Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
A Town Called Malus wrote: But how would it be fair or even anything remotely approaching democracy for McMullin to become president by winning a single state? Not even a single state more than his opponent, or winning a single state but with more total popular votes than the other candidates but a single state.
If that were to happen, then your system is a lot more broken than being a two party system.
well it does go to the point that america is not a democracy, and the electoral college is an outdated idea.
this is how the broken system we live in works, a system that has been broke so long many people like Breotan thinks it works.
Relapse wrote: This is kind of cool. Talking about the power of the "wasted" vote. This strikes a chord with me because I like neither Trump or Clinton.
I hope lots of liberals take this article to heart. I really do.
There is only one reality in Presidential elections. Either the Democratic candidate will win and become the next President or the Republican candidate will. You can either actively participate by voting for one or the other or you can passively participate by supporting a kingmaker.
Case in point: In Florida, Al Gore lost to George Bush by 537 votes. This gave George Bush enough Electors to win the Presidency. Ralph Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida as a 3rd party candidate. It's safe to assume that none of those people would have voted for George Bush. Because at least 538 those Nader voters chose not to vote for FOR Al Gore, they passively threw the election to George Bush. You can allocate blame among the other 3rd party candidates but they'd mostly cancel out leaving Nader to syphon off the most votes.
Today the reality is either Hillary Clinton will become our next President or Donald Trump will. Enough people "voting their conscience" in a swing State will throw the election to one or the other so why pretend otherwise? Put on your big boy pants then pick your poison and be done with it.
That is completely false,
And as Utah has shown us, by voting 3rd party, we can actually elect one a 3rd party into office.
Evan McMullin could actually win the presidency because people like you can't see past the two party dictatorship. Sure it's a small shot, but voting for the best person for the job will get that person elected. Denying the big 2 their 270 electoral votes should remind them who they really work for and show how out of touch they really are.
That would be an even bigger affront to democracy, if a 3rd party that was only on the ballot in one state was chosen by the House to be president should neither reach the electoral votes needed
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/25 21:15:57
My point is still, you don't have to vote for either the pedophile or that woman. No vote is wasted, vote for who your conscious can let you live with.
Breotan wrote: Case in point: In Florida, Al Gore lost to George Bush by 537 votes. This gave George Bush enough Electors to win the Presidency. Ralph Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida as a 3rd party candidate. It's safe to assume that none of those people would have voted for George Bush. Because at least 538 those Nader voters chose not to vote for FOR Al Gore, they passively threw the election to George Bush. You can allocate blame among the other 3rd party candidates but they'd mostly cancel out leaving Nader to syphon off the most votes.
I'm not really sure why liberals need to take that more to heart... The problem with this line of reasoning though is that anyone who voted for Nader most definitely didn't want Bush to win (or was simply ignorant about how distinct the two men were at the time). Nader was even more left than Gore, making Bush even more antithetical to anyone who agreed with his ideas. In a pragmatic sense, not only were those votes wasted, but they were the votes that allowed Bush to win the election, an outcome that was certainly even less desirable among Nader voters than Gore. They did not passively throw their votes to Bush. They assumed a Gore victory as inevitable (2000 was one of the closest races in recent history, and Gore polled better than Bush leading to election day), and woke up the next day to realize it wasn't that simple.
Either way, there really isn't a 'myth of the wasted vote." There is such a thing as a wasted vote, at least in the short term. US politics is broad and the Republican and Democratic parties derive their support from getting different groups to vote together. Adopting new third party ideas offers opportunities to bring in new elements to the coalition, reinvigorate old ones, or realize that the status quo has changed the so must the party.
There's nothing wrong with voting third party, but if you do it it needs to be done with a recognition of what that vote represents. Voting for Johnson (or whoever) in this election is throwing away a direct vote for one of the two people who are going to win; Trump or Clinton. Worse, it could result in getting the choice of those two options you like least (as I'm sure Nader voters were kicking themselves when Bush walked away the winner in 2000). Support for Johnson can lead to an embracing of more Libtertarian ideas down the road, but it's not going to happen in 2016. Voting for him now is a vote for the future, not for the present.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/25 21:28:56
A Town Called Malus wrote: But how would it be fair or even anything remotely approaching democracy for McMullin to become president by winning a single state? Not even a single state more than his opponent, or winning a single state but with more total popular votes than the other candidates but a single state.
If that were to happen, then your system is a lot more broken than being a two party system.
We're a representative democracy using an Electoral College voting system.
It's actually codified in our laws that McMullin could become president (as long as he won at least 1 EV).
EDIT: fwiw... this is glue sniffing stuff as McMullin has enough chance to be President next year as I do bedding Katie Upton.
I wonder if we can do a friendly wager...
Over or Under that HRC will get 400+ EV?
I'm taking the over.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/25 21:46:48
sirlynchmob wrote: My point is still, you don't have to vote for either the pedophile or that woman. No vote is wasted, vote for who your conscious can let you live with.
Relapse wrote: This is kind of cool. Talking about the power of the "wasted" vote. This strikes a chord with me because I like neither Trump or Clinton.
I hope lots of liberals take this article to heart. I really do.
There is only one reality in Presidential elections. Either the Democratic candidate will win and become the next President or the Republican candidate will. You can either actively participate by voting for one or the other or you can passively participate by supporting a kingmaker.
Case in point: In Florida, Al Gore lost to George Bush by 537 votes. This gave George Bush enough Electors to win the Presidency. Ralph Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida as a 3rd party candidate. It's safe to assume that none of those people would have voted for George Bush. Because at least 538 those Nader voters chose not to vote for FOR Al Gore, they passively threw the election to George Bush. You can allocate blame among the other 3rd party candidates but they'd mostly cancel out leaving Nader to syphon off the most votes.
Today the reality is either Hillary Clinton will become our next President or Donald Trump will. Enough people "voting their conscience" in a swing State will throw the election to one or the other so why pretend otherwise? Put on your big boy pants then pick your poison and be done with it.
That is completely false,
And as Utah has shown us, by voting 3rd party, we can actually elect one a 3rd party into office.
Evan McMullin could actually win the presidency because people like you can't see past the two party dictatorship. Sure it's a small shot, but voting for the best person for the job will get that person elected. Denying the big 2 their 270 electoral votes should remind them who they really work for and show how out of touch they really are.
That would be an even bigger affront to democracy, if a 3rd party that was only on the ballot in one state was chosen by the House to be president should neither reach the electoral votes needed
While it's only a wet dream at this point, if that truly did happen, that'll do more to "fix" whatever issues that are facing the GOP and Democratic party than anything.
sirlynchmob wrote: My point is still, you don't have to vote for either the pedophile or that woman. No vote is wasted, vote for who your conscious can let you live with.
Very well spoken. Exalted.
Yup yup.
Spoiler:
psst, both the pedo and the crook are just as bad!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/25 21:55:20
sirlynchmob wrote: My point is still, you don't have to vote for either the pedophile or that woman. No vote is wasted, vote for who your conscious can let you live with.
One of the few things you and I are ever likely to agree upon.
sirlynchmob wrote: Evan McMullin could actually win the presidency because people like you can't see past the two party dictatorship. Sure it's a small shot, but voting for the best person for the job will get that person elected. Denying the big 2 their 270 electoral votes should remind them who they really work for and show how out of touch they really are.
This is technically true, but wishful thinking. Even in the unlikely event that the perfect outcome of voting sends the election to congress handing the presidency to a candidate who managed a fluke win in a single state (and struggled to win a single vote anywhere else) would be committing political suicide. If neither candidate gets the required 270 votes the house will have a straight party-line vote and select Trump as the next president.
Also, no, this won't show the major parties anything. They will correctly dismiss it as a fluke outcome that will probably never happen again in the foreseeable future, and continue on with business as usual.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: The thought in my mind is that a message is eventually going to get through if enough people start voting their conscience, as Lynch puts it so well.
The problem is that the chances of "enough people" voting that way are overwhelmingly tiny. A spectacular win for a third-party candidate is getting 5% of the vote in some states, and third-party candidates are almost always zero-chance extremists who the major parties ignored for good reasons. And because of how the US system works it is going to remain that way for the foreseeable future. The idea that some moderate, responsible candidate that everyone loves will show up and teach the major parties a lesson is just wishful thinking.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/25 23:23:06
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
You know who outnumbered Ralph Nader voters? People who didn't vote at all. The only wasted vote is the one you never cast, going to the polls and voting for the candidate you like best has never been and will never be a wasted vote. If everyone did that we wouldn't be in this situation, instead we have a case where too many people are either too apathetic to vote or feel that a vote anywhere other than the big two is wasted. But that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your vote isn't about deciding who wins, it is completely meaningless in that regard. Your vote is about participating in the democratic process because its your right and your responsibility. And because whoever you are, you at least owe this country a vote.
Because I want Hillary to lose. I thought I'd made that clear early on in this thread.
I thought you were referencing some larger suggestion rather than just asking people to learn a bad lesson XD
No. He. Can't.
He really, really, can't.
So you know. People vote their conscience and all, but don't get delusional about the potential outcomes.
I hold no delusions about the outcome of the election, hillary by a landslide. mcmullin is a 500:1 long shot, he might win Utah, but hillary will get her 270+ ECVs. The lesson here is, if people are so fed up with the big 2, we have the power to change it and follow Utah's lead. We can even impose term limits for that matter, never vote for an incumbent.
NinthMusketeer wrote: You know who outnumbered Ralph Nader voters? People who didn't vote at all. The only wasted vote is the one you never cast, going to the polls and voting for the candidate you like best has never been and will never be a wasted vote. If everyone did that we wouldn't be in this situation, instead we have a case where too many people are either too apathetic to vote or feel that a vote anywhere other than the big two is wasted. But that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your vote isn't about deciding who wins, it is completely meaningless in that regard. Your vote is about participating in the democratic process because its your right and your responsibility. And because whoever you are, you at least owe this country a vote.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If everyone did that we wouldn't be in this situation, instead we have a case where too many people are either too apathetic to vote or feel that a vote anywhere other than the big two is wasted.
We absolutely would be in this situation. The US system overwhelmingly favors having two major parties, formed as coalitions of various smaller interests. A successful third party will almost certainly have its agenda (and any successful candidates) be absorbed by one of the major parties, leaving only the usual fringe extremists to continue getting their <5% of the vote. An extremely, beyond our wildest dreams successful third party will almost certainly absorb what is left of the major party closest to it in positions and become a new major party in the two-party system. A stable third party is virtually impossible to have because it will draw its support from one of the major parties, leaving the other major party to win easy elections. So the pool of voters opposing the successful major party face overwhelming pressure to figure out their differences and consolidate into a single party again. Refusal to do so means both parties continuing to lose every election.
No, he's a 50000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000:1 long shot. His chances of winning are about the same as having a constitutional amendment to change the age requirement between now and november and me becoming president.
We can even impose term limits for that matter, never vote for an incumbent.
This is a rather poor idea. Why automatically reject successful candidates who are getting the job done? Do we really want a country run by single-term permanent newbies?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/25 23:41:32
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Relapse wrote: This is kind of cool. Talking about the power of the "wasted" vote. This strikes a chord with me because I like neither Trump or Clinton.
I hope lots of liberals take this article to heart. I really do.
There is only one reality in Presidential elections. Either the Democratic candidate will win and become the next President or the Republican candidate will. You can either actively participate by voting for one or the other or you can passively participate by supporting a kingmaker.
Case in point: In Florida, Al Gore lost to George Bush by 537 votes. This gave George Bush enough Electors to win the Presidency. Ralph Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida as a 3rd party candidate. It's safe to assume that none of those people would have voted for George Bush. Because at least 538 those Nader voters chose not to vote for FOR Al Gore, they passively threw the election to George Bush. You can allocate blame among the other 3rd party candidates but they'd mostly cancel out leaving Nader to syphon off the most votes.
Today the reality is either Hillary Clinton will become our next President or Donald Trump will. Enough people "voting their conscience" in a swing State will throw the election to one or the other so why pretend otherwise? Put on your big boy pants then pick your poison and be done with it.
That is completely false,
And as Utah has shown us, by voting 3rd party, we can actually elect one a 3rd party into office.
Evan McMullin could actually win the presidency because people like you can't see past the two party dictatorship. Sure it's a small shot, but voting for the best person for the job will get that person elected. Denying the big 2 their 270 electoral votes should remind them who they really work for and show how out of touch they really are.
That would be an even bigger affront to democracy, if a 3rd party that was only on the ballot in one state was chosen by the House to be president should neither reach the electoral votes needed
We don't have a democracy we have a representative republic. How do you figure that a duly and democratically elected governing body casting a vote on behalf of the people they were elected to represent to decide an important issue is an affront to democracy?
You this "representative republics" aren't democratic stuff never loses its rotten fish smell.
Relapse wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote: You know who outnumbered Ralph Nader voters? People who didn't vote at all. The only wasted vote is the one you never cast, going to the polls and voting for the candidate you like best has never been and will never be a wasted vote. If everyone did that we wouldn't be in this situation, instead we have a case where too many people are either too apathetic to vote or feel that a vote anywhere other than the big two is wasted. But that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your vote isn't about deciding who wins, it is completely meaningless in that regard. Your vote is about participating in the democratic process because its your right and your responsibility. And because whoever you are, you at least owe this country a vote.
j
Totaly on the mark.
I wouldn't even consider a uncast vote wasted in the long run. People who don't vote are basically saying "I don't think the outcome of this matters to me." Not casting a vote tells the political world that it has somehow lost you, and is functionally no more wasted than voting for a third party.
Breotan wrote: Case in point: In Florida, Al Gore lost to George Bush by 537 votes. This gave George Bush enough Electors to win the Presidency. Ralph Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida as a 3rd party candidate. It's safe to assume that none of those people would have voted for George Bush. Because at least 538 those Nader voters chose not to vote for FOR Al Gore, they passively threw the election to George Bush. You can allocate blame among the other 3rd party candidates but they'd mostly cancel out leaving Nader to syphon off the most votes.
I'm not really sure why liberals need to take that more to heart... The problem with this line of reasoning though is that anyone who voted for Nader most definitely didn't want Bush to win (or was simply ignorant about how distinct the two men were at the time). Nader was even more left than Gore, making Bush even more antithetical to anyone who agreed with his ideas. In a pragmatic sense, not only were those votes wasted, but they were the votes that allowed Bush to win the election, an outcome that was certainly even less desirable among Nader voters than Gore. They did not passively throw their votes to Bush. They assumed a Gore victory as inevitable (2000 was one of the closest races in recent history, and Gore polled better than Bush leading to election day), and woke up the next day to realize it wasn't that simple.
Either way, there really isn't a 'myth of the wasted vote." There is such a thing as a wasted vote, at least in the short term. US politics is broad and the Republican and Democratic parties derive their support from getting different groups to vote together. Adopting new third party ideas offers opportunities to bring in new elements to the coalition, reinvigorate old ones, or realize that the status quo has changed the so must the party.
There's nothing wrong with voting third party, but if you do it it needs to be done with a recognition of what that vote represents. Voting for Johnson (or whoever) in this election is throwing away a direct vote for one of the two people who are going to win; Trump or Clinton. Worse, it could result in getting the choice of those two options you like least (as I'm sure Nader voters were kicking themselves when Bush walked away the winner in 2000). Support for Johnson can lead to an embracing of more Libtertarian ideas down the road, but it's not going to happen in 2016. Voting for him now is a vote for the future, not for the present.
People need to vote their conscience and not be blindly beholden to the Republican and Democrat parties. The people don't owe the parties their votes the parties are beholden to put forth candidates that can make a convincing argument to gain their support and win their vote. The people who voted for Nader in Florida chose to vote for Nader they could have voted for Gore but didn't want to. Nobody thought Nader would win the presidency if the people who voted for him wanted to vote for a candidate likely to win, from one of the two main parties they could have but they chose not to because they wanted to support Nader for whatever reason and there's nothing wrong with that. It's not those voters' fault that Gore didn't convince them to support him. It's not the fault of people who didn't vote that no candidate inspired them enough to motivate them to cast their vot for him/her. If the electorate all cast votes for candidates they supported or abstained from voting for candidates they didn't believe in then on Election Day we would get results that showed an accurate picture of the level of support for issues and positions and that would be healthy for our country. Instead people convince themselves that we are limited to a false binary choice between the two big parties regardless of what we think of their candidates which creates a vicious cycle that keeps those parties in an elevated position of power and influence that is extremely unhealthy for our country.
Prestor Jon wrote: People need to vote their conscience and not be blindly beholden to the Republican and Democrat parties.
My conscience says vote for someone who can actually win, because voting third party to rage against the machine is treating politics like a child's game.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If everyone did that we wouldn't be in this situation, instead we have a case where too many people are either too apathetic to vote or feel that a vote anywhere other than the big two is wasted.
We absolutely would be in this situation. The US system overwhelmingly favors having two major parties, formed as coalitions of various smaller interests. A successful third party will almost certainly have its agenda (and any successful candidates) be absorbed by one of the major parties, leaving only the usual fringe extremists to continue getting their <5% of the vote. An extremely, beyond our wildest dreams successful third party will almost certainly absorb what is left of the major party closest to it in positions and become a new major party in the two-party system. A stable third party is virtually impossible to have because it will draw its support from one of the major parties, leaving the other major party to win easy elections. So the pool of voters opposing the successful major party face overwhelming pressure to figure out their differences and consolidate into a single party again. Refusal to do so means both parties continuing to lose every election.
I honestly believe that if Americans had consistently shown a willingness to go third party then the system would have been changed by now. But even so, it comes back to if your vote doesn't matter then the only thing that does is if you voted for who you liked or not which is plenty of reason to vote third party if you feel they better represent your ideals.
Prestor Jon wrote: People need to vote their conscience and not be blindly beholden to the Republican and Democrat parties.
My conscience says vote for someone who can actually win, because voting third party to rage against the machine is treating politics like a child's game.
Voting third party in protest and voting third party because you like them better are two different things, though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/26 00:43:33
NinthMusketeer wrote: I honestly believe that if Americans had consistently shown a willingness to go third party then the system would have been changed by now.
Then you are honestly wrong. Read what I said there, the problem is not a willingness to vote third party, it's that the US voting system makes it virtually impossible for a successful third party to exist.
But even so, it comes back to if your vote doesn't matter then the only thing that does is if you voted for who you liked or not which is plenty of reason to vote third party if you feel they better represent your ideals.
IOW, having the moral purity of "I voted my conscience" is more important than the practical effect of electing a candidate as close as possible to your beliefs. Do you honestly think that, if you're a left-wing person, it is better to have Trump as president and a clean conscience because you made a protest vote than to have Clinton?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I honestly believe that if Americans had consistently shown a willingness to go third party then the system would have been changed by now.
Third parties don't rise because people support them, but because the political structure makes necessitate them.
The US political system from even before it began has operated on duality (Federalists and Anti-Federalists). Our system began on these terms and stays on them in part because the two parties have proven effective in eating up the voter bases of third parties. I doubt this will change until one of the two collapses. Fortunately for some, I think the GOP is collapsing, so it's a brave new world Though I wouldn't be that optimistic, cause unless something in the Democratic party breaks too I doubt we'd see 1 party and two half parties coexist for long.
]Voting third party in protest and voting third party because you like them better are two different things, though.
Did I suggest there wasn't a difference?
I don't vote third party because right now, and in the immediate future, there is no third party that has a chance of winning. I'm not going to vote for someone who can't win especially given the recent past reminding me that doing so can mean getting the candidate I like the least. I'm not going to vote for one to be edgy. It has to have a chance of winning for me to take it into consideration.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/26 00:55:30
Prestor Jon wrote: People need to vote their conscience and not be blindly beholden to the Republican and Democrat parties.
My conscience says vote for someone who can actually win, because voting third party to rage against the machine is treating politics like a child's game.
Then you should vote accordingly. Everyone else should do the same. I would encourage everyone to exercise their voice and express themselves honestly. I wouldn't want anyone to stifle their political expression to conform to a false construct designed to maintain the status quo.
LordofHats wrote: You this "representative republics" aren't democratic stuff never loses its rotten fish smell.
I don't care how the truth smells, dude, I only care that it's true.
I was agreeing with you (because I get tired of the brain dead argument that ours isn't a democratic system when the only way you end up being a representative is if people democratically elect you, and then the representatives have to work democratically with each other, etc etc). The whole line gets old, and reeks of not thinking very hard.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I honestly believe that if Americans had consistently shown a willingness to go third party then the system would have been changed by now.
Then you are honestly wrong. Read what I said there, the problem is not a willingness to vote third party, it's that the US voting system makes it virtually impossible for a successful third party to exist.
But even so, it comes back to if your vote doesn't matter then the only thing that does is if you voted for who you liked or not which is plenty of reason to vote third party if you feel they better represent your ideals.
IOW, having the moral purity of "I voted my conscience" is more important than the practical effect of electing a candidate as close as possible to your beliefs. Do you honestly think that, if you're a left-wing person, it is better to have Trump as president and a clean conscience because you made a protest vote than to have Clinton?
The only way to push the political system to produce candidates that better represent you is to vote for ones that do. Consistently voting for compromise candidates just to help them win or to be on the winning side then we'll just get more elections where we have to hold our nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. Sacrificing your principles doesn't help improve anything, if you don't care about your principles and positions why should anyone else? If we're all willing to compromise to keep the same system in place how will we ever create a better one?
You'll have a pretty much impossible time produce your ideal candidate in a country with hundreds of millions of people who need to be satisfied. Never is this more evident than in a Presidential race, when we are trying to get everyone to pick 1 person to satisfy them.
Compromise is a requirement of our political system, because unless you perfectly fit the median metrics of US politics you will probably never be completely satisfied with your choices.
Principals are nice and all, but you hit crunch time and you can either stick to your principals and give up a say in practical politics, or you can compromise and actually get counted.
LordofHats wrote: You this "representative republics" aren't democratic stuff never loses its rotten fish smell.
I don't care how the truth smells, dude, I only care that it's true.
I was agreeing with you (because I get tired of the brain dead argument that ours isn't a democratic system when the only way you end up being a representative is if people democratically elect you, and then the representatives have to work democratically with each other, etc etc). The whole line gets old, and reeks of not thinking very hard.
I didn't see anybody denying that we had a democratic system. There is a difference between a representative republic and a direct democracy. Too often when Americans talk about our "democracy" it is used in a way that confuses it with a direct democracy which isn't the system we have. I don't enjoy getting lost in the weeds of a tangential argument over semantics either but if we're going to discuss our political system it's important to do so with a useful degree specificity.
3000
4000 
