• 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

            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

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

                    they don’t do those things in the US

                    this is a fucking lie. do you get all your information about the green party from msnbc, or directly from the dnc?

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    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.

                    this totally misses the point: if democrats are worried about losing to republicans, they should be trying to convince people to vote democrat instead of republican. if they’re only worried about republicans getting into power and they believe this nonsense about splitting votes, they should vote for the greens.

                    i for one do NOT believe in this vote-splitting narrative. it assumes that the votes somehow belong to democrats and green candidates steal them. the votes belong to voters, and it’s the job of parties to earn those votes, and using FUCKING ABHORENT tactics like keeping other parties out of debates or off the ballot are not how you earn MY vote. i’m sure many others feel the same.

          • 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

                    i’m of the opinion that democrats spoil green party elections, and if the democrats weren’t on the ballot, greens would have won every election for the last 30 years. and i have just as much proof as you do.

              • 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

                    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.

                    your claim was about past elections. the data you provided was about a potential future election. you still don’t seem to be able to understand what was wrong with your claim.

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

                    the Greens who siphoned votes off of Biden and the Libertarians who siphoned a larger number of votes off of Trump.

                    you can’t prove this at all. just because e those people did vote for libertarians or greens does t mean they would have voted for anyone else. in fact, given the option, they did NOT vote for someone else.

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

                    Absolute proof isn’t something that really exists in the social sciences

                    this platitude isn’t even true. lots of things can be proven false in social sciences. the fact that you are (quixotically) defending an unprovable hypothesis doesn’t mean there aren’t disprovable hypotheses which are possible.