Rant Time:  Protest Votes

"marshknute" (marshknute) 11/01/2016 at 14:50 • Filed to: None

7

57

Let me preface by saying that this is just, like, my opinion, man. Just my thoughts on protest votes in America’s majority-rule election system. Deep breath (and flame suit on):

Quite frankly, anyone voting third-party/write-in is guilty of at least one of the following:

1) Not understanding the political system well enough to realize how counter-productive protest votes are.

2) Being privileged enough that neither outcome will have any meaningful impact on their daily life.

3) Feel they have been personally wronged by a certain candidate. (for which I won’t offer a counter-argument)

I completely understand that people don’t like either candidate, but that won’t change the fact that the winner WILL be either Clinton or Trump. A protest vote only serves to give your ideological opposite a one-vote advantage (assuming McMullin doesn’t pull a hail-Mary in Utah, a Clinton-Trump tie in the Electoral College, and a House upset).

But ignoring all of that, people don’t seem to realize that politics is a team sport. One good-intentioned politician can’t do anything by themselves, even if the general pubic stands behind them. You need the support of your fellow legislators, a reality that forces people to choose sides. Without Party unity, you won’t succeed; just look at Bernie (and Trump if the election outcome reflects the current polls).

You can characterize an election as choosing the l esser of two evils, but you are actually choosing the effective vote: casting your vote such that it has the most likely chance of electing the best (least-worst) candidate. You’ll have to deal with at least 4 years of Clinton or Trump, so it’s your privilege and obligation to vote for whichever candidate will make your life easier. And if you’re fortunate enough that neither candidate makes much difference to you, then at the very least you should acknowledge that there are millions of people counting on a certain outcome, and you have the power to help/hinder their situation.

Protest votes only have merit under a preferential voting system, such as Australia’s instant-runoff voting.

If at all possible, try to keep responses politically neutral. This is just meant to be a discussion about protest votes in a majority-rule political system, not an opportunity to vilify either candidate.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 14:56

3

I just want an autocracy at this point or at least a removal of the general public from a direct say like it used to be in the 1700s. This election has done nothing but remove what little faith I had in humanity. People are just getting more and more ridiculous and feral.

jimz > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 14:57

2

the interesting thing this time around is both candidates stir up so much dissent within their own parties that both have credible “protest” threats. At least in the past, there was only one in play; Perot for H-Dub, and Nader for Gore. Today, there are plenty of GOP voters who hate Trump enough to vote for Johnson, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see a non-zero number of Sanders supporters go for Stein or someone else.

not saying it’ll be enough to push the election one way or another, just something a little more unique this time around.

ttyymmnn > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 14:57

3

I’m reminded of a coworker who voted for Perot. He said, “Yeah, I pretty much threw away my vote.”

Don’t throw away your vote. Even if you support neither major candidate, at least vote for the one who is more qualified for the job.

Scary__goongala! > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 14:58

2

I agree with you. Such a shame, our system could work so well if people who honestly want to improve\change things were voted in. Just shows how smart people with pure hearts and minds stay the hell out of politics.

Wacko > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 14:58

3

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 15:01

2

And this is why I feel there are merits to having a full Westminster system (Parliamentary system with the executive effectively chosen from amongst the legislators) rather than the perennial beauty contest we call a Presidential Election. The only downside to this would be President Reince Prebius (Gack, kill me now).

The way you describe it, there is no option for “None of the above candidates” in selecting the electors for the Electoral College. I would prefer to see neither of the top choices win, but that would require McMullin or someone (Johnson) getting enough spoiler votes to end up with the race being thrown to the House.

I mean, how far down the shithole have we gone as a country to be left with a choice between these two assholes (Trump and Clinton)? Best we can hope for is deadlocked government (President of one party, Congress controlled by the other) and hope that no one does anything monumentally asinine over the next 4.5 years.

fourvalleys > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 15:01

4

I agree and I disagree. A “protest vote” for a third party isn’t a big deal, if the person voting feels that both of the leading candidates are equally bad. If they feel that they will personally be equally as good/bad off with either of the leading candidates, I get it. Of course, I think that puts them into your second category.

Having said that, I don’t personally feel like the two major-party candidates are equally bad. One of the two major-party candidates will win. In that case, anyone voting third-party is accepting that one of the two candidates will win - and saying they’re okay with it, either way. If they think one might be worse than the other... now might not be the time for a protest vote!

Voting third-party does help move towards legitimizing non-major parties in the presidential election. I get it, and I agree 100%. I just feel that this election might not be the right time to do it, when things are far closer than they should be at this point.

e: You could argue that the “right” time might never come to try to legitimize a third party. Maybe, but if you feel that there’s a serious difference between the candidates, you have enough of a feeling to vote for one of them.

Jcarr > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 15:01

15

Sorry, but I just don’t agree with this. Yes, I understand that in this election Trump or Clinton (likely Clinton) will win. However, I cannot stand the idea of either of them as president so I will not cast a vote for either one.

Moving beyond a 2-party system is achievable, but it requires people to vote for third-party candidates to get the wheels turning. If we keep telling people that third-party votes are wasted, then we perpetuate the mindset and system that gave us these two shit sandwiches.

I refuse to give in to that.

MonkeePuzzle > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 15:01

2

Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 15:04

7

You’ll never have change without the first few steps. It’s not an easy battle to win, affecting significant change within the political system of one of the world’s greatest superpowers, but it is a noble one.

What better time to show that we’re despondent with the two-party system’s complete failing of the American people than during an election when the two most polarizing candidates in U.S. history are given as the “only real options?”

Now to be fair, I used to be of a similar mind set. I too once thought, actually during my time majoring in politics and being fairly involved with state government, that it was only realistic to vote for one of the two major options. Then I came to a realization, fuck that.

The true purpose behind voting is to vote for the political candidate that you believe will do the best job. Not to let yourself be swayed into choosing a lesser of two evils. Voting is one of the few ways we have of keeping the government in check, and letting them know if we agree with how they’re running the country. So if we keep voting for the same terrible candidates that hardly represent even their own parties, let alone the American people as a whole, then how will it ever be known that change needs to happen? It’s like if you had bad service at a restaurant every time you went in, but never said anything and continued to tip well. There’s a system in place to evaluate the performance, and it’s on the customer (or politically speaking the American voters) to ensure that it’s utilized properly.

Side note: I tend to tip very well, and am not one of those asshole complainer customers. You should also try to be, but let it be known if there’s a real issue.

HammerheadFistpunch > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 15:05

3

You say that, but McMullin is likely to win Utah...i know where my vote is going (has gone)

fourvalleys > Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow 11/01/2016 at 15:06

1

Lucky you - you live in a state where the candidate you like less (e: I think I know your feelings well enough to say that?) is essentially guaranteed to lose. I’m maybe sort of okay with it, in your case. Maybe.

marshknute > jimz 11/01/2016 at 15:07

0

It’s also interesting to see one candidate with Party unity, one without, but both be overwhelmingly disliked by the general public.

And for me, it’s remarkable to see the difference in opinions of Clinton between my parents’ generation (Baby Boomers) and my fellow Millenials. The BB’s have spent decades following the Clinton scandals and have grown weary. Meanwhile, Lewinsky is old enough to be my mom, so the first Clinton scandal to really affect my generation was Benghazi. And most Millenials dislike Clinton simply for not being Bernie.

Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow > fourvalleys 11/01/2016 at 15:10

0

Yes, and it is a point of struggle for me still.

As our friend Mike T. said recently, gun to my head I’d have to vote for the less terrible of the two. Thankfully, that’s not the case. Although I suppose some could make the argument that there might end up being one to my head one way or another depending on who is elected. I think it’s probably a pretty even chance of gun-to-head probability for both, but by different means.

marshknute > Jcarr 11/01/2016 at 15:12

5

In all honesty, it’s probably easier to change the political system to a preferential voting system than it is to convince 50% of the public to vote 3rd-party.

If we had Australia’s instant-runoff system, you could vote third party AND still rank the more likely Repub/Dem ahead of your last choice candidate.

Berang > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 15:15

9

Here’s the thing. People need to vote for who they want. If that means your team loses the game, that’s your team’s fault for having a shitty candidate. Period. Full stop.

The other thing is that, third party votes do change politics. Because it’s not just about winning an election. When the big two see they’re losing votes, they respond, because they want those voters back. The republican response to the tea party is a pretty good example of this - not that that’s a good thing, but it’s a good example of how a third party can effect change in a major party. But the point is, if your party is ignoring the things you’re concerned with, they’re going to keep ignoring them, until you vote for somebody else and make it a problem for them. If you’re going to vote for them, just because they’re big and can win, you’re just rewarding them for not caring about issues you care about.

For people who are aligned with third parties for reasons beyond protesting the shittiness of their usual party, it’s even more far sighted. They’re getting votes so they can get more funding and recognition, so maybe, not this election, but the next one, or the one after that, their party will have enough power to pose a real threat to one of the big two.

Nibbles > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 15:18

1

I don’t want Clinton in office. I don’t want Trump, either. I did not vote for either of these two to be on the ballot

This election is a shitshow; a county-fair circus

I cannot bring myself to vote in good conscience for either candidate, neither can I vote for one because they may be less x than the other. Therefore my choice is to not vote, or vote for still someone else; either way my vote (or non-vote) is inconsequential to the two-party system. I choose to voice my displeasure in this tired game with farcical representations of everything that is good or bad with this country - depending on who you ask - by voting for the same person I voted for in 2012

marshknute > Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow 11/01/2016 at 15:20

1

My only gripe with the restaurant analogy is that it’s possible to tip well, and protest by simply not returning. Most people are too non-confrontational to make a scene, so they just tip the wait staff and eat elsewhere in the future.

The problem with our political system is that a protest vote only works if the majority of the population votes third-party (or if nobody votes and forces a political strike).

Future next gen S2000 owner > Jcarr 11/01/2016 at 15:20

0

This.

Berang > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 15:21

0

50% of the public doesn’t vote at all usually.

Nibbles > Berang 11/01/2016 at 15:22

1

That last paragraph; you hit it right on the head.

Nibbles > ttyymmnn 11/01/2016 at 15:23

2

What if neither candidate is particularly qualified?

Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 15:24

1

Yeah, it wasn’t the best analogy. Formulating a great analogy that really draws a direct parallel to any situation you’re addressing is much like creating a beautiful work of art. But I digress.

Agreed, and until you start showing people that it’s a real option then they aren’t going to vote third party. It takes people actually voting in order to get the majority of people to vote for a candidate. How can we possibly make that happen if everyone is resigned to this false idea that there is no other option, because nobody else is gonna vote for the third party?

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Berang 11/01/2016 at 15:24

0

I’m kind of convinced that the reason the race is still relatively tight is because there are only a handful of people still participating.

Future next gen S2000 owner > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 15:26

1

Two party systems are kinda garbage. The more people that vote third party will raise the profile of a third party and bring them into the national spotlight and get more people to vote third party.....so on and so forth.

I think telling anyone they wasted their vote is asinine. If you legitimately don’t want to vote for either party, your vote isn’t wasted. Every vote is a vote that isn’t wasted.

I understand that Clinton or Trump will win. To associate not voting for either with throwing away a vote, doesn’t seem to be logical, at least to me. 

ttyymmnn > Nibbles 11/01/2016 at 15:27

2

Note I said “more” qualified. (Although, it’s more of a grammatical quibble, since you can’t have a “most” when you’re only talking about two things.) But honestly, one major party candidate is definitely more qualified for the gig, but I’ll let you decide which one that is.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > ttyymmnn 11/01/2016 at 15:28

6

Experience and qualified are different things. Technically, anyone over 35 who was born here is qualified. Yes, one has more experience, but like my new favorite F1 analogy, it’s like hiring Andrea de Crasheris because he has experience. It’s just experience throwing cars into a wall.

marshknute > Berang 11/01/2016 at 15:29

0

Sorry, I worded that poorly. 50% of people who actually voted.

Even if only one citizen votes, their vote is enough to decide a victor and tell their congressman who to vote for in the Electoral College.

DC3 LS, will be perpetually replacing cars until the end of time > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 15:31

4

1) 3rd party votes aren’t counter productive. If enough people vote third party the “base” party, so to speak, will have to try to win them over. If Hilary loses I guarantee you the democratic party will shift closer to Bernie’s platform in order to keep them from splintering off. Vise versa with republicans and Trump

2) Or they could get fucked just as bad with either candidate -_-

Berang > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 15:31

1

Something to consider though is that potentially, a party could win with as little as 34% of the vote, if a 3rd party was strong enough.

Mondial goes to 11 > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 15:41

6

1) A protest vote for a third party candidate can lead to partial public funding for elections. If you want to see more Libertarian or Green Party exposure, getting at least 5% of the popular vote can go a long way.

2) I’d like some examples of what a president can do to effect any person’s day to day life (excluding presidential pardons). I suppose ACA was spearheaded by Obama and effects me but I’d like more examples (Genuinely curious).

There’s also a fourth type of protest voter you didn’t mention:

4) Lives in a state so solidly Blue/Red that even if enough voters that equal the total population (not just voter eligible) of smaller states voted third party instead of for the majority party it still wouldn’t change the outcome.

marshknute > DC3 LS, will be perpetually replacing cars until the end of time 11/01/2016 at 15:52

0

I’m not convinced that post-defeat “soul-searching” ever proves successful in modern politics. Republicans have tried that twice (likely going on thrice if the polls are accurate) to regroup and emerge stronger. Changes of Executive power are largely in response to frustration with the current President.

Reagan won because of Carter’s perceived ineffectiveness, Clinton won because Republicans felt betrayed by HW Bush and were divided by Perot, Bush Jr won because of fallout over Clinton’s scandals, Obama won because of the Recession/War, etc.

Obama hasn’t done anything to cast a dark shadow over the Democratic Party, so it’s unlikely that Democrats will lose this election.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > ttyymmnn 11/01/2016 at 16:13

1

There really ought to be a “None of These Candidates” option. At least that would give those who want to scratch vote the option to have that registered and tallied (Since all these loons want to talk about “mandates” from the voters).

I find “Bad Character” and “Corrupt” to be showstoppers. Tacitly accepting either one just goes to show how far removed we are from where the builders of the Republic intended for us to be.

B/Xmrrmvr > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 16:26

0

Out of curiosity, which media outlets would you say you get the majority of your news from?

marshknute > Mondial goes to 11 11/01/2016 at 16:53

1

The big one is the Supreme Court. A Presidency is over after 4-8 years, but a SC Justice serves for life. The current polls suggest that we’re going to see the first majority-Liberal supreme court in 45 years.

But beside that, the next President will inherit the armed conflict in Syria, and major legislation (like the ACA) is most likely to come from the sitting President since they have a near limitless amount of resources to draft the documents.

Andy Sheehan, StreetsideStig > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 17:00

3

Protest voting, like all protest, is a long term operation. Obviously my candidate won’t win, but if he or she steals enough votes from such and such, it may affect the conversation in the future.

Mondial goes to 11 > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 17:22

1

Oh man Supreme Court appointments are huge. I can’t believe I forgot that.

marshknute > Andy Sheehan, StreetsideStig 11/01/2016 at 17:39

0

I admit I’ve been ignoring people who genuinely align themselves with an established third-party. I’ve largely been focusing my criticisms on self-professed Democrats and Republicans who are now turning to third parties out of frustration.

If you genuinely align yourself with a third-party, and are willing to accept the long-term approach, then I concede that it is worthwhile to vote as such. It also works on certain scales; Bernie has found success promoting Socialist ideals in Vermont, but not on a national scale.

It’s a shame that our majority-rule system is inherently unkind to third parties. Most people are risk-adverse, so they tend to cast their vote for the candidate with the highest chances of winning, hence voting for the lesser of two evils.

As a pragmatist, I see little advantage in defying human nature. We have two flawed major parties, but it’s easier to push the party to evolve rather than cultivate a new one (again, Bernie’s candidacy comes to mind).

marshknute > Mondial goes to 11 11/01/2016 at 18:02

0

Honestly, that’s why both candidates have weathered so many scandals. For much of the population, they’re voting solely based on abortion rights, First Amendment rights, or marriage equality. It’s all about who takes Scalia’s seat.

Trump has had countless blunders this election season, but he hit the nail on the head when he said, “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.”

That argument goes both ways.

Rykilla303 > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 19:34

0

Yeah... protest votes make me annoyed. Trump or Clinton WILL BE the next president, so pick one.

wiffleballtony > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 20:09

1

If you choose to vote for a third party because you feel they are the most qualified choice, then you are perfectly within your rights to do so. In fact, the political system was never intended to be a two party system for the exact reasons we see now. I’d also like to point out that you should be voting for the best interests of he country not yourself.

With that said voting against a candidate is not the way to exercise your right.

marshknute > Rykilla303 11/01/2016 at 20:23

0

The Supreme Court vacancy should be enough to make people vote for an unlikable candidate. Right now your vote directly decides which way the SC will lean for the next few decades.

wiffleballtony > Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow 11/01/2016 at 20:32

1

This. This right here.

wiffleballtony > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 11/01/2016 at 20:35

1

But, this is a republic not a democracy. We don’t have a direct say. Theoretically the people who vote for the electoral college could tell us all to pound sand and select other people that who won the respective votes.

wiffleballtony > Berang 11/01/2016 at 20:37

0

/applause

marshknute > wiffleballtony 11/01/2016 at 20:49

0

You’re contradicting yourself. You say you should vote in the country’s best interests, but then say you should never vote against someone. But we DO have a 2-party system, and either a Repub or Dem WILL win. And if neither candidate is a solid choice, it’s your responsibility to ensure the lesser candidate is denied a victory. That’s just the reality of today’s political system, regardless of what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

Sure it’s within your rights to vote however you want, but a protest vote is still an irresponsible vote (unless you genuinely align with a third party instead of just voting that way out of frustration). Clinton or Trump WILL win. And if the wrong person wins and screws it up, nobody will praise you for casting a protest vote. Preferential elections are the place for protest votes, not America’s majority-rule elections.

And in this election, voting third-party is downright reckless, because your vote will directly decide which way the Supreme Court leans for at least a decade. Especially since the next president could potentially appoint as many as FOUR justices (based on the average lifespan of a modern SC justice).

gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 20:54

1

Votes against the two major parties are definitely not wasted.

Your political system is screwed up by only having two major parties. It is why you end up with the people voting for the least-worst option. Two parties whose platforms almost entirely revolve around not being the other one. Two groups of party supporters who believe the other party is pure evil because they’re so blinded by propaganda that they can’t even see the bias in the source they’re getting their “facts”. And once one party gets away with it, it becomes acceptable for the other party to do it as well. Two parties that refuse to work with each other to make the country better for everyone.

That’s what voting is for. To select the candidate you believe will do the best job of making the country a better place for everyone. Not just you, everyone. A country that is split between two groups that refuse to get along is not a country that will be successful. A country that doesn’t take care of itself will fall to it’s own inner turmoil.

I don’t see either one of the two major candidates making any indication they’ll actually be looking out for the entire country.

wiffleballtony > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 20:56

1

I didn’t contradict myself. you vote for who you think is best for the country.

marshknute > gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee 11/01/2016 at 21:28

0

I won’t deny any of what you just said.

My point is that we DO have a 2-party system, for better or worse. And as a result, the only two candidates that can win are Clinton or Trump. I totally get that it shouldn’t be that way, and that it’s a broken system, and that it hampers progress. But it’s our reality. We have to accept the cards we’ve been dealt.

And you’re right that people should vote for the best candidate, but most people are risk-adverse, and will cast their vote for the candidate with the best chance of winning, even if it’s voting for the lesser of two evils. We’d be foolish to ignore the prevalence of that behavior.

And with all that said, knowingly voting for an unwinnable candidate IS a spoiler vote. You are directly aiding your ideological opposite. And that’s dangerous and irresponsible in this particular election because the winner will decide which way the Supreme Court will lean for at least the next decade (probably the next half century, because he/she could appoint as many as FOUR justices based on the life spans of modern SC justices).

gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 21:50

1

Maybe you’re just wording it strangely, but every single one of your posts makes it seem like you should be voting to be on the winning team, not voting to make your team win. The only vote wasted is one that isn’t cast. If you choose to side with a team that you think will lead to the best Supreme Court, go out and vote for their candidate. But if you think having a proper system that will ultimately lead the country down a better road than could be achieved with only a Supreme Court bias, then you aren’t wasting your vote by selecting a “third” (or fourth of fifth) party.

The whole purpose of democracy is that everyone’s voice has to be heard, regardless of whether or not you agree with that voice.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > marshknute 11/01/2016 at 22:18

0

““Our only political party has two right wings, one called Republican, the other Democratic.” gore vidal.

One of my favorite pod-casters is Dan Carlin. I disagree that a vote for a third party is wasted vote. If enough people vote it can begin to break the duopoly and maybe even get a third candidate in the debate. I’m voting for the party that I mostly agree with. I think if either of the major parties wanted more voters they should have done a better job of allowing better candidates to run.

What I find scary is how many American don’t know how their parties work. One agrees to the party rules when they pick dem or rep. The nomination process has been such a PR coronation for the last 40 years that people are finally seeing some of the clusterfuck behind the scenes thats out of their (perceived) control. They care about their candidates getting funded and elected. sanders and trump are a middle finger to that. The urge to “opt out” of the system is strong.

If one does choose a third party, supporters need to fully back them through all roles and not just the presidential race.

With ever more social/economic factors playing to ones party allegiance, a split or shear of the major parties is bound to happen.

marshknute > gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee 11/01/2016 at 23:28

1

Your vote is always heard, regardless of who you vote for. But it can absolutely be wasted. Especially when you KNOW that the third-party candidate will lose.

Johnson and Stein WILL lose. That’s a guaranteed certainty. Voting for them will make your vote heard, but means your vote has only served to hurt the major candidate you would have otherwise supported (unless you always vote third party). You can’t claim you’re acting in the country’s best interest if you knowingly vote for a losing candidate. You know your vote isn’t making a difference (even if it should in an ideal world).

It’s unrealistic, and ineffective to rely on third party candidates to fix our (admittedly broken) political system. But it IS possible for parties to evolve over time. Just look how far the Republican party has evolved since Lincoln.

gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee > marshknute 11/02/2016 at 00:06

3

Thinking like this is what causes third-party votes to “lose” and be “wasted”. Obviously if everyone thinks that voting third party is a waste, no one will do it, even if they would prefer that party and that party’s candidate. What happens if a majority of voters would actually want to vote third party, but people like you keep spouting off that their votes will be wasted if they do it, so they don’t vote for the candidate they want to vote for because you’ve made them afraid of “losing”, even though if they all had voted the way they wanted, it would have significantly changed the outcome?

I’ll amend my earlier statement:

The only wasted votes are votes not cast or votes cast for a candidate you don’t support.

You’ve already admitted that the system is screwed up. You’re perpetuating the screwed-up-ness by insisting people don’t vote for whoever they want.

I would argue that the Republican Party has not evolved for the better, nor has the Democrat Party, given the candidates they’ve put forth. Political parties, knowing they stand a pretty close to 50% chance of being elected, rapidly will turn into an old boys club with a handful of comfortable people start calling the shots, and there’s so little variation in the platform that everyone knows what it is, has known what it is for forever, and your debates spiral downwards into childish name calling because frankly there’s not much else left to do. Nothing will change if you insist on keeping the status quo.

ZHP Sparky, the 5th > marshknute 11/03/2016 at 19:24

1

Agree with you 100% I actually wrote a similar rant on FB recently. Regarding all the people saying “we need a third party” blah blah “i refuse to give in!” - these are the same people the day after the election will go back to scratching their balls and not being involved in politics for another 4 years - just like the people they voted for.

Neither Johnson nor Stein don’t even come close to DESERVING our votes. They haven’t done nearly enough to gain the down ballot support they need, haven’t done shit to build a proper campaign and support, and their positions are at best downright wonky and unattainable - especially Johnson with all the support he’s gained...40% cuts across the board, get rid of the DoE, who cares about climate change the world is going to get swallowed up by the sun someday! and now look at his campaign - he can’t even keep it together with his own VP nominee 4 days before the election, with the fool going and vouching for Clinton (which I actually commend, but that’s a hell of a way to ruin your own chances) - and he actually thinks he can take on the job of being President?

These people act like they’re some form of ideological puritan, but all they are is just lazy and privileged enough to not really fear for much out of either realistic outcome. As you stated, change comes in increments and it is our obligation to cast our ballot in the most EFFECTIVE way possible - to the person that will get the country moving in a direction that is good for ALL of us.

Sam > gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee 11/20/2016 at 06:08

0

No, winner take all systems only support two parties. It’s a statistical fact, no third party will ever win. You can vote third party every 4 years until you die, but, barring a major party breakup or something, you will always be wasting your vote and voting for your ideological opposite.

Sam > Mondial goes to 11 11/20/2016 at 06:13

0

Funding isn’t holding third parties back, they’re just held back by first-past-the-post voting. Proportional is better, but oh well.

gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee > Sam 11/20/2016 at 08:44

0

This is categorically untrue.

I’m Canadian. In the last election, we had over 20 registered parties. 5 of them won seats. Sure, parliament doesn’t work quite the same way as the electoral college, which means our winner doesn’t take quite as much all as yours, but we still manage to have majority gonvernments pretty frequently.

Obviously the tiny-ass parties like the Animal Aliance, or Communist parties, don’t stand much chance of being elected, but ten years ago the same could have been said about the Green Party, and they got a seat this election. The party with the fourth-most seats this time around, the Bloc Québécois, was once a single-issue party, with candidates in only one province, and yet they still won ten seats. Voting for the little guy is never a wasted vote, whether they stand a chance of being elected or not. You may not see the effects immediately, but slowly they will happen. Shouting at people for not voting for a major candidate, telling them their vote is wasted, trying to guilt them for exercising their right to vote however they damn well please, only makes the process take longer. And if none of the major candidates inspire you to vote for them, it’s their own fault if they don’t get elected.

I’m a major believer in not voting against people. No one should get votes if they are unsupported, and voting for X simply because they aren’t Y but stand a better chance of being elected than your preferred candidate is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve heard. Vote however you damn well want, but don’t go around telling people their vote is wasted. It’s a democracy, the whole point is all votes are to be heard, whether or not anything is to come of them.