• silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cornel West was a speaker. In the past, having Green Party candidates on the ballot has shifted 2-3% of the population to voting for them instead of the Democrats. That’s enough to tip close election, which is what we’re likely to have.

    Getting his support, and having him stay off the ballot in likely swing states would make a real difference.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In the past, having Green Party candidates on the ballot has shifted 2-3% of the population to voting for them instead of the Democrats

      can you prove that?

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          none of this addresses my question:

          CAN YOU PROVE THAT 2-3% OF THE POPULATION BOTH HAVE VOTED FOR GREENS, BUT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR DEMOCRATS.

          i already know the answer: you can’t prove a counterfactual.

          • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            A good way to is poll twice, once including a Green Party Candidate, and once not. Emerson College did that for some swing states a few weeks back. Here’s a pretty typical example, showing how results in Michigan change when West is added to the ballot:

            This is why having him on the ballot is a really damaging for the Democrats, and it’s important that there be a negotiated policy concession to get him to avoid the damage.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              the polling is interesting but it doesn’t prove that any of those people will vote at all.

              • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The ‘RV’ annotation means it’s a poll of people who say they are registered voters.

                Proof is a standard for mathematics. Not the real world. It’s likely enough that Republicans regularly provide financial support for the Greens. That’s good enough for me

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  so you have conjecture. you should have just said that instead of stating it as indisputable fact and then trying to snow me with data that doesn’t prove your position.

                  • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I have:

                    • a history of people actually voting for the Greens
                    • polls where registered voters say they’ll do so instead of voting for Democrats
                    • a party ideology which could attract Democrats but which would be antithetical to Republicans
                    • a history of Republicans funding Green party candidates as spoilers
                    • an Election system which causes them to in fact serve as spoilers

                    It’s pretty compelling when taken as a whole

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  registered voters are not the same as likely voters, nor actual past voters. you made a claim that you simply can’t prove and none of the data you’ve provided is, in fact, proof for your claim.

                  • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Likely voter models don’t work well enough to look at 1-3% kinds of numbers of voters more than a year out from election day. Sorry.

                    Using actual voters from 2020 is tough because we had two different third parties there: the Greens who siphoned votes off of Biden, and the Libertarians who siphoned a larger number of votes off of Trump. So you see polls showing the combined effect (slightly beneficial to Biden) but not the separate impact of the Green party candidate.

                    Absolute proof isn’t something that really exists in the social sciences, which is why you’re never going to find it, the most you find is several decent converging lines of evidence, as we have here.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              A good way to is poll twice

              what makes you think this is a good method for proving your claim that 2-3% of all voters were democrat voters who switched to green in past elections?

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  none of the data or graphs are proof that 2-3% of voters have voted green but would have otherwise voted democrat. demanding proof for a claim isn’t rude.

              • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s a good way of saying what people are thinking of doing, and that’s exactly what was happening in Michigan a few weeks ago. Given how close the election is likely to be in that state, even a far smaller number of people voting G instead of D will throw the country for Trump.

                  • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    For sure. But of the people who vote for the greens, many more would have chosen to vote for a Democrat instead.

                    The Green party could:

                    • Run candidates in the Democratic primaries (the DSA has done this to considerable success at the state level)
                    • Run candidates in districts where Democrats aren’t running
                    • Build up power by starting at a local level and winning elections there to create people with a base of supporters who can win in larger and larger areas

                    But they don’t do those things in the US, and instead choose to run candidates where they effectively serve as spoilers