Qaanol wrote:Suppose the blamers are correct. That means I (and people like me) have the power to decide which of the two entrenched establishment parties wins the election. If that is true, then next time they had better to nominate someone I can support, because if they don’t then I will continue to exercise my power in exactly the same way.
I know what you're getting at: assuming that Trump is, at least by a slight margin, your most disliked candidate, then you seek to punish the Democratic Party (and, by extension, the country) by not doing what you can to keep him out of office. If we're flinging the concept of evil around willy-nilly, then there's an evil in that too, given the added harm that this will cause to many people (quite likely extending for decades in the form of Supreme Court appointments). Not to mention the possibility that the Democrats may never end up nominating someone acceptable to progressive purists, in which case all you've accomplished is adding a further permanent Republican bias to the system. A far more justifiable approach would be to actually start a campaign for electoral reform, rather than playing some quixotic long-term spoiler game which will most likely never bear fruit.
Look, if there's a good way to get us off a two party system, great. By all means, outline how that is possible, and provide historic evidence, if you insist that this is better on practical grounds.
Because a TON of people have pointed out that our voting system is broken, but we're still stuck with it.
I think it's rather obvious that the winning parties are fond of keeping systems in place that help them to win, morality be damned.
If you vote for evil, then you shouldn’t be surprised when evil wins.
Why would the people who vote for a winning candidate be surprised when that candidate wins?
The point is that you're supporting a system wherein running someone "marginally less evil than the opposition" continues to be a winning strategy.
Liri wrote:Maybe I've just drunk the Kool-Aid, but Clinton really did win me over after the primary. Even during, as a Sanders supporter, I knew that she was totally capable and would at the very least be an "okay" president.
2nd Amendment issues? Oh boo-hoo, you might have to get a background check and can't buy clips over a certain size. Jesus christ. Grow the hell up. There are more important things to worry about.
e: sorry for sounding mean but it's pretty irritating
Your issues are not my issues. Clinton has explicitly stated her disagreement with the Heller ruling, and it's pretty certain that any justices she'd appoint would rule differently. We're looking at potentially a long stretch of bad rulings for gun rights. I don't know exactly what those will be, but if they're of similar weight to Heller, a great deal more is at stake than background checks and mag restrictions. In the DC/MD area, these are not merely theoretical distinctions, but things that affect me on a practical level. If MD is required to actually issue carry permits, for instance, that directly affects me. If DC can no longer levy ridiculous penalties for possessing a single round of ammunition, maybe I can drive to Virginia ranges(MD basically doesn't have long distance ranges) without having to dramatically alter driving routes.
Those things may not matter to you, but they do matter to me. If Trump was as is he is now, but was actually a solid 2nd Amendment supporter, I'd hold my nose and vote Trump. What bothers me is that Trump isn't very trustworthy. He might be a better bet on this one issue, but he's still not a GOOD bet. At most, you're relying him to do the right things because he's coerced into it. He's still kind of an awful person.
Now, precise issues that matter to you may differ. But for *many* different baskets of issues, both Trump and Clinton are pretty concerning. Which is marginally ahead may vary, but at some point, isn't it reasonable to reject them both as utterly unacceptable?
The Great Hippo wrote:The thing is -- I cannot remember a single Presidential election during which I did not hear this argument. There's always a fire. Which means that this argument is a call for people to stop supporting the candidates they want to support; to instead always tow the line. To stop trying to express themselves -- to erase themselves as political entities. You might as well just have machines vote for them by proxy.
Indeed. One is expected to *always* vote for the party that you dislike marginally less. Anything else will let THEM win. Because, of course, they are the enemy, in an eternal struggle that will never be settled. It's as if the parties believe you owe them your vote and support.
It's a pretty sad state, when you expand your viewpoint to consider multiple elections. Everyone on both sides is expected to just keep doing this. And if we do, what prevents both candidates from being horribly unacceptable?
The primary? Well, the primaries gave us THIS lot, so clearly, they're not selecting the best possible candidates. Even if one is looking for "least objectionable candidate", I think it's a cinch Trump isn't that, either.
If one of the candidates is good enough for your views, cheers, vote for 'em. But for many of us, they're both strongly disliked.
ahammel wrote:I really don't understand why the Libertarians or the Greens or some hypothetical Bernie-Sanders-esque party doesn't try to set themselves up as a minority in Congress. You're a big country, with a lot of electoral districts, surely some of them would be vulnerable with a coordinated campaign. The House and the Senate are usually pretty close to 50/50, yeah? A third party wouldn't have to win that many seats to be playing kingmaker in a lot of votes, and it would give them a real platform to talk about electoral reform. Surely that's more productive than spending the money on moon-shot Presidential campaigns. (Particularly if Johnson and Stein are the best you can do. Let's face it, they're both awful candidates.)
They do. Presidential campaigns, however, result in a lot more press than more local races. An independent party who routinely gets 1%ish(as is pretty normal for libertarians in the presidential), in a local race is just irrelevant and ignored.
We've had periodic victories, too, that have not turned into greater power. The Reform party won a governorship, for instance. They won this AFTER a good presidential showing. But their fortunes didn't improve after the governorship, did it? Down ticket effects are proven. Up ticket....ehhh.
Tyndmyr wrote:It's fine to acknowledge that perfect choices will not always exist, but at some point, it's reasonable to acknowledge that both options are quite far from optimal indeed, and the system overall needs improvement. A third choice must be taken.
A third viable
choice. A choice that would actually
improve the system. Don't start a revolution that is sure to fail - plan it better so that it is likely to succeed first. That goes for getting a third party candidate elected also. (And, btw, there are no third party candidates at the moment that would make a good president even if elected, so even by your standards that's not a moral choice either.)
If you hate those two, write someone in.
If you believe there is a more practical, moral way to get a third party candidate elected than voting for them, please, make that case.
Note additionally that supporting a third party in the presidential does not in any way become an either/or choice with regards to supporting them in local elections. You're literally arguing that down ticket effects don't matter, when all the data says that normally, they're huge.
All this third party stuff is interesting, but people do need to realize that Trump/Clinton won a very large chunk of the electorate. If you feel that your opinion is being ignored, there's a very real chance that it's because you are the outlier.
Or, the options in the primaries were a dumpster fire as well, and people voted for the "least evil" there, too. I swapped registration to republican to vote for Kasich. Not because he was great, or I was particularly enthused by him, but because he'd have been significantly more acceptable. By the time I was there to vote, the viable options were Kasich, Trump, and Cruz. None of those people were actually great options, just varying degrees of unfortunate.
Tactical voting makes a mockery of the idea that the majority of the electorate actually wanted this. The vast majority of the electorate didn't vote. Of those who do, tactical and partisan voting is routine.
sardia wrote:There's a guy who is a known sexual predator, and he's still getting 40%+ of the vote.
…running against a woman who tried to silence the victims of her known-rapist husband.
They're both morally horrible people who seize power however they can, but that's maybe a bit far. Bill's affairs, etc are concerning from a power perspective, etc, but probably do not rise to the level of rape. Bill's still not a great role model if you care about such things, of course, but I think it's important not to resort to hyperbole.
is an article by Nate Silver et al. calculating the odds of your single vote directly affecting the final outcome of the election. It ranges from 1 in 10 million in a swing state to 1 in a billion in very safe states. The value of the US presidency however is in the trillions of dollars, or millions of human lives. So your vote is fucking valuable, even if you don't live in a swing state.
Unlikely. That valuation is incredibly suspect, and does not match real world market values, as determined by how much is spent to obtain it.