘peace’ (subjugation) negotiations with russia.
For those that don’t understand how the Electoral College + FPTP voting works, voting for her means helping donald become president due to the spoiler effect.
Just as a bit of context:
- Willy Wimmer is a German former Bundestag member, who is massivly into conspiracy theories and at this point far right
- Michael Flynn was one of the contacts between Trump and the Russian government. He plead guilty to that
- Cyril Svoboda was one of the guys who gave Voices of Europe an interview in which he supported Russias position on Ukraine. Voices of Europes interviews were paid and used as a way to finance the far right in Europe using Russian money. It is currently under EU sanctions. His former party has distanced themself from him, due to his ties to Russia.
- Emir Kusturica is a Serbia film director, who makes propaganda films and has far right pro Russian positions. His wife is well his wife.
The rest are obviously all Russian politcal figures and well Jill Stein. The photo was also taken at a Russia Today celebration. Just saying.
I’d also like to point out something I’ve heard way too much lately:
maybe democrats should run on some of the policies that are overwhelmingly popular instead so there’s no room on the left for someone to run.
I’ve heard probably a dozen variations of this statement by now.
The spoiler effect is the result of geometric distance between candidates, not the strength of policy positions. If anybody tells you that the democrats should just do X, unless X is switching the country over to approval/star/rcv, or some other system that is more representative, they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Here is an example using a randomly generated set of voters and candidates. The first election is just two candidates, the second election is identical, but with an extra 3rd candidate
Total voters: 765 The winner was favorable to 56% of voters lachlan - 427 emma - 338
Total voters: 765 The winner was favorable to 44% of voters emma - 338 lachlan - 312 omalley - 115Any party, any candidate can fall victim to this, no matter how strong or inspirational they are. This is simply the result of everybody voting for the candidate closest to them.
A good electoral system will not have the results changed by an irrelevant candidate. But our current systems are vulnerable to this, and it is disastrous for the state of our country.
Seems kinda dirty that Jill Stein would even consider “doing business” with the GOP. I kinda figured as a third party leader she of all people would put her morals and beliefs above numbers.
she is, and always has been, at best an out of touch accelerationist, and at worst a fascist sympathizer and collaborator
Something smells like borscht at this dinner?
I don’t know what borscht smells like, but I assume it’s …. Uh…. “Unique”
Borcht is delicious. It’s beef/chicken/protein veg with beets as a kind of stew with a sort of tomato creme sauce. You typically serve it with a genous dollop of sour cream and dill. The dill is optional (I know some people hate that flavor) but in my opion is really key.
It doesn’t really have a particular scent other than “stew”. It’s great in a slow cooker, and you can bastardize/customize it if you want (although it may not technically be Borcht at that point). If I don’t have beef I’ll do it with polish sausage and sometimes had boiled eggs.
10/10 don’t sleep on tasty European tomato beet meat stew. Stew/soup season is coming.
Reading this makes me want to try borcht! Thanks for explaining what it is. Sounds delicious.
Like a lot of things it’s very coruptible. I’d say the things that make it borscht are: beets, tomatoes, sour cream and the dill really is the thing (although again, if you just plain don’t like dill don’t force it).
Do it by the recipie(ish) once then make it your own :). Tomatoa broth isn’t terribly common in recipies.
Nothing wrong with a good borscht and good bread.
Lots wrong with the people in the picture though.
I think this is a losing issue for Democrats to be putting effort into… while third party candidates may be spoilers in our current system the solution is not to try and disenfranchise those parties - it’s terrible optics and, if you want to capture green voters there are so much easier tactics.
That 3% that third-party candidates typically earn makes a big difference when polls are showing 49% to 48%. It’s fair to question a Republican’s motive to support a candidate with opposing views to their own party.
I think it’s really important for people to know that fringe parties are being propped up to divide the left.
Might make voters realize a pragmatic choice will result in an outcome more aligned with their goals.
The Democrats can retaliate with Libertarians.
Sure, but retaliation like that shouldn’t be possible. It’s a mark of a terrible, failed democracy.
If a corporation can fund 2 parties, why can’t anyone else?
I don’t think corporations should fund parties either.
So if an American gives $200 to the Democrats wt:thon couldn’t give $100 to a Green Party candidate and $100 to a Libertarian Party candidate?
No. Nobody should be donating to political parties because it inevitably leads to the rich having too much influence, and wasting billions of dollars on a pointless advertisement arms race to nowhere.
Yep, and the reason they rely on non-Democratic operatives for this stuff is because the DCCC will blacklist you if you help a third party/independent campaign.
If you need the expertise to get on the ballot, your best chance is to hire someone that worked for one of the big parties before.
Instead of handwringing about spoilers, maybe democrats should run on some of the policies that are overwhelmingly popular instead so there’s no room on the left for someone to run.
But voters and politicians aren’t one and the same. Voters have every right to call out spoilers. Politicians, I don’t see doing it all that often, but even still you have a point there. They could listen more to what people actually want rather than being afraid of alienating centrists.
Instead of handwringing about spoilers, maybe democrats should run on some of the policies that are overwhelmingly popular instead so there’s no room on the left for someone to run.
The spoiler effect is the result of geometric distance between candidates, not the strength of policy positions. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Isn’t she also a crazy crystal lady? 🤔
I think that’s Marianne Williamson? She was a wacko that ran in 2020.
Nah it was Jill
it’s both. Williamson just tweeted today “Haitian voodoo is real”.
Well of course it’s real. I saw it on tv!
deleted by creator
Boston Globe - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Boston Globe:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/09/10/metro/jill-stein-new-hampshire-ballot-republican-help/
Boston Globe is left-center? Yikes, more misinformation from the conservative bot.
Considering Democrats did the same thing when Trump was running in 16 because they thought it would be easier for Hilary to win… Maybe they would learn that this kind of crappy gaming is dumb and could be fixed with improved voting systems.
Removed by mod
I’m not sure if they are a russian shill, but unfortunately they are telling the truth. Democrats have often employed the pied piper strategy, and it has come back to bite them a few times.
It was probably most famously used when Hillary Clinton boosted Trump, because he seemed to be the weakest Republican primary candidate at the time. How the Hillary Clinton campaign deliberately “elevated” Donald Trump with its “pied piper” strategy
Democrats are still boosting and supporting extremist Republicans now. The risky strategy Democrats are using to win elections
Pointing out that Democrats played stupid games and got stupid prizes makes me a Russian shill and Trump apologist?
Right… Because it’s the Democrats that don’t want to make it easier to vote and improve voting systems…
This is sarcasm.
Democrats are never going to do anything that breaks the duopoly in IS politics.
They literally put out bills to do so all the time
Arent they the party that coalitions with independents like Bernie Sanders and Angus King?
