As Vice President Kamala Harris received the presidential nomination at the 2024 Democratic National Convention (DNC), thousands of people marched near the convention demanding an end to U.S. arms shipments to Israel and the war on Gaza. The protesters, led by Palestinian and Jewish activists, represented a diverse coalition including anti-war veterans, climate justice activists, and labor organizers. Despite efforts by Democrats to keep the Palestine issue sidelined, the marchers made their voices heard, declaring Harris and President Joe Biden complicit in the genocide in Gaza. The protesters came from communities and movements that are often considered part of the Democratic coalition, warning that their votes could not be taken for granted unless the party takes concrete action to end the occupation and devastation in Palestine. Organizers estimate around 30,000 people demonstrated in Chicago over the course of the week, making Palestine impossible to ignore during the convention. The activists drew connections between the struggle for Palestinian liberation and the fight against racist violence and state repression in the U.S., challenging the Democratic Party’s complicity in both. The protests encountered a heavy police presence, with hundreds of riot police surrounding the march at all times. Despite the tension, the demonstration remained largely peaceful as the protesters demanded justice for Palestine. As Kamala Harris prepared to take the stage, the marchers continued their chants and songs, determined to keep the spotlight on the ongoing catastrophe in Gaza and the Democratic Party’s failure to address it.
The idea that voting third-party is a wasted vote in a FPTP system overlooks the broader impact that third-party votes can have on the political landscape.
Every vote sends a message about what policies and values are important to voters, and this can influence the platforms of major parties in future elections.
Sure, it’s true that our system is designed to favor two major parties, but dismissing third-party candidates entirely ignores the historical fact that significant social and political changes often start with minority voices pushing against the status quo.
Counting on the Democratic Party to implement progressive change assumes that the party will prioritize those changes, which history has shown that they are not doing. They’ve had PLENTY of time where they were in charge to implement major changes, but they so need need to change the status quo.
Voting your conscience isn’t a temper tantrum; it’s a commitment to pushing for a political system that truly represents a wider range of views.
Well, you do realize that almost half of the country won’t vote for your candidate, right? Are they ALL wrong and only you are right? The fact that HALF OF THE COUNTRY doesn’t want your candidate to be president, should make you question things as well.
Real change requires challenging the status quo, not just reinforcing it.
Explain, in detail, how voting 3rd party leads to positive change in this general election for President of the United States. Tell me how “challenging the status quo” here is an effective use of resources and risk when swing states are being declined by 10s of thousands of votes? There’s no mechanism for the change you’re suggesting will come from voting 3rd party this election.
All you can do is write a wall about how bad the Democrats are, because that’s the only message you care about spreading, and why I don’t find engaging with you to be worth my time typically. Have a nice Sunday, I’m done with this one!
ETA: Everyone notice below, they just repeat the same exact talking points over and over. They will never backup any of the claims they are making. It’s all fluff.
Voting third-party sends a clear message that there’s significant dissatisfaction with the two major parties, pushing them to address issues they might otherwise ignore.
It might not lead to an immediate victory in a general election, but it helps build momentum for future elections, strengthens the visibility of alternative platforms, and can influence the policies of major parties as they try to recapture lost voters. In swing states, every vote is critical, but voting for the candidate who aligns with your values isn’t a waste—it’s a demand for better representation.
There’s no guarantee that voting for a major party will lead to positive change either, especially if they feel secure in your vote without earning it.
Engaging in this process is about long-term strategy, not just the immediate outcome of a single election.
The whole thing about, “Oh good ideas, but let’s not do that THIS election… THIS election is too important!” has been said for the last 50 fucking years.
For the last 50 years, people keep saying variations of “Not THIS election!” and “But THIS election isn’t for that…” and “But, but, what if xxxxxx wins? THIS election to too important!”
Dude, 50 years. So guess what? No more waiting.
I’m voting third party now. And in the future, until something changes. Because every fucking year you will keep crying, “But not THIS election…”
I don’t vote out of fear of who MIGHT win. I vote my values. Green Party this election for me. :)
I actually despise Republicans as much as the Democrats. You all have become the same party.