|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: U.S. Presidential Election 2016
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Since some people are so unhappy with their choices in this election, let me ask: in each party, out of all available eligible individuals--not just those who ran in the primary season--who would you ideally have running in this election?
For Republicans who don't like Trump there is an alternative "Republican" ticket. Gary Johnson (the former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico) is running on the Libertarian ticket with William Weld (the former two-term Republican governor of Massachusetts). So those who want to vote for a Republican ticket in November have got choices available.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am tell that Barack Obama spoke before the Canadian Parliament the other day. They broke into a chant: "Four more years! Four more years!" There's my choice.
No surprise that speech went over well. It was full of the self-flattering nationalism that Canadian liberals and soft-leftists eat up like refrigerated pizza. I'm pretty sure it was either written by, or at least had heavy input from, one of Trudeau's speech-writers.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
I have mentioned to others that I am in the bizarre position of considering voting for either the Libertarian candidate or the Green Party candidate.
If there was a combined Green-Libertarian slate, they would almost certainly get my vote! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Since some people are so unhappy with their choices in this election, let me ask: in each party, out of all available eligible individuals--not just those who ran in the primary season--who would you ideally have running in this election?
For Republicans who don't like Trump there is an alternative "Republican" ticket. Gary Johnson (the former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico) is running on the Libertarian ticket with William Weld (the former two-term Republican governor of Massachusetts). So those who want to vote for a Republican ticket in November have got choices available.
I read somewhere(The Economist, I think) that polls show Johnson actually takes more votes from the Democrats than from the Republicans. Presumbaly, "pot-and-porn" libertarians(as opposed to paleolibertarians who want to abolish government so that churches can run everything) who have stuck with the Democrats out of support for that party's social liberalism.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
I have mentioned to others that I am in the bizarre position of considering voting for either the Libertarian candidate or the Green Party candidate.
If there was a combined Green-Libertarian slate, they would almost certainly get my vote!
Here's a question...
Do you favour maintenance and/or expansion of social-welfare policies? If so, you should probably avoid the Libertarians.
Unless, I suppose, you've factored in that they're not gonna win anyway, and you don't worry that voting for them helps to validate policies you oppose, AND there is some reason that you prefer voting for them over the Greens. (I'd be curious to know what that reason would be.)
Personally, I've always admired libertarians for their consistency, ie. they don't suddenly switch to supporting government coercion in cases where such coercion would benefit capitalists(eg. the libertarians in my hometown who campaigned against an anti-panhandling bylaw, even though it was supported by local businesses). But I can't get past their advocacy of a wholesale dismantling of the social-safety net.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Do you favour maintenance and/or expansion of social-welfare policies? If so, you should probably avoid the Libertarians.
[Snip]
Personally, I've always admired libertarians for their consistency, ie. they don't suddenly switch to supporting government coercion in cases where such coercion would benefit capitalists(eg. the libertarians in my hometown who campaigned against an anti-panhandling bylaw, even though it was supported by local businesses). But I can't get past their advocacy of a wholesale dismantling of the social-safety net.
That's just the problem, isn't it? Part of me has sympathy for the Libertarian views of fiscal rigor and restraining government overreach into individual lives, but I reject the belief that dismantling social/welfare programs will benefit society as a whole. Quite to the contrary, such an approach would likely be destructive of society.
There is a tension there: we need to take care of the disadvantaged (poor, ill, etc.) in our society. This is, IMHO, a legitimate necessary role for a government "of the people." But such programs cost money, which must be raised from the rest of society. And protecting such disadvantaged people would likely require government action to prevent others (including corporations and other profit-seekers) from taking unfair advantage over them. Yet, I would agree that excessive taxation and excessive government regulations are also harmful to the growth and health of society as a whole.
Another example: IMHO, taking in refugees from war-torn areas is a moral duty to any civilized country (and beneficial to that country as such kindness can ultimately breed loyalty and friendship with those of other lands), but it would be abhorrent for a government to force its citizens to put up such refugees in their neighborhoods.
It is always a balancing act. The social/welfare concern for all members of society is a necessary part of civilized government, but restraining government over-action is also a necessity to avoid a totalitarian state. There will always be a tension between the two extremes.
The truth is that I am far, far, far more likely to vote Green than Libertarian, but I do think it is good to have a Libertarian element around to restrain the government from over-reaching.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I read somewhere(The Economist, I think) that polls show Johnson actually takes more votes from the Democrats than from the Republicans. Presumbaly, "pot-and-porn" libertarians
So you're saying "feel the Bern" is correlated with "feel the Johnson".
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Since some people are so unhappy with their choices in this election, let me ask: in each party, out of all available eligible individuals--not just those who ran in the primary season--who would you ideally have running in this election?
For Republicans who don't like Trump there is an alternative "Republican" ticket. Gary Johnson (the former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico) is running on the Libertarian ticket with William Weld (the former two-term Republican governor of Massachusetts). So those who want to vote for a Republican ticket in November have got choices available.
For those Republicans that would view themselves primarily as fiscal conservatives Johnson would work. For those who view themselves as social conservatives first and foremost they would have to vote for some paleoconservative group such as the American Independent Party.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Since some people are so unhappy with their choices in this election, let me ask: in each party, out of all available eligible individuals--not just those who ran in the primary season--who would you ideally have running in this election?
For Republicans who don't like Trump there is an alternative "Republican" ticket. Gary Johnson (the former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico) is running on the Libertarian ticket with William Weld (the former two-term Republican governor of Massachusetts). So those who want to vote for a Republican ticket in November have got choices available.
For those Republicans that would view themselves primarily as fiscal conservatives Johnson would work. For those who view themselves as social conservatives first and foremost they would have to vote for some paleoconservative group such as the American Independent Party.
Well, as I said earlier, there are some SoCons who support libertarianism, on the basis that in the absence of a social-safety net, people's behaviour would improve(by SoCon standards) because there would be no government programs to help you deal with whatever problems result from a "godless" lifestyle.
So, smoke all the crack and engage in all the promiscuous fornication you want, but if you get sick from living like this, your only choice will be to get treatment in a charity hospital run by some religious group who will have the right to harangue you at length about how you're gonna go to hell unless you repent.
Also, I think they like the idea of being able to hire and rent to anyone you want, free of anti-discrimination laws, so a Christian CEO can hire only Christians, and have them live in company-housing, like some theocratic little fiefdom. For example.
[ 01. July 2016, 20:14: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
I have mentioned to others that I am in the bizarre position of considering voting for either the Libertarian candidate or the Green Party candidate.
If there was a combined Green-Libertarian slate, they would almost certainly get my vote!
So, then, you are voting for Trump.
In what is for all intents a two party race, a vote for a nominal candidate is a vote for the party most in opposition to your beliefs.
The history of recent American politics demonstrates that for a third-party candidate to do anything more than remove votes from a viable candidate, they need to establish a presence long before this point in the process.
As has been demonstrated in the UK, protest votes are foolish.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, then, you are voting for Trump.
In what is for all intents a two party race, a vote for a nominal candidate is a vote for the party most in opposition to your beliefs.
The history of recent American politics demonstrates that for a third-party candidate to do anything more than remove votes from a viable candidate, they need to establish a presence long before this point in the process.
As has been demonstrated in the UK, protest votes are foolish.
But if I were to vote for Jill Stein (the Green candidate--for the reasons raised by Stetson I would not actually vote for the Libertarian), it would not be a "protest vote." I would not be voting to protest the other candidates, but voting for the candidate whose views most closely match mine. To tell me that I cannot vote for the candidate that most closely matches my own views because my candidate will lose misunderstands the point of voting.
Frankly (and this is the Libertarian sympathizer part of me coming out) I find the suggestion that an American voter MUST vote either Republican or Democrat and nothing else is repugnant. It is my vote and nobody--certainly no political party--has the right to tell me I cannot use it as I see fit.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I am speaking practical reality. You, of course, have the right to vote however you choose.
It is a fact that Jill Stein has no chance of being elected this cycle. Pointing this out is not endorsing or enforcing that reality.
[ 01. July 2016, 22:32: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
But if I were to vote for Jill Stein (the Green candidate--for the reasons raised by Stetson I would not actually vote for the Libertarian), it would not be a "protest vote." I would not be voting to protest the other candidates, but voting for the candidate whose views most closely match mine.
This is madness.
The only option is to vote for someone who has a chance of winning this cycle, regardless of what a waste of flesh they might be, or how out of phase their positions may be in relation to your own.
Anything else is foolish.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Frankly (and this is the Libertarian sympathizer part of me coming out) I find the suggestion that an American voter MUST vote either Republican or Democrat and nothing else is repugnant. It is my vote and nobody--certainly no political party--has the right to tell me I cannot use it as I see fit.
That's quite right Hedgehog, but if there be a close election in your State, and given that you have a first-past-the-post system of voting, do you consider it desirable to vote for a candidate who has no chance of winning when your vote may help ultimately to elect a candidate with whom you can live rather than one you totally oppose? Not being on the ground in the US, but I can well contemplate a state where the combined votes for electors committed to several minority candidates may well tip all the state's College votes to Trump rather than Clinton. It's the one sort of tactical voting which really makes sense.
[ 01. July 2016, 23:35: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
I do, of course, understand the practical reality of the situation: the way the American system is rigged, the only one who has a chance of winning is either a Republican or a Democrat.
And, Gee D, you have touched on a bit of my own practical reality: I live in Delaware, a strongly Democratic state. I am strongly confidant that Clinton will win this state and our piddling 3 electoral college votes. But I don't want to base my own vote on that reality because I may (theoretically) be wrong. Maybe the disenchantment with Clinton is so great that Dems will stay home and maybe the few Republicans in this state will decide to vote for their party regardless of the names attached and maybe Trump would then win. (If you knew the 'Pubs in this state you'd laugh at how silly that is, but theoretically it could happen).
So then I ask myself: if my vote actually mattered, what would I do with it? In other words, if I ignore the reality that Clinton will win this state, how should I decide who to vote for? When I ask myself that question, I ask myself why I hold politicians in such great contempt. And the reason for that is that I find them liars and deceptive and manipulative...in short, that they (as a class and as individuals) do not act with integrity. If I look with contempt on them for not having integrity, how can I justify it if I cast me vote without integrity? I cannot.
And that gets me to consider the intent of voting. What is being urged here is that I should vote against somebody, not for somebody. But the idea of voting is to vote "for" somebody. Vote for the candidate that best reflects your own beliefs. Li'l Buddha mentioned the UK vote--what went wrong for the "protest" voters there is precisely this point: they did not vote for what they really wanted but chose instead to use their vote to "send a message." With respect to those protest voters, they did not truly vote with integrity. The question was simple: in or out. Instead, they chose to vote for some other concept (trying to send a message) instead of just voting on whether they wanted to be in or out.
Voting with integrity, I can only vote for the candidate that best reflects my views.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
To tell me that I cannot vote for the candidate that most closely matches my own views because my candidate will lose misunderstands the point of voting.
Perhaps in an ideal democracy. However, in reality, the point of voting is to ensure that the country will be governed by the person or party likely to do the least damage and (God willing) even likely to govern according to one's own way of thinking.
If the third-party candidates had gotten the same media coverage as the Republican and Democratic candidates, the resulting public awareness just possibly might have made them viable candidates with a chance of winning the election. Unfortunately, the media being what they are, this was highly unlikely to happen and in fact did not.
It follows, then, that a vote for one of the third party candidates, regardless of how attractive, only takes away votes from the candidates with a chance of winning, and so increases the odds that someone will be elected who, instead of doing the least damage, will do the most.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
If the third-party candidates had gotten the same media coverage as the Republican and Democratic candidates, the resulting public awareness just possibly might have made them viable candidates with a chance of winning the election. Unfortunately, the media being what they are, this was highly unlikely to happen and in fact did not.
I frankly think there's more to it than that. Even with equal media coverage, I don't think a third party candidate really stands a chance as long as the third party in question focuses just on a presidential election every four years.
If third parties really want to be taken seriously and have a shot, they need to be running candidates in every local and state election, and they need to be getting elected in those elections often enough that people have a sense of how they'll govern and a sense that they can be trusted with governing. The Libertarians do this some, and the Greens may in a few places. But in far too many places, all anyone knows about, say, the Greens is that they surface every four years to run someone for president.
Without a doubt, our system strongly favors just two parties. But if an alternative party ever wants to work its way in, or even replace one of the two main parties, it'll need to be from the bottom up.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
A vote which works to elect someone your least bad choice is also a vote with integrity.
Otherwise what Nick Tamen says.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
If you believe that the two mainstream candidates may be bad but not destroy the country, you can vote for a minority candidate with the understanding that at best you'll lose the current election but may allow a new party to grow to a majority and win.
Constantly voting for the least bad choice and starting over every four years isn't going to change anything.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If you believe that the two mainstream candidates may be bad but not destroy the country, you can vote for a minority candidate with the understanding that at best you'll lose the current election but may allow a new party to grow to a majority and win.
Constantly voting for the least bad choice and starting over every four years isn't going to change anything.
I think it's daydreaming to think that a minority of voters voting for a third party candidate once every four years is going to make a third party candidate viable. It needs to be done at the grass roots level, as has been said. Protest votes will not create a strong national third party. Jill Stein needs to pay her dues.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re Trump's followers:
"The Working-Class Wounds Hidden Behind Trump Voters’ Racism: If we listen carefully to Trump’s supporters, we can hear their desire for progressive policies." (Yes! magazine)
Makes some interesting points.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If you believe that the two mainstream candidates may be bad but not destroy the country, you can vote for a minority candidate with the understanding that at best you'll lose the current election but may allow a new party to grow to a majority and win.
Constantly voting for the least bad choice and starting over every four years isn't going to change anything.
Let's say it's 2004, and you think Ralph Nader would really be a good President. Then you look at how Bush just scraped in in 2000 and you remember just how bad he's been. You don't really like the Democrats but consider that Kerry would be better than another 4 years of Bush. You're in a State where the plurality could go either way between the major parties.
Are you not better to forget about Nader and instead vote for Kerry's electors?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re Trump's followers:
"The Working-Class Wounds Hidden Behind Trump Voters’ Racism: If we listen carefully to Trump’s supporters, we can hear their desire for progressive policies." (Yes! magazine)
Makes some interesting points.
It doesn't put Trump supporters in a good light. It shows that frustration will cause people to vote against their own interests, that facts and logic have little to do with how too many people vote.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
But if I were to vote for Jill Stein (the Green candidate--for the reasons raised by Stetson I would not actually vote for the Libertarian), it would not be a "protest vote." I would not be voting to protest the other candidates, but voting for the candidate whose views most closely match mine.
This is madness.
The only option is to vote for someone who has a chance of winning this cycle, regardless of what a waste of flesh they might be, or how out of phase their positions may be in relation to your own.
Anything else is foolish.
Why all the sarcasm and cynicism? We all get a vote. A vote is an individual's personal choice, but it is a choice made within a political context. Why is it mad or foolish to consider the impact and consequences of that choice? <cough> Brexit <cough> Choosing one candidate also means not choosing any of the others and politicians know that and use it. In my riding, both the federal and provincial Liberals tacitly encourage people to vote Green. Why? Because splitting the vote is their only chance against the NDP.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Why is it mad or foolish to consider the impact and consequences of that choice?
Unless I've badly misunderstood, romanlion is saying exactly that: consider which candidates have a reasonable chance of winning and vote for the one you like most/dislike least. Don't vote for the Moon-on-a-Stick-Party candidate whom you love, but who won't win.
Hedgehog's position is a bit different, though. His/her least-worst candidate is already almost certain to win his/her state, so it's more reasonable to consider that the benefit of signalling support for the Moon-on-a-Stick-Party is worth forgoing the opportunity to add one to the Nor-as-Bad-as-the-Other-Guy-Party's ample majority.
Generally, though, this sort of analysis is a good argument for some sort of preferential voting system that doesn't require voters to second guess the rest of the electorate before making the best decision.
[ 02. July 2016, 17:56: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
So Trump supporters will tell Republicans that they must vote for Trump because, if they are tempted by the Libertarian candidate, it will be a vote for Clinton because the Libertarian has no chance of winning. It doesn't matter if those Republican voters dislike Trump, they must vote for him because of fear that they would be handing the election to Clinton.
And similarly Clinton supporters will tell Democrats that they must vote for her and not be tempted by the Green Party candidate because a Green vote would act as a vote for Trump and the Green candidate has no chance of winning.
And what to both these attitudes have in common? Both insist that people should vote based on fear. Fear of what the election of Trump or Clinton will mean. Don't vote for what you want! Vote based on what you don't want! Give in to your fears and vote the Afraid Party! Both are manipulating the voters without having to promise the voters anything in return--getting the votes simply by making them afraid. And each side will call that rank manipulation "being realistic."
But the truth is, no matter who wins, Trump or Clinton, they won't have won because some people decided to vote for an impossible 3rd party candidate. They will have won because very large numbers of people voted for them--including those who decided to base their votes on nothing more than fear. And having won, they will claim the victory is an endorsement of their policies, even when many of the people who did vote for them did not like the policies--they just were afraid of the even more repugnant policies of the other major candidate.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I am not saying the system does not suck.
It is simply a fact that a third party candidate has no chance and really doesn't create any national impact simply by drawing a few votes in a major election.
I challenge you to find 100 Democrats and Republicans in your city who even know the names of the last presidential election's third-party candidates. Much less what they represent.
If a third-party wishes to truly make a difference, they need widespread, constant and high-profile campaigns all the time. They need to generate support before they run for major office.
Or lots, and lots of money.
Otherwise, your vote for your conscience is meaningless at best, counter to your interests at worst.
I did not make the system, and it is rubbish. But that doesn't make my point incorrect.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I think lilBuddah has a point about 3rd parties needing to do the hard work down ticket. As a Dem, this may be the bitter feeling left by Nader's take-down of Gore in 2000, but it seems to me that if the only thing your party ever does is run someone for POTUS once every 4 years, you're not really serious about wanting to bring about change. And you can't really blame the voters, then, for not wanting to throw away (yes, I said it) their one-and-only POTUS vote on someone who's not a serious candidate. Get involved in local politics, state legislatures, state and local initiatives. Show a willingness to do the hard work of bringing change-- or at least working for change-- in small, local ways, but organized nationally. Show us what you stand for and why you're a good alternative to the two parties currently controlling everything-- not just thru words in a platform, but in actual initiatives and actions. Now would be a good time, when the electorate is clearly fed up with both Dems and GOP. But don't think that means you get to leap-frog over the hard part of working your way up from the grassroots.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If a third-party wishes to truly make a difference, they need widespread, constant and high-profile campaigns all the time. They need to generate support before they run for major office.
The American constitutional system uses first-past-the-post elections requiring a majority (or at least a plurality) to win. Because of this it is optimized for the existence of exactly two parties, no more, no less. They need not be two parties as currently constituted, but the number is more or less hardwired into the way the U.S. conducts elections and runs its government.
Each party tries to gain the allegiance of enough interest groups to gain a majority of voters, but not so many that it gets torn apart by contradictory demands of competing factions. (The last time this happened was when the Whigs self-destructed in an attempt to be the party of both Southern slaveholders and Northern free soilers.) In many ways American political parties are engaged in what those living under Parliamentary systems would recognize as coalition building, except the coalitions are built ex ante rather than ex post.
Let's say you really care about workplace safety regulation. This is an important issue to some people, but not a majority of the electorate, or at least they don't care enough that it's a deciding factor for them. If you truly want to do something about workplace safety regulation your only option is to partner with enough people to form a majority. This typically requires agreeing to advance their agenda in exchange for advancing your own. (e.g. I'll support your educational reform if you support my workplace safety bill.) Almost inevitably this will require supporting things you'd find objectionable, or at least sub-optimal, in order to advance your preferred policies.
The other option is to simply wait until everyone agrees with you and you can advance your preferred policies without compromise through general acclaim, essentially prioritizing your own personal purity above actually getting anything done. For those who are only ever going to vote for a candidate who never disagrees with them about anything, I'd recommend writing in your own name. It's the most straightforward way to achieve the desired electoral purity.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
It is an interesting chicken-and-egg problem, though. The Green Party has achieved some wins at the local level. But for the party to have credibility at the local level, it also has to have a national presence. By running a candidate for president every four years, they get at least some recognition at the grassroots level that they are a legitimate political party.
And, lilBuddha, I don't think I ever said that what you wrote was incorrect (and if I did I was wrong to do so). At most, I indicated that I didn't like it (i.e., the system sucks) and that, at this point I don't want to play the fear game any more. Maybe I will feel differently by November. Maybe the thought of Leader Trump will scare me so much that I do decide to vote out of fear rather than vote for the person who best embodies my views. But if I do, don't expect me to be sober on Election night.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
It is an interesting chicken-and-egg problem, though. The Green Party has achieved some wins at the local level. But for the party to have credibility at the local level, it also has to have a national presence. By running a candidate for president every four years, they get at least some recognition at the grassroots level that they are a legitimate political party.
The most successful post-Civil War third party was the Progressives, but their successes occurred primarily in parts of the U.S. where one political party had achieved total electoral dominance. In other words, they were most effective when they were effectively a regional second party, rather than a true third party.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
Oh, I quite agree that the US system is set up to be a two-party system. I don't like it, but it is a fact.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If the number of people who could have held their noses (or their bile) and voted for Hilary but instead voted their sparkling clean precious consciences for Jill Stein (or whomever) is greater than the number that Trump wins by, it will be very difficult not to hold them responsible for his win. (Assuming we're talking margins in swing states.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If the number of people who could have held their noses (or their bile) and voted for Hilary but instead voted their sparkling clean precious consciences for Jill Stein (or whomever) is greater than the number that Trump wins by, it will be very difficult not to hold them responsible for his win. (Assuming we're talking margins in swing states.)
Exactly what happened in '00, when the Greens were responsible for ushering in one of the most environmentally disastrous presidencies we've seen...
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If the number of people who could have held their noses (or their bile) and voted for Hilary but instead voted their sparkling clean precious consciences for Jill Stein (or whomever) is greater than the number that Trump wins by, it will be very difficult not to hold them responsible for his win. (Assuming we're talking margins in swing states.)
No, the responsibility will be with the millions of people who vote for Trump, not the hundreds of people who vote for Stein. Likewise, if Clinton wins, it will be because of the millions of people who vote for Clinton, not the hundreds of people who vote for whatever the hell the name of the Libertarian candidate is. Let's not take the finger of responsibility off the people who actually voted for the candidate!
This is the myth of the third-party wrecker: people focus on the few who vote for the third party and ignore the massive number who voted for the winner.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
There is such a thing as shared responsibility.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
This is the myth of the third-party wrecker: people focus on the few who vote for the third party and ignore the massive number who voted for the winner.
As politically pure as a bystander's clean hands.
It's not so much a "myth" as a willingness to hold people accountable for the easily foreseeable consequences of their actions.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
Fair enough. But surely, as a matter of justice, the blame should be kept in proportion? While there is shared responsibility, the lion's share of the blame for a candidate being elected should rest with those who actually vote for the candidate? Or am I being unreasonable?
[Edit: typo fix]
[ 03. July 2016, 00:27: Message edited by: Hedgehog ]
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Fair enough. But surely, as a matter of justice, the blame should be kept in proportion? While there is shared responsibility, the lion's share of the blame for a candidate being elected should rest with those who actually vote for the candidate?
The way the US system works, there are precisely two people who have a chance of becoming president when the election rolls around, and they are the Republican and Democratic names on the ballot.
If you vote for one of those two people, you are saying that you prefer that one to the other one (and we will "blame" you if we think it's a bad choice.)
If you take any other action (not voting, voting for a third party candidate, spoiling your ballot...) then you are expressing no preference between the two possible presidents. In which case, it seems, we can equally "blame" you if we think having no preference was a bad choice.
(If you live in a state that's not likely to be in contention, you can do what you like and nobody cares.)
But if you live in a marginal state, and there's a choice between one candidate that's a bit shit and one that is a 17 on 1 1-10 scale of awfulness, I'd come pretty close to saying that a third-party vote and a vote for the awful candidate were equally bad.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
This is the myth of the third-party wrecker. . . .
No, I'm sorry, it's not a myth. If Candidate A gets 10 million votes and Candidate B gets 15 million, then of course Candidate B wins. However, if Candidate C gets 8 million, 6 million of which would have gone to Candidate A had Candidate C not been running -- well, then . . . ?
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Fair enough. But surely, as a matter of justice, the blame should be kept in proportion? While there is shared responsibility, the lion's share of the blame for a candidate being elected should rest with those who actually vote for the candidate? Or am I being unreasonable?
That's altogether reasonable if you're deciding how guilty to feel. But perfectly meaningless when deciding how to vote. The question is not, "What can I do and not feel too bad about myself" but "What can I do to increase the likelihood of the outcome I would prefer, or at least decrease the likelihood of the outcome I don't want."
Let's look at four possible outcomes:
1. Jill Stein wins
2. Donald Trump wins
3. Gary Johnson wins
4. Hilary Clinton wins
Your chance of increasing the likelihood of 1 or 3 is nil. Zero. Neither of those two candidates will win. There's no chance. Get over it.
The rest is just a numbers game, and Miss Amanda has laid it out perfectly. If you might have voted for Hilary but instead voted for Stein, you have decreased the likelihood of Hilary winning. This perforce increases the likelihood of Trump winning.
Contrariwise if you might have voted for Trump but instead vote for Johnson, you have decreased the likelihood of Trump winning and increased the likelihood of Hilary winning.
This of course really only applies if there is an actual chance of 2 or 4 happening in your state. If you live in a deeply red state, the chances of Hilary winning (that state's electoral votes) are likely so small that voting for Johnson probably won't decrease Trump's chances at all.
But maybe not. Remember Brexit.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
This is the myth of the third-party wrecker. . . .
No, I'm sorry, it's not a myth. If Candidate A gets 10 million votes and Candidate B gets 15 million, then of course Candidate B wins. However, if Candidate C gets 8 million, 6 million of which would have gone to Candidate A had Candidate C not been running -- well, then . . . ?
Or indeed very many fewer in Florida in 2000. Even if a small number of those who voted for Nader had turned out and voted for Gore, he would have been over the line, hanging chads or no hanging chads.
The subsequent what-ifs extend to Obama's victory in 2008. Interesting speculation.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
No, I'm sorry, it's not a myth. If Candidate A gets 10 million votes and Candidate B gets 15 million, then of course Candidate B wins. However, if Candidate C gets 8 million, 6 million of which would have gone to Candidate A had Candidate C not been running -- well, then . . . ?
This is really a problem with first past the post as an election system.
Actually it's a problem with all election systems (that aren't one man, one vote in the Pratchett sense, and don't have other similar glaring flaws). All election systems can be gamed under certain circumstances by misrepresenting one's true feelings. The only real solution is to make the voting system sufficiently complicated that nobody can reasonably anticpate what everyone else will put down on their ballots.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's altogether reasonable if you're deciding how guilty to feel. But perfectly meaningless when deciding how to vote.
Which brings us back to where this discussion started. I suggested that, if I were to vote with integrity, I should vote for the candidate who best reflects my views, regardless of party. The overwhelming response has been that, at least in battleground states where the end result is not a foregone conclusion, the smart move (if neither major party candidate reflects your views) is to vote against the major candidate that you fear the most. And if you don't vote out of fear, then you are part of the problem and are to blame if the worse major candidate wins.
I find that disturbing, but I agree that that is how the system works. Like I said some posts back, right now, I know am insulated by being in a state that almost certainly will vote for Clinton (and even if it doesn't it only has 3 electoral college votes--in 2000, Bush beat Gore by 5 electoral votes; even if Delaware had not gone for Gore, it wouldn't have changed the result at all). So, right now, my intent is to vote for a candidate that will lose but who reflects my views best. But I also agree that that is not a final decision and, by November, perhaps the fear factor will get so large that I will vote out of fear.
Thank you all for helping me get this straightened out in my own head.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's altogether reasonable if you're deciding how guilty to feel. But perfectly meaningless when deciding how to vote.
Which brings us back to where this discussion started. I suggested that, if I were to vote with integrity, I should vote for the candidate who best reflects my views, regardless of party. The overwhelming response has been that, at least in battleground states where the end result is not a foregone conclusion, the smart move (if neither major party candidate reflects your views) is to vote against the major candidate that you fear the most. And if you don't vote out of fear, then you are part of the problem and are to blame if the worse major candidate wins.
I don't think this needs to be framed as fear-based. Rather, choosing the best viable alternative. Yes, none of the choices are exactly what you would ideally want. Life is like that-- you seldom get everything you want. Part of living in a community-- whether that's a church or a country or a town-- is accepting that, and working realistically with your neighbors to build a consensus that you can all agree on. That almost always means some give-and-take, some compromise. I think that's what's happening here. You can vote for a major party candidate while still acknowledging that they don't represent everything you'd ideally want. That's not fear-based, that's realistic and communal.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
Certainly there are many for whom that is true. Many people will vote for Trump because he is "close enough" to what they want. Likewise, many will vote for Clinton because she is "close enough" to what they want. All those people are comfortably voting "for" a candidate. I agree with you that that is not fear voting. I have no problem with that.
But what I have been discussing is the other set: those who do not particularly want to vote for either major candidate and, in fact, have a third party candidate they are willing to support (somebody who is also "close enough"), and whether they should then support such a third party candidate or, instead, vote for one of the two who are actually going to win. For the reasons outlined, in states that are battlefield states, such a person is really pressured into a fear vote.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
such a person is really pressured into a fear vote.
But the pressure is self-made. In large part because too many people can't be arsed to do anything besides complain and then vote to no effect.
It is not enough to want change, one must act.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
I feel that any vote for a d or an r is actually a fear vote. A majority of those who support one of the "two" main parties don't do so because their candidate is "close enough", they do so out of a false and manufactured fear that the world will end if the opposing candidate wins.
This is the beauty of the scam. Most Americans actually think that there is a huge difference between the parties when in reality they aren't two parties at all, just two sides of the same coin.
That's why dems give us free trade agreements that their base constituents abhor, and republicans give us massive expansions of government programs similarly hated by their base. They play both sides against the middle, and nothing ever changes.
D and R are the same. By voting third party I am actually supporting a true second option, as well as a candidate that most closely reflects my values and issue positions.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
D and R are the same. By voting third party I am actually supporting a true second option, as well as a candidate that most closely reflects my values and issue positions.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) How is voting for a party that cannot win and no one beyond then 10 people in the party will remember how many votes they got more than 5 minutes after they lose, a viable option?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
