Let me begin by saying that the last thing I want to do here is criticize or impugn Jill Stein. On the issues I agree more with her than I ever have with any other Presidential candidate, except Bernie Sanders. She is honest, progressive, egalitarian, and environmentally conscious. So, now that Bernie has left the race, why not vote for Jill Stein? I’ll tell you why not.
The reason not to vote for Jill is the problems built in to First Fast the Post voting.
As much as I like Jill, a vote for her, when she has zero chance of winning, serves only to increase the likelihood of a Donald Trump win. I don’t like it, but I’m not so head-in-the-clouds that I can’t see that voting for an imperfect Democrat is the only defense against the election of a true monster. So instead pursuing the self-defeating activity of helping Trump, we need to wait until after this election and work to change the system, state by state. Alternative Voting is a better way.
(Both videos come from cgpgrey.com. I recommend you check it out.)
If Alternative Voting were in place, my first choice would be Bernie (write in), my second would be Jill, and my third would be Hillary. It would make it possible to vote our conscience without contributing to the advent of national socialism. In the long run, that would be the best thing for the Green party too.
In the US, it’s also called Ranked Choice Voting.
28 Responses to “Why Not Vote for Jill Stein?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Oh, yes. It would also be a good idea to establish consistent Federal rules for conducting election to any Federal office. As opposed to leaving it to the states. To change an old militay expression in order not to stagmatize a particular ethnic group, what we have now is a "Uranian" fire drill. How the states want to run their state houses and states senates – OK, that's different. Let them do that. But as long as, for instance, Ted Cruz from Texas affects ME – and Treay Gowdy from wherever affects ME – and Darrell Issa affects ME – no, I don't want to vote for them, but I by God DO want to know that they go therough an election process that is consistent with mine, and which I understand. Redistricting at the Federal level with an independent commission would also be good. A commission from the Hague wold be nice.
I agree, but I think the likelihood of a federfal solution is slim, especially when, the Constitution leaves the manner of determining Electors to the states.
On the other hand, choosing (lesser) evil ensures that third parties do not grow because percent of vote is what gets them on ballots and in debates to affect the conversation. If they grow enough, then there can be coalition governments that at least have less of a partisan gridlock with none having a majority…
we can be stuck with evil forever if we always choose evil
Michael Moore provides a non-emotional and factual explanation that shows it has everything to do with Clinton and nothing to do with Bernie supporters if Trump wins :
http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/
Michael Moore wrote an excellent article. He did say he likes Hillary and think she's gotten a bad rap. He also said that he intends to vote for Hillary, because he does not want to risk a Trump Presidency. He certainly makes a good point.
I disagree with your terms. On a continuum where Bernie is the greatest good and Trump is the greatest evil, Hillary is much closer to Bernie than she is to Trump. That makes the choice between the lesser good and the greatest evil.
First Past the Post means Plurality rules, ans that means no coalition governments.
A vote for Jill Stein is not a wasted vote; the more votes delivered to Green Party candidates, the greater the likelyhood of Green Party viability in future elections. Granted, a Trump victory would be a disaster for the country and the world, but so would a Clinton victory. Neither of these candidates is prepared to deal with our climate emergency, and that has got to be priority one. If we choose to kick that can down the road for another four years, let me go on record as stating that the last generation of humans is already being born. Vote Blue, no matter who? Bullshit! Never a corporate candidate, never the status quo.
I consider equating Hillary to Trump to be a big mistake. Bernie sais that on Hillary's worst day, she's infinately better than Trump, and he said it long before the matter nomination was decided. Do you think Bernie mislead you?
Bryan posted this on Care2–the advice is sound. In CA I have no VALID reason to not vote for Stein.
"As some progressives analysts have advocated, to defeat Trump, voters in swing stated will need to hold their noses and vote Clinton. But if you're not in a swing state, then there is no reason not to vote for Jill Stein. Doing nothing to oppose our one corporatist party is a vote to keep getting the exact same problems: more war, more military spending, no meaningful big-bank regulation, a political process completely controlled by private money/interests, more control of our food by chemical companies, and more environmental poisoning and destruction. AND all those problems and more wrapped up in the same package: passage of the TPP and other toxic corporate deregulation deals. "
Also known as battleground states, swing states this year include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Michigan.
Election 2012: The Swing States | News For Kids, By Kids …
http://www.scholastic.com/browse/collection.jsp?id=8…
So, in this perspective, if you want change and do not live in one of the swing states, a vote for the Green party is better than a vote for Clinton if you are actually a progressive and actually want change in your lifetime.
looking at 2016 swing
http://ivn.us/2014/04/30/states-likely-to-become-battleground-states-by-2016/
and
" The seven "super-swingy" states are Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia, all of which backed Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama two times each, and Iowa and New Hampshire, which voted Democratic in three out of the last four elections. "
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Larry-Sabato-swing-states-Electoral-College/2015/05/04/id/642358/
JL, your comment was held, because it has more than three links. I released it as soon as I saw it.
I used to work in opinion research and am fairly good at prognosticating Presidential elections. In 2012 I picked the winner in every state, and in 2008, I did so in every state but one. Nevertheless, I doubt that I will do anywhere near as well, this year, because this election is like no others in my lifetime. Therefore, voters who make decisions based on whether or not they live in a swing state are playing a very dangerous game. Brexit supporters in the UK fooled tens of thousands of voters by telling them, Brexit would never happen, so they could safely cast a protest vote. I understand those voters felt very foolish afterwards.
"Super-swingy" states are not the only swing states. They are just the most obvious. Unless your state is over 90% one way or the other, I think you must consider that you live in a swing state.
Agree!
I like what I have read about Stein. However, I am terrified of Trump winning the election, I will vote for Hillary.
'm also terrified of Clinton's foreign policies Edie…and all their death and destruction and human rights and international law violations and environmental destruction…she's already antsy to decimate Syria more…
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/who-should-bernie-voters-support-now-robert-reich-vs-chris-hedges?akid=14477.953895.yrYDon&rd=1&src=newsletter1060849&t=12
You recently agreed that the Reich on the left is virtually always right. He says Bernie supporters should support Hillary.
KY isn't a swing state so many progressive analysts say a vote against corporate candidates will not affect the race between Trump and Clinton (that is, if you have Stein on your ballot)–I posted Bryan's comment from C2 and one too many links on what are swing states awaiting moderation to provide guidance specific to where people live rather than a generic that really doesn't apply to all IMO.
Good videos providing good explanations that even a Republican could understand. While no system is perfect, the AV system provides the most value for all voters. Here we have 3-4 parties regularly on the ballot. In the first past the post, we end up with a minority. For example, in last year's election, the results were as follows:
seats
seats
seats
seats
seat
of vote
of vote
of vote
of vote
of vote
That means that a party with 39.5% of the popular vote formed the government. The same happened in the previous elections. By going to AV, the results may have been quite different, more representative. We lucked out putting the Conservative government out to pasture and bringing in Trudeau.
In Europe, France has run-off elections which in essence do the same thing. But AV has the advantage of doing it all in one vote and one campaign. AV also gives more people a direct say in the government. The winner may not be their first choice, but they do have more say.
I'm probably digressing from the issues of a two party system, "first past the post" and Alternative Vote, all so well presented here, TomCat, but I can only repeat what I've said before and your title "Why not vote for Jill Stein" triggered me to mention something else.
Jill Stein's name had not reached our shores until yesterday, but it's arrival sadly wasn't very positive. Our media paid quite a bit of attention to the RNC and now do so for the DNC, giving general impressions, showing excerpts of speeches and interviewing delegates and demonstrators alike. But yesterday quite some time was spent on the "Bernie or Bust" supporters who were booing speakers and Bernie himself, highlighting that all was not well within the Democratic party yet. It showed that many of Bernie supporters them left the convention hall to take their protest outside and on their way out were met by Jill Stein herself, who then tried to convince them to vote for her. The footage not only showed her doings so but also the angry response of Democrats who said she had no business there and demanded she leave THEIR conference.
Why did this feature so prominently on our news? Because to the Dutch this is unacceptable behavior. Even our Geert Wilders wouldn't show up at a Labour Party meeting, when their new party leader is chosen, to try and win over some disgruntled part members. It just isn't done, it's considered unethical. I know, I know…this is a typically Dutch reaction, American liberals and progressives seem to be less bothered by judging from the lack of attention this got on your shores, but as a progressive I was sorry to hear of it. I like The Greens and I would certainly applaud The Greens becoming a major party in a multi-party system in America. But this is about an important presidential election in which there is a chance of a disaster happening if Drumpf should win. Bernie had the grace to step aside for the good of the country and endorse Hillary Clinton as Democratic presidential candidate, so I was sorry to see Jill Stein acting so ungraciously by trying to win the votes of disgruntled Democrats at their own convention, no less.
I did not know Jill had done that. That was an unethical move on her part.
I like the AV system. No, Phil, a vote for Jill, under the present system, will most probably not led to any discernable growth for the Green pParty.
Even Noam Chomsky says he's voting for Jill because he doesn't live in a "swing state." If the state gets any "swingier" between now and November, he may rethink that. At least he left that open.
I agree with TomCat..THIS election is not the time to go Green at the Presidential level. I will vote Hillary and feel fine about it. Even Bernie gives his blessings. But I've already joined the next step: Our Revolution (which Bernie oversees) to change things as soon as possible! Please see: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/38226-next-steps-for-our-revolution
Yvonne, thank you so much for providing a constructive option going forward for anyone who is ready to rise above the squabbling. Not to diminish anyone who isn't ready yet. It's pretty important.
Thanks Yvonne–his supporters got that email days ago and most who have access to their email already did so–but this movement is organic so many action emerge from the people and are not directed by any leader and that is hard for power driven party traditionalists to fathom where they think someone called a leader should control people like a boss does his staff…sadly undemocratic thinking that is pretty backwards IMO
Kudos to Yvonne. I agree
Thanks all. Pooped Hugs!!
Informative! Thanks, Tom