Green politicians from across Europe on Friday called on U.S. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein to withdraw from the race for the White House and endorse Democrat Kamala Harris instead.

“We are clear that Kamala Harris is the only candidate who can block Donald Trump and his anti-democratic, authoritarian policies from the White House,” Green parties from countries including Germany, France, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Ireland, Estonia, Belgium, Spain, Poland and Ukraine said in a statement, which was shared with POLITICO ahead of publication

  • Lojcs@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    But I keep hearing how the American system isn’t democratic since you don’t directly vote for the president, you vote for some middle person who promises to vote for your president? Those people might not be members of the parliment but they can still form coalitions after the fact by voting for who has a chance to win

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      If Stein is fantastically successful, beyond her wildest dreams, and got 15% of the vote she will win zero electors (the intermediaries that then make the official vote for president). They’re awarded winner take all for each state, and there’s no conceivable way she reaches a plurality anywhere. But if she takes those 15% disproportionately from people who would have otherwise voted for Harris, she could very much make it so Trump wins a plurality and gets all the electors for a state. The structure of the first-past-the-post system always devolves into two parties being viable, and any third parties can only practically influence the outcome in the votes they take away.

        • candybrie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          They aren’t proportional. They’re winner take all but at the district level as opposed to the state level.

          • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 days ago

            districts tend to be proportional but whatever, at that distinction its immaterial to the discussion.

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 days ago

              No they don’t. Just having smaller units you take-all in doesn’t make something proportional. Proportionality means that minority vote totals result in a proportional number of seats, but getting 25% everywhere still gets you zero seats. Jill Stein, in her maximum success, will not win a single district.

              • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 days ago

                fair enough like i said its immaterial to the discussion. the point was some states do give up partial electors.

                • candybrie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  No, the point was Stein has 0 chance of getting electors because they’re all winner-take-all contests.

          • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 days ago

            That’s not a bad point. We consider what Maine and Nebraska have implemented as proportional, but it isn’t truly. It’s a better system than WTA, but it still essentially nullifies a significant number of votes.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      you don’t directly vote for the president,

      Well, okay, so, the US does have the electoral college, and strictly-speaking, you’re choosing electors that choose the President, but the election is and has for a long time functionally been a direct one. That is, you know the person that you are voting for in voting for the elector. Some states don’t even constitutionally let electors vote for anyone other than the person they have pledged to vote for, and in any case, the electors are chosen by the parties, who have no incentive to choose someone likely to do so, so it’s not really an aspect of the electoral system in the normal case; while false electors exist, normally as a protest vote if they know that their candidate can’t win, they’re rare and have never altered the outcome of an election.

      This came up this year in some discussion in the context of what happens if a President drops out after being placed on the ballot but prior to becoming President, which I assume is what you’re thinking about, so that the electors cannot vote for the person on the ballot, and in that situation, yeah, they’d have to find some kind of fallback.

      But that’s a pretty limited corner case. That is, they don’t just have a blank check to go out and build coalitions and select someone.