Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
265 comments
Let's not forget it was embarrassingly painful to vote in the primaries this year. There were people who waited in lines for hours and never got to vote.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GaryJohnson/comments/4vq33l/choose_...
vote gary johnson
Can I just say the visualisation on this article is fantastic. Worth checking out even if you have little interest in the topic in the title.
NY Times has been impressing me a lot with their online editions. To the point I'm considering to actually pay for the content.
Another very good visualisation from them is the Panama Channel article http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/22/world/americas...
Another very good visualisation from them is the Panama Channel article http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/22/world/americas...
Bit buggy though, the animations stop if you scroll too fast, including the one that counts up to the number of million people in USA, if you scroll past too fast it ends up below the actual number, causing confusion
These 9% are representing a majority, since a lot of people didn't go to vote.
The article shows that this 9% does not represent a majority of expected voters in November.
No that's not the primary cause. See article.
Considering both nominees have the highest disapproval rates I would say your statement is almost certainly incorrect.
If anything, these 9% are representing a fundamental flaw in our first past the post system.
If anything, these 9% are representing a fundamental flaw in our first past the post system.
Why is it incorrect?
According to the statistic, 73 million did not vote in the primaries this year and about 88 million eligible adults do not vote at all. Add to that 103 million that are not eligible for voting. So if I'm not mistaken, only 18.5% voted in the primaries.
You mention they have the highest disapproval rates, but how is disapproval expressed if not by voting?
According to the statistic, 73 million did not vote in the primaries this year and about 88 million eligible adults do not vote at all. Add to that 103 million that are not eligible for voting. So if I'm not mistaken, only 18.5% voted in the primaries.
You mention they have the highest disapproval rates, but how is disapproval expressed if not by voting?
What if they were denied the chance to vote due to onerous voting restrictions (closed primaries)? Clinton has horrible negatives, but the state party of NY forces voters to be registered by October of the previous year (!!!) for a late-April primary.
We may be using the word "representing" differently.
I took it to mean "those 9% are statistically representative of the majority of americans views/choices/opinions/desires/whatever".
Where as it seems you meant it as "those 9% represent a plurality of the votes cast in the primaries." Yes?
I took it to mean "those 9% are statistically representative of the majority of americans views/choices/opinions/desires/whatever".
Where as it seems you meant it as "those 9% represent a plurality of the votes cast in the primaries." Yes?
The people who run in the primaries are selected by far fewer than 9%. Parties other than the two have been excluded by bipartisan agreement between the two.
Maybe in the Trump case, since he had fewer than half of the people that bothered to vote, but Clinton won the majority of those who bothered to vote in the primary, so even if you think the choice of her as unrepresentative of those who could have voted in the primary, first past the post isn't really the culprit, political apathy is.
That said, I generally agree that first past the post is bad and should be gotten rid of.
That said, I generally agree that first past the post is bad and should be gotten rid of.
This isn't hacker news
You're getting downvoted because this article is actually not an example of the NYT's slanted coverage. Don't get me wrong, they've had some shamefully distorted articles (especially the infamous updated Bernie article), but this is just a short data visualization.
The primary reason many people don't vote is one of convenience. If every state allowed early voting online (home or public libraries) and through mail-in ballots we would see a massive increase in participation.
That's only going to happen through strong, reliable, accurate, and verifiable technology.
That's only going to happen through strong, reliable, accurate, and verifiable technology.
As I understand it, everyone could choose nominees (assuming you can hold your nose and join one of the two major US parties), so this isn't really interesting news? The only sad bit from my point of view is the number of disenfranchised felons.
Most state primaries are closed, so you have to register for a particular political party within an appropriate timeframe to be eligible to vote for a potential nominee. Both Ivanka and Eric Trump were too late to register as republicans and vote for their father in the New York primary.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04...
In states that have caucuses it can be fairly tough for people working full-time jobs to attend them. I don't think that represents a large share of the popular vote, but it is a barrier to participation that requires more than holding one's nose to overcome.
That's just an excuse. There is early voting and most, if not all states, legally mandate that a company give time off to employees to go vote.
Many caucuses disallow early voting and require a physical presence.
The poll number timeline of the 2 parties: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/ge...
I don't understand the problem. This is exactly what statistics addresses. Is that 9% a good enough random sample of the entire population, or not? If not, then what is the error 5%, 10%? Actually 9% is a really good sample.
If you were using the primaries as a way of predicting the overall winner, the critical word would be "random".
The statistical idea that a small sample can accurately represent the whole is based on the assumption that the small number are largely indistinguishable from that whole. It's like taking a sample of
In this case, the people voting in primaries are a self-selecting group - people who are both relatively actively engaged with politics and members of one of the two main parties.
It's not unreasonable to think that the wider population (even the wider population of people who normally vote at an election) could behave vastly differently.
For instance, if you had a candidate who was so divisive that they were either loved or hated, then it wouldn't be overly surprising if the vast majority of their supporters had signed up to vote in the primaries, with little support outside of that core. Compare this to a more middle of the road candidate - they might struggle to get as many people out to vote in a primary, but might do far better in the wider population.
That theory is very relevant in the UK at the moment, with the leader of the Labour Party (Jeremy Corbyn) being very popular amongst grassroots party members, but with his enemies saying he could never win a general election as this level of support would never be reflected outside of party supporters.
The statistical idea that a small sample can accurately represent the whole is based on the assumption that the small number are largely indistinguishable from that whole. It's like taking a sample of
In this case, the people voting in primaries are a self-selecting group - people who are both relatively actively engaged with politics and members of one of the two main parties.
It's not unreasonable to think that the wider population (even the wider population of people who normally vote at an election) could behave vastly differently.
For instance, if you had a candidate who was so divisive that they were either loved or hated, then it wouldn't be overly surprising if the vast majority of their supporters had signed up to vote in the primaries, with little support outside of that core. Compare this to a more middle of the road candidate - they might struggle to get as many people out to vote in a primary, but might do far better in the wider population.
That theory is very relevant in the UK at the moment, with the leader of the Labour Party (Jeremy Corbyn) being very popular amongst grassroots party members, but with his enemies saying he could never win a general election as this level of support would never be reflected outside of party supporters.
I don't understand the problem.
This is exactly what statistics addresses.
Is that 9% a good enough random sample of
the entire population, or not?
For a proper bayesian result like you are suggesting participation would have to be randomly decided, and representative proportioinally of demographics (economic background, ethnic, educational, age, etc.), which it isn't.
Voters are more often then not. Old, affluent (I.E.: Can afford to take time off of work to vote, or has a job that permits them to take time off to vote, or have time to research+register for absentee voting), black, educated. Under-educated, immigrant, and younger backgrounds are heavily under represented in the voting process currently, and for most modern records keeping. Furthermore some local governments have laws that discourage particaptation for some ethnic-minorities.
Except I'd venture it would not be a good sample as it's not necessarily very statistically representative of the whole population (ie. random)?
Of whether the people choosing the candidates have to be or even should be statistically representative of the whole population can be argued. The choice of candidates or order on ballots in many countries is decided by various less-than-representative groups.
Of whether the people choosing the candidates have to be or even should be statistically representative of the whole population can be argued. The choice of candidates or order on ballots in many countries is decided by various less-than-representative groups.
> Except I'd venture it would not be a good sample as it's not necessarily very statistically representative of the whole population
That's pure conjecture as the article doesn't address the sample at all. It just basically says "The sample is 9%". It doesn't say why this is bad.
That's pure conjecture as the article doesn't address the sample at all. It just basically says "The sample is 9%". It doesn't say why this is bad.
These 9% were not a random sample.
It's 9% of the most politically active and engaged section of the population. It's not a random cross section of the entirety of the US population.
Certainly there exists a value X where 100-X percent of the population is not engaged at all and is little more than a source of random numbers or demographic counts.
If X is 10% then its an excellent measure of the will of the actively thinking electorate and its not the fault of the statistician that Americans don't care about politics.
If X is 50% or so then there's 4 semi-motivated voters per primary voter which is getting fuzzy.
Note that about 20% of the population vote in non-presidential elections and 50% vote in presidential elections. I'd propose that the delta is due to tradition and heavy social signalling to get out the vote, but that 30% don't really care and absent intense PR activity in support of voting, would not vote. Unfortunately 20% is too high to clearly support the first criteria and 20% is too low to support the second criteria.
I think its really annoying that there is no mathematically trustworthy answer to is 9% enough. Annoyingly its probably good enough to not be ridiculously far off and bad enough to not be correct a significant amount of time.
If X is 10% then its an excellent measure of the will of the actively thinking electorate and its not the fault of the statistician that Americans don't care about politics.
If X is 50% or so then there's 4 semi-motivated voters per primary voter which is getting fuzzy.
Note that about 20% of the population vote in non-presidential elections and 50% vote in presidential elections. I'd propose that the delta is due to tradition and heavy social signalling to get out the vote, but that 30% don't really care and absent intense PR activity in support of voting, would not vote. Unfortunately 20% is too high to clearly support the first criteria and 20% is too low to support the second criteria.
I think its really annoying that there is no mathematically trustworthy answer to is 9% enough. Annoyingly its probably good enough to not be ridiculously far off and bad enough to not be correct a significant amount of time.
It's 9% consisting of the members of two private clubs who have thrown up massive barriers to the participation of people who don't agree with either of their programs and who don't have to be active or engaged to be counted, just to vote correctly. Ideally, I'd think that the parties would want to an even smaller percentage to make the choice for the rest of us. 9% of the population have proved very difficult to wrangle this time around, with a near total failure on one of the sides.
Either that, or the best candidate for president out of 300 million is the wife of the president three terms ago. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton? This has nothing to with issues.
Either that, or the best candidate for president out of 300 million is the wife of the president three terms ago. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton? This has nothing to with issues.
I really doubt that 9% in the primaries looks anything like the general election, which itself probably diverges from a pure population demographic sample (voter ID laws, disenfranchisement, etc)
I didn't know that felons weren't allowed to vote in the US - this was news to me. Looks like it varies by state: http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...
This really shocked me when I found out about it a few years ago.
According to this statistic [1], 2.5 % of the electorate is disenfranchised.
2.5% is a HUGE amount for a 2 party system with elections often being very tight.
This is somewhat less severe due to fellons probably belonging to demographics less inclined to vote, but it's still a large number.
[1] http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...
According to this statistic [1], 2.5 % of the electorate is disenfranchised.
2.5% is a HUGE amount for a 2 party system with elections often being very tight.
This is somewhat less severe due to fellons probably belonging to demographics less inclined to vote, but it's still a large number.
[1] http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...
Less inclined? Felons are disproportionately black and black people overwhelmingly vote democrat. There's a reason the red-states are the ones with the strictest felon-voting regulations: They don't want non-whites voting.
Take a look at the North Carolina Voter ID law that was just overturned if you need additional everyday evidence: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/29/politics/north-carolina-voter-...
Take a look at the North Carolina Voter ID law that was just overturned if you need additional everyday evidence: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/29/politics/north-carolina-voter-...
Felons tend young, poor, and uneducated and adding those together they tend not to vote at all, although you're correct, if they live long enough, get a job, or graduate from school, THEN they'd be in demographic groups that do tend to vote D.
Both of you are more or less correct. OP is correct that they don't vote, you are correct that if they were in a higher social class that did vote they'd tend to vote D.
Most of the R party complaining about D party enfranchisement of felons is just BAU "must oppose anything my opponent does automatically" not an actual existential threat to the R party.
Both of you are more or less correct. OP is correct that they don't vote, you are correct that if they were in a higher social class that did vote they'd tend to vote D.
Most of the R party complaining about D party enfranchisement of felons is just BAU "must oppose anything my opponent does automatically" not an actual existential threat to the R party.
This is especially cruel because it doesn't take much to be labeled a felon in the US.
"The New Jim Crow" is an excellent book on this. There's a chapter about how this disproportionately affects young black men and disenfranchises them.
Just bought this one, excited to start reading it when it arrives.
That plus unlike in other countries convictions don't "expire." Take the UK for example, many convictions fall away after sentence duration + 2-4 years (obviously depends how serious it is, see "Rehabilitation periods for specific sentences" table in the link)[0].
The UK doesn't disenfranchise anyway (only if you're incarcerated can you not vote). But even in a world where the UK did disenfranchise, it would still be a fairer system as we don't hold people's convictions over their head forever.
The US is designed to keep people re-offending. Once you're convicted of a single crime you're effectively damaged goods forever, and have to report it (unless you get it expunged which is far harder if it occurred over 18).
[0] http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/detailedguideroa/
The UK doesn't disenfranchise anyway (only if you're incarcerated can you not vote). But even in a world where the UK did disenfranchise, it would still be a fairer system as we don't hold people's convictions over their head forever.
The US is designed to keep people re-offending. Once you're convicted of a single crime you're effectively damaged goods forever, and have to report it (unless you get it expunged which is far harder if it occurred over 18).
[0] http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/detailedguideroa/
There's a fascinating story in which Terry McAuliffe of Virginia tried to use an executive order to allow the 200,000 felons in Virginia to vote this fall (seen by some as a partisan move for the Democrats, others as restoring voter rights). The courts blocked him, so he instead is granting up to 200,000 individual clemency grants to allow each voter an individual exception.
What astounds me the most is that party membership in the United States is actually very high compared to most other countries (except for India).
Fewer than 200,000 Australians would currently be members of any political party - representing less than 1.5% of the total voters (around 14 million) - and that's being very generous with estimates of party membership figures. Most AFL football clubs would have more members than the major political parties.
Perhaps Australia is too different to compare the United States - compulsory voting (90% turnout this year), shorter campaigns (this year's 8 week campaign was twice as long as usual), elections being held on a weekend, preferential voting (third party votes are still valuable) and the parliamentary system (you never actually vote directly for the leader of the country) obviously result in a very different attitude toward elections and politics.
Fewer than 200,000 Australians would currently be members of any political party - representing less than 1.5% of the total voters (around 14 million) - and that's being very generous with estimates of party membership figures. Most AFL football clubs would have more members than the major political parties.
Perhaps Australia is too different to compare the United States - compulsory voting (90% turnout this year), shorter campaigns (this year's 8 week campaign was twice as long as usual), elections being held on a weekend, preferential voting (third party votes are still valuable) and the parliamentary system (you never actually vote directly for the leader of the country) obviously result in a very different attitude toward elections and politics.
I definitely agree. The article appears to be painting a very dark picture that 91% don't want the candidates.
Where as this is just stating the obvious of what happens in every country that first puts forward a leader of a party that is contending to win the overall election.
Where as this is just stating the obvious of what happens in every country that first puts forward a leader of a party that is contending to win the overall election.
It is quite an interesting time. My liberal friends are all irked because Bernie got hosed by the DNC. My conservative friends are irked because the RNC did not do more to stop Trump. Talk about a role reversal with the party of the people and the party of the establishment.
Personally, I see so many problems with both candidates that it makes me sick that I have to vote for the least worst one.
Personally, I see so many problems with both candidates that it makes me sick that I have to vote for the least worst one.
You don't actually have to vote for the least worst one... I recommend looking to third party candidates. The libertarian party has two pretty solid lineup and polls third at the moment (like 11% or something this election cycle).
That being said, you can also protest vote by putting in "Edward Snowden" or something.
Honestly, I find it horrifying people feel the need to vote for the "least worst option". You're essentially electing a temporary dictator (potentially at least), please don't vote for someone you dislike. Even if you dislike one less than the other, you still dislike them...
Try not to let fear influence you when selecting a leader. A leader needs to guide and protect the group, not be the least bad member of the group.
That being said, you can also protest vote by putting in "Edward Snowden" or something.
Honestly, I find it horrifying people feel the need to vote for the "least worst option". You're essentially electing a temporary dictator (potentially at least), please don't vote for someone you dislike. Even if you dislike one less than the other, you still dislike them...
Try not to let fear influence you when selecting a leader. A leader needs to guide and protect the group, not be the least bad member of the group.
> Honestly, I find it horrifying people feel the need to vote for the "least worst option". You're essentially electing a temporary dictator (potentially at least), please don't vote for someone you dislike. Even if you dislike one less than the other, you still dislike them...
But that's exactly what you have to do in a first past the post system, and especially with the Electoral college. A vote for Jill Stein (assuming Jill Stein doesn't win) that would have otherwise gone to Hillary Clinton if the voter had chosen the 'least worst option' is in effect a vote against Clinton.
With IRV your advice would be good, but that's not how the US system works.
But that's exactly what you have to do in a first past the post system, and especially with the Electoral college. A vote for Jill Stein (assuming Jill Stein doesn't win) that would have otherwise gone to Hillary Clinton if the voter had chosen the 'least worst option' is in effect a vote against Clinton.
With IRV your advice would be good, but that's not how the US system works.
Voting for a third party is pointless. You might as well just stay home if you're going to do that. You might feel better about voting libertarian or writing in Snowden, but it doesn't actually do anything. You're voting as if the system worked differently than it does. It's about as useful and productive as removing all the free() calls from your C code because you think that C really should have garbage collection.
It's not very well known, but if a candidate gets at least 5% of the popular vote then their party gets access to government funding for the next election. 5% is still a pretty tall order (Libertarian party got around 1% in 2012), but it's in the realm of plausibility.
The fact that it's based on the popular vote is great because the Electoral College doesn't get in way. Interestingly, if you live in a state that isn't a swing state, voting third party is possibly more meaningful than voting R or D. For example, if you live in California, voting for Clinton is unnecessary and voting for Trump is pointless, but voting for Stein or Johnson could actually have a real effect.
The fact that it's based on the popular vote is great because the Electoral College doesn't get in way. Interestingly, if you live in a state that isn't a swing state, voting third party is possibly more meaningful than voting R or D. For example, if you live in California, voting for Clinton is unnecessary and voting for Trump is pointless, but voting for Stein or Johnson could actually have a real effect.
Utterly false. If the expectation is the actual election of a third party candiate, then sure that is unrealistic given how the two party system actively supresses third party participation. But voting third party contributes to long term objectives of increasing ballot access, funding, visibility, media attention, and decreasing the two-party share of the vote which thereby decreases the legitimacy of two-party outcomes. These in turn can then pressure other politicians across all branches of government to ensact more inclusive electoral reform.
Voting for the least worst option is the essence of democracy. You make a compromise and find a common ground.
If you want your vote to have any chance of affecting the outcome you have to pick the dem or the gop because one of them will win. Nobody else can afford to win. A lot has to change before our votes really mean anything, and nobody in power has incentive to make those changes.
Sounds like votes don't mean anything one way or the other.
To the sibling who said that voting for a third party accomplishes nothing, that is incorrect. If a third party receives 5% of the overall vote, that party's next presidential candidate becomes eligible to receive about $90M in federal funding for the following election cycle under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.
http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml
Also, why can't I reply to siblings of this post?
http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml
Also, why can't I reply to siblings of this post?
HN delays showing the reply link once conversations get to a certain depth, as a way to slow down the conversation and put a damper on flame wars.
Anyway, I don't see what difference federal funding would make. They're still not going to have a chance at winning or meaningfully affecting the policies of the major parties. In the unlikely event they do manage to win, it's basically mathematically guaranteed that they'll just displace one of the other major parties and we'll be back to a two-party system again. This is, of course, what happened in the mid 19th century when the Republican Party displaced the Whigs. There's no way around it in a first-past-the-post system. If you want third parties to be viable (and I sure do!) then you need electoral reform, not protest votes.
Anyway, I don't see what difference federal funding would make. They're still not going to have a chance at winning or meaningfully affecting the policies of the major parties. In the unlikely event they do manage to win, it's basically mathematically guaranteed that they'll just displace one of the other major parties and we'll be back to a two-party system again. This is, of course, what happened in the mid 19th century when the Republican Party displaced the Whigs. There's no way around it in a first-past-the-post system. If you want third parties to be viable (and I sure do!) then you need electoral reform, not protest votes.
Federal funding would help those candidates get national TV ads and in front of more people in general. Then, with the added legitimacy of a 3rd party with that kind of money to splash around, they would likely be included in more prime time debates and other forms of media coverage. The two incumbent parties would also start to pay attention to the newcomer. It isn't a 4 or 8 year fix, but I believe it would be a major step in the right direction for this country.
So they get some attention, and then they either fade out or take over. Either way, we're back where we started. The problem isn't that third parties don't get enough attention, the problem is that the way the electoral system is designed, there can only be two significant parties. You might change the names of those two parties, but that won't really do much.
In the case of the green party, it's part of their platform to do away with FPTP voting, so potentially no, we wouldn't be back where we started.
> They're still not going to have a chance at winning or meaningfully affecting the policies of the major parties.
A third party doesn't actually don't need to win. If a candidate does not receive a majority in the electoral college I believe the house / congress decides[1]. This would also pretty much destroy both parties - they will have to compromise and come closer to the middle.
[1] http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/a...
A third party doesn't actually don't need to win. If a candidate does not receive a majority in the electoral college I believe the house / congress decides[1]. This would also pretty much destroy both parties - they will have to compromise and come closer to the middle.
[1] http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/a...
The odds of that happening are still basically negligible. And if it did, you'd shake up or destroy the major parties, but then you'd be back to some sort of two-party system pretty much right away, whether with the incumbents or new ones.
The PECF doesn't just blindly give out $90 million dollars; it matches up to $90 million dollars of donations, dollar-for-dollar. The third-party candidate still needs to bring in donations to receive money from the PECF.
That is one aspect of PECF. The other is a grant to the presidential candidate as outlined further down in the page I linked earlier:
PARTY CONVENTION AND GENERAL ELECTION GRANTS The presidential nominee of each major party may become eligible for a public grant of $20,000,000 plus COLA (over 1974). For 2012, the grant was approximately $91,241,400 for each major party nominee. However, the two major party presidential nominees in 2012 opted out of the public financing program in the general election. Candidates themselves may not raise any other funds to be used for campaigning during the general election period. The general election limit for publicly funded candidates for 2016 is $96,140,600.
PARTY CONVENTION AND GENERAL ELECTION GRANTS The presidential nominee of each major party may become eligible for a public grant of $20,000,000 plus COLA (over 1974). For 2012, the grant was approximately $91,241,400 for each major party nominee. However, the two major party presidential nominees in 2012 opted out of the public financing program in the general election. Candidates themselves may not raise any other funds to be used for campaigning during the general election period. The general election limit for publicly funded candidates for 2016 is $96,140,600.
Click on "x minutes ago", reply there.
Please for God's sake don't do this. (Unless you actually believe that Trump and Clinton are equally bad.) With a two-party system, staying home or voting a third-party/write-in is functionally identical to giving half a vote to the candidate who represents you the least.
Yes, this is fucked up, and yes, it needs to change. Voting for Ed Snowden will not change it.
Yes, this is fucked up, and yes, it needs to change. Voting for Ed Snowden will not change it.
Based on past performance, voting will not change it, period. You either have to run for office yourself, donate millions in campaign funding, or work your way up the hierarchy in one of the two major parties.
Given that the maximum involvement most people desire in politics is visiting polling stations to vote twice a year, or maybe volunteering to help campaign for one specific candidate, my advice is to just vote for whomever would make you feel good as you exit the polls.
If you would otherwise stay home, you can still make a meaningful difference by voting for a third party, because there are percentage-of-the-total-vote thresholds (varying by state) that impact whether that party has to overcome a crippling barrier to entry (again) for the next election.
The third-party candidate is not going to win. But you can help prevent that party from being required to collect 50000 signatures (costing them $100000) to get on the ballot next time. If you hate both major candidates, this election is not really your fight, anyway. You can, however, vote for "better luck next time" by making a third party seem more like a serious contender.
Vote for the candidate that most closely reflects your desires. As long as the two major parties can always manipulate voters into "lesser of two evils" and choose between "douche vs. turd sandwich" or "stupid vs. evil", they will never have any incentive to change tactics. Vote for a single-issue party if you support their position. Otherwise, vote Libertarian, Green, or Constitution if you have the option.
Check your state's ballot access laws. It may be a better option to strategically not vote at all for a particular office, such as governor, to reduce the signature burden for ballot access in the next election.
Given that the maximum involvement most people desire in politics is visiting polling stations to vote twice a year, or maybe volunteering to help campaign for one specific candidate, my advice is to just vote for whomever would make you feel good as you exit the polls.
If you would otherwise stay home, you can still make a meaningful difference by voting for a third party, because there are percentage-of-the-total-vote thresholds (varying by state) that impact whether that party has to overcome a crippling barrier to entry (again) for the next election.
The third-party candidate is not going to win. But you can help prevent that party from being required to collect 50000 signatures (costing them $100000) to get on the ballot next time. If you hate both major candidates, this election is not really your fight, anyway. You can, however, vote for "better luck next time" by making a third party seem more like a serious contender.
Vote for the candidate that most closely reflects your desires. As long as the two major parties can always manipulate voters into "lesser of two evils" and choose between "douche vs. turd sandwich" or "stupid vs. evil", they will never have any incentive to change tactics. Vote for a single-issue party if you support their position. Otherwise, vote Libertarian, Green, or Constitution if you have the option.
Check your state's ballot access laws. It may be a better option to strategically not vote at all for a particular office, such as governor, to reduce the signature burden for ballot access in the next election.
I honestly believe Clinton is worst than Trump (I also believe Trump is a patsy put in by Clinton to lose the GOP--but it's backfiring) -- He's too dumb to be president, but she will not do any of the new things she's promised the Bernie camp.. My conscience says to vote Jill Stein, but if not her, then I'm voting Trump -- if I can't save the country by voting for someone who really gives a shit - then I'd rather destroy my old party the democrats and build a new party of progressives in it's stead -- the only way to change the left is to battle it out amongst ourselves first and kickout the establishment. I will not even vote down-ticket for establishment players like Pelosi or Harry Reid - if they backed CLinton before June they're definitely on my shit list.
>Honestly, I find it horrifying people feel the need to vote for the "least worst option".
I think this is highly dependent on "how bad" the two mainstream options are. There are plenty people who think there is a legitimate concern that a Trump presidency could lead to nuclear war or some other kind of national disaster. If you believe this is a real possibility it comes much easier to empathize with voting for the "least bad option".
TL;DR I dislike Regan, but in a Regan vs Hitler election I would vote for Regan rather than a 3rd party I was actually more aligned with to try to ensure Hitler did not rise to power.
I think this is highly dependent on "how bad" the two mainstream options are. There are plenty people who think there is a legitimate concern that a Trump presidency could lead to nuclear war or some other kind of national disaster. If you believe this is a real possibility it comes much easier to empathize with voting for the "least bad option".
TL;DR I dislike Regan, but in a Regan vs Hitler election I would vote for Regan rather than a 3rd party I was actually more aligned with to try to ensure Hitler did not rise to power.
To the other comments here saying voting third party is the worst possible option, no, it's not. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. Furthermore, it's putting a two vote differential between evil and a third party candidate that has to be 'undone' by someone willing to vote third party (-1 third party you didn't vote for, +1 for evil). If you are saying you have to choose between two bad candidates, you are implying you would choose a better option if one existed. If you don't think the third party candidate is a better option, that's fine, don't vote third party, but if you think the major party options are evil, the just don't vote. Then at least you aren't voting for evil that needs to be undone by someone willing to vote third party.
I don't like extending the turn-of-phrase "lesser of two evils" to subsequently label each candidate evil. I realize you're just continue with the phrase, but I bristle a little bit at the implication that major-party voters are voting in an evil.
> If you are saying you have to choose between two bad candidates, you are implying you would choose a better option if one existed.
Well there's a word missing here that changes it. People are not typically implying they would choose a better option if one existed; rather, they are typically implying they would choose a different viable candidate if a different viable candidate existed.
> If you don't think the third party candidate is a better option, that's fine, don't vote third party, but if you think the major party options are evil, the just don't vote.
This is again a suggestion I take umbrage to, and one I feel primarily made by those unlikely to feel the level of personal impact from a given election. Both candidates are the same, unless your voting rights are threatened. Both candidates are the same, unless you're reproductive rights are threatened. Both candidates are the same, unless you depend on food stamps to feed your children and yourself.
Elections have real stakes. It's all well-and-good to take a philosophical stance with a third-party, but that third-party candidate isn't going to win. It's both a self-fulfilling prophecy to say so, and a pragmatic acknowledgement of present-day reality. So, when one of two people will win, and your vote does matter (which isn't a given), then the rational thing to do is vote for the person who you feel will do you the most good or least harm. And everyone that turns their nose up at you for not tilting against windmills can learn to take it easy.
> If you are saying you have to choose between two bad candidates, you are implying you would choose a better option if one existed.
Well there's a word missing here that changes it. People are not typically implying they would choose a better option if one existed; rather, they are typically implying they would choose a different viable candidate if a different viable candidate existed.
> If you don't think the third party candidate is a better option, that's fine, don't vote third party, but if you think the major party options are evil, the just don't vote.
This is again a suggestion I take umbrage to, and one I feel primarily made by those unlikely to feel the level of personal impact from a given election. Both candidates are the same, unless your voting rights are threatened. Both candidates are the same, unless you're reproductive rights are threatened. Both candidates are the same, unless you depend on food stamps to feed your children and yourself.
Elections have real stakes. It's all well-and-good to take a philosophical stance with a third-party, but that third-party candidate isn't going to win. It's both a self-fulfilling prophecy to say so, and a pragmatic acknowledgement of present-day reality. So, when one of two people will win, and your vote does matter (which isn't a given), then the rational thing to do is vote for the person who you feel will do you the most good or least harm. And everyone that turns their nose up at you for not tilting against windmills can learn to take it easy.
Your argument basically revolves around two points. One is that if you feel one candidate represents your views, then you need to vote for that candidate. That's absolutely, 100% fine and what you should do! I am speaking to the people who don't find their views fit with either candidate, or the negatives outweigh the positives so much, that they feel they are not given a real choice, which is not really true. The second point you are trying to make is saying that you should only vote for a viable candidate, which is like saying you should only cheer for a sports team that has a viable chance of winning a championship. That's ridiculous, and just passive aggressive bullying to get people to feel they need to vote for a candidate you support. People should be free to vote with their hearts for whomever they feel best represents their interests. If the candidate they vote for loses, fine, that's the democratic process, and has a 50% chance of happening anyways if you vote for a 'viable' candidate. If someone feels they have to vote for the candidate who is going to win, that's something more akin to countries like Venezuela or Iran, where there are elections, but we all know how much choice people are actually given in those places.
> One is that if you feel one candidate represents your views, then you need to vote for that candidate.
That is not what I said, though I don't necessarily disagree. I am making the argument that voting is a self-interested exercise one way or the other; even voting for the "greater good" is an exercise in personal self-interest. So if you evaluate the two candidates who have any chance of winning and find a significant difference in how you and your peers' lives will be affected, then it's rational to vote for one of those candidates even if your views align better to a non-viable third-party candidate.
> The second point you are trying to make is saying that you should only vote for a viable candidate
No, that is again not what I am saying or have said. You're inferring something I'm not implying. Everyone should vote how they want to vote. What I don't like is the philosophical grandstanding about how if one doesn't really like either candidate that they should not vote or vote third-party, or that voting third-party or abstaining is some symbol of moral strength or "rightness."
It's easy to laud the nobility of voting third party or abstaining, futility of outcome or not, when you view the outcome of either viable candidate as basically equivalent. But they aren't equivalent, especially to certain subgroups of people. You specifically encouraged people not to vote for "evil candidates"; if you meant the word "evil" literally then fine, ignore this. But I don't think you did, and therefore I found your suggestion quite distasteful.
That is not what I said, though I don't necessarily disagree. I am making the argument that voting is a self-interested exercise one way or the other; even voting for the "greater good" is an exercise in personal self-interest. So if you evaluate the two candidates who have any chance of winning and find a significant difference in how you and your peers' lives will be affected, then it's rational to vote for one of those candidates even if your views align better to a non-viable third-party candidate.
> The second point you are trying to make is saying that you should only vote for a viable candidate
No, that is again not what I am saying or have said. You're inferring something I'm not implying. Everyone should vote how they want to vote. What I don't like is the philosophical grandstanding about how if one doesn't really like either candidate that they should not vote or vote third-party, or that voting third-party or abstaining is some symbol of moral strength or "rightness."
It's easy to laud the nobility of voting third party or abstaining, futility of outcome or not, when you view the outcome of either viable candidate as basically equivalent. But they aren't equivalent, especially to certain subgroups of people. You specifically encouraged people not to vote for "evil candidates"; if you meant the word "evil" literally then fine, ignore this. But I don't think you did, and therefore I found your suggestion quite distasteful.
That's an interesting concept and I'd extend it by saying that one vote for least-worst requires the efforts of two third-party voters to compensate; one just to cancel-out and one to compensate for the lost 'potential' of the original voter.
Two words: Nash Equilibrium.
> Honestly, I find it horrifying people feel the need to vote for the "least worst option".
I find it disconcerting that one could use such hyperbolic language when voting for the "least worst" option is clearly the rational thing to do when there are direct, personal stakes from the *outcome. The ramifications to minorities by electing a very conservative Republican, or a pretend-Conservative who is a not-pretend racist like Trump, are quite significant. By doing anything, by action or inaction, to put Trump in the White House, there is a substantial risk of reduced voting access for minority voters. For poor voters, there is a substantial risk of losing the social safety net. For women, a likely increase in barriers to reproductive health.
No, you don't have to vote for the least-bad option. But we all know that a third-party candidate is not going to win the election. You're expressing at horror that people with skin in the game, where the stakes are quite high (or seem to be), are unwilling to make a political and philosophical stand at the expense of their own best interests. Until there is some level of voting system reform, we're likely stuck with first-past-the-post system that encourages two-party rule.
Of course I think you should vote for a third-party candidate if you want to. It's your vote! Maybe it'll lead to funding for their campaign next time. But I take great umbrage with the disgust and horror shown to people acting pragmatically because of what a third-party vote may lead to for them.
I find it disconcerting that one could use such hyperbolic language when voting for the "least worst" option is clearly the rational thing to do when there are direct, personal stakes from the *outcome. The ramifications to minorities by electing a very conservative Republican, or a pretend-Conservative who is a not-pretend racist like Trump, are quite significant. By doing anything, by action or inaction, to put Trump in the White House, there is a substantial risk of reduced voting access for minority voters. For poor voters, there is a substantial risk of losing the social safety net. For women, a likely increase in barriers to reproductive health.
No, you don't have to vote for the least-bad option. But we all know that a third-party candidate is not going to win the election. You're expressing at horror that people with skin in the game, where the stakes are quite high (or seem to be), are unwilling to make a political and philosophical stand at the expense of their own best interests. Until there is some level of voting system reform, we're likely stuck with first-past-the-post system that encourages two-party rule.
Of course I think you should vote for a third-party candidate if you want to. It's your vote! Maybe it'll lead to funding for their campaign next time. But I take great umbrage with the disgust and horror shown to people acting pragmatically because of what a third-party vote may lead to for them.
I said it elsewhere so I am going to repost it:
> But we all know that a third-party candidate is not going to win the election.
A third party doesn't actually don't need to win. If a candidate does not receive a majority in the electoral college I believe the house / congress decides[1]. This would also pretty much destroy both parties - they will have to compromise and come closer to the middle.
Basically, if a third party can get even 15% of the vote it would open the door for another candidate.
[1] http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/a...
> But we all know that a third-party candidate is not going to win the election.
A third party doesn't actually don't need to win. If a candidate does not receive a majority in the electoral college I believe the house / congress decides[1]. This would also pretty much destroy both parties - they will have to compromise and come closer to the middle.
Basically, if a third party can get even 15% of the vote it would open the door for another candidate.
[1] http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/a...
> A third party doesn't actually don't need to win. If a candidate does not receive a majority in the electoral college I believe the house / congress decides[1].
(1) a third party is unlikely, in failing to win, to get even a single electoral vote, much less be instrumental in denying the leading major-party candidate a majority.
(2) If no candidate gets an electoral majority for the Presidency, the House elects a President on a one-vote per state basis (and if they don't do it by a specified time, the Vice President becomes President); if no candidate gets an electoral majority for the Vice Presidency, the Senate elects a Vice President.
> This would also pretty much destroy both parties - they will have to compromise and come closer to the middle.
Why would it destroy both major parties -- particularly the one that still wins the Presidency in that scenario?
> Basically, if a third party can get even 15% of the vote it would open the door for another candidate.
No, it wouldn't. We know that, because its happened, not that many elections ago (H. Ross Perot, 18.9% in 1992.)
(1) a third party is unlikely, in failing to win, to get even a single electoral vote, much less be instrumental in denying the leading major-party candidate a majority.
(2) If no candidate gets an electoral majority for the Presidency, the House elects a President on a one-vote per state basis (and if they don't do it by a specified time, the Vice President becomes President); if no candidate gets an electoral majority for the Vice Presidency, the Senate elects a Vice President.
> This would also pretty much destroy both parties - they will have to compromise and come closer to the middle.
Why would it destroy both major parties -- particularly the one that still wins the Presidency in that scenario?
> Basically, if a third party can get even 15% of the vote it would open the door for another candidate.
No, it wouldn't. We know that, because its happened, not that many elections ago (H. Ross Perot, 18.9% in 1992.)
So you're ignoring the self-implosion of the Reform Party (after it's takeover by Pat Buchanan) as a factor to their not being re-elected?
You're also ignoring all the changes made to election rules since Perot (all made to prevent such a strong showing again)?
You're also ignoring all the changes made to election rules since Perot (all made to prevent such a strong showing again)?
Fine, swap an impossible reality for a slightly-less-impossible reality. I feel just as confident saying "a third-party will not keep a candidate from winning the electoral college" as I do saying "a third-party candidate will not win the election." Third-party candidates do not siphon votes equally from the two major parties, they typically just make it easier for one to beat the other. I think it more likely that a third-party candidate could get as much as 30% of the popular vote without winning a single electoral vote.
So, you're arguing for the real-world version of Douglas Adams' "Wrong Lizard"[0] parable?
0. http://www.writingsonthewall.net/the-wrong-lizard
0. http://www.writingsonthewall.net/the-wrong-lizard
No. But to someone who argues otherwise, I'd imagine there would be no dissuading them of that.
Elections aren't thought experiments. The parable humorously expresses what so many third-party evangelists express: that the candidates are basically equivalent to each other, or equally bad. I find that position distastefully incorrect, or at the very least naively spoken from a position of privilege.
Elections aren't thought experiments, the results will have tangible and long-lasting results. I'm not personally willing to sacrifice some of the issues I perceive to be at stake this election on the altar of a third-party candidate who cannot win. If you are, then great! It's your vote, do with it as you please. It's the moral smugness that usually accompanies the position that bothers me, as if voting for a viable candidate is either irrational or barely moral.
Elections aren't thought experiments. The parable humorously expresses what so many third-party evangelists express: that the candidates are basically equivalent to each other, or equally bad. I find that position distastefully incorrect, or at the very least naively spoken from a position of privilege.
Elections aren't thought experiments, the results will have tangible and long-lasting results. I'm not personally willing to sacrifice some of the issues I perceive to be at stake this election on the altar of a third-party candidate who cannot win. If you are, then great! It's your vote, do with it as you please. It's the moral smugness that usually accompanies the position that bothers me, as if voting for a viable candidate is either irrational or barely moral.
You say "no". but spend the rest of your reply contradicting that statement, with the rationale that "elections matter". Unless you really think Clinton or Trump isn't a lesser evil, you can see why the "Wrong Lizard" parable applies directly to this case.
Predictable, and predicted. Read it how you want. The parable isn't a fair comparison because the candidates are not equivalent, much less equivalently "evil." I strongly believe arguing otherwise is only done from a place of privilege.
Further, the "Wrong Lizard" parable is a parable of collective-created system. I'm an individual acting within in a moment where the reality is already defined, as are all other individual voters. It's problematic to apply collective-level critiques to individual behaviors because what is less sensible at the collective-level is fully sensible at the individual-level.
But, again, see what you want to see. If it makes you feel like you've got the high ground or something it's no skin off my back.
Further, the "Wrong Lizard" parable is a parable of collective-created system. I'm an individual acting within in a moment where the reality is already defined, as are all other individual voters. It's problematic to apply collective-level critiques to individual behaviors because what is less sensible at the collective-level is fully sensible at the individual-level.
But, again, see what you want to see. If it makes you feel like you've got the high ground or something it's no skin off my back.
FYI, Edward Snowden is too young to qualify for president of the US, at least in this election season.
I plan on holding my nose voting for whoever I think can beat Trump. If you want somewhere to channel your political energies, channel it into getting Instant Runoff Voting in your state. Or some other non-plurality based voting system.
We really need some way where people can vote conscience without spoiling.
We really need some way where people can vote conscience without spoiling.
> You don't actually have to vote for the least worst one... I recommend looking to third party candidates.
For any individual voter, under most scenarios that end up existing at the time of casting a ballot on election day in the electoral system like that of the US, while any single vote is unlikely to have an effect on the outcome, the most likely nonzero effect of a third party vote vs. voting for the least disfavored major candidate is to elect the most disfavored major party candidate.
If you don't like the major candidate, its certainly makes sense to promote a third party candidate so that the calculus on election day is different than normal and it becomes rational for people to vote for a third party candidate (at which point, that "third-party" will have become, for the purpose of the election, one of the two major parties, displacing one of the previous ones for which it will no longer be rational to vote, for the same reason it normally is not for a third party), but it makes less sense to actually vote for a third-party candidate when that transformation of circumstances has not taken place before the election.
For any individual voter, under most scenarios that end up existing at the time of casting a ballot on election day in the electoral system like that of the US, while any single vote is unlikely to have an effect on the outcome, the most likely nonzero effect of a third party vote vs. voting for the least disfavored major candidate is to elect the most disfavored major party candidate.
If you don't like the major candidate, its certainly makes sense to promote a third party candidate so that the calculus on election day is different than normal and it becomes rational for people to vote for a third party candidate (at which point, that "third-party" will have become, for the purpose of the election, one of the two major parties, displacing one of the previous ones for which it will no longer be rational to vote, for the same reason it normally is not for a third party), but it makes less sense to actually vote for a third-party candidate when that transformation of circumstances has not taken place before the election.
Adult life is an unending series of choosing the "least worst option."
I'd like to do whatever I want with my time. But I have to pay for things, and I'm not independently wealthy, so I seek the least worst job I can get.
I'd like to live in a perfect house in a perfect neighborhood, but I haven't found that yet so I chose to buy the least worst house/neighborhood combo I could find and afford.
I'd like to have no commute, but I need to be in the office to work, so I have to find the least worst way to get too and from work.
I'd like to be in shape, but because I don't have time to play outside all day (my preferred form of exercise), I have to pursue concentrated exercise sessions. I try to find the least worst way to work out enough to maintain the least worst level of fitness.
Now, you might say that's a limiting and negative way to look at things like jobs, homes, exercise, etc. To which I would say it's also a silly way to look at elections.
I'd like to do whatever I want with my time. But I have to pay for things, and I'm not independently wealthy, so I seek the least worst job I can get.
I'd like to live in a perfect house in a perfect neighborhood, but I haven't found that yet so I chose to buy the least worst house/neighborhood combo I could find and afford.
I'd like to have no commute, but I need to be in the office to work, so I have to find the least worst way to get too and from work.
I'd like to be in shape, but because I don't have time to play outside all day (my preferred form of exercise), I have to pursue concentrated exercise sessions. I try to find the least worst way to work out enough to maintain the least worst level of fitness.
Now, you might say that's a limiting and negative way to look at things like jobs, homes, exercise, etc. To which I would say it's also a silly way to look at elections.
I very much agree with you. Voting for one of the republicrat candidates might have short term gains (e.g., possibility of having Trump as president, if you dislike him), neither party, nor our elected representatives, reflects many issues that people say they care about in nationals and local polls.
I see voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson as being a long term play.
I see voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson as being a long term play.
People aren't upset that the DNC was against Bernie, they're upset that they were against Bernie while telling the public they were neutral to solicit donations. I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds like felony wire fraud to me.
> it makes me sick that I have to vote for the least worst one.
Perhaps you should vote for someone else then.
Perhaps you should vote for someone else then.
“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more
rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had
the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing
anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people
are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the
lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a
democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously
obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've
all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the
government they've voted in more or less approximates to
the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford,
"the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
― Douglas Adams, So Long, and Thanks for All the FishYes I think that this election was just completely dominated by marketing/advertising. There seems to be no substance behind it at all. I don't think people really had the opportunity to hear about Bernie Sanders and other more worthy candidates.
As a foreigner not living in the US (but following the process nevertheless) I hardly even heard about Bernie Sanders until he lost the candidacy to Hillary Clinton - After that, I did a bit of research on him and he actually seemed like the perfect candidate to solve the US's current problems - If I could, I would definitely have voted for him.
Maybe it was different inside the US, but from outside, almost no one would even recognize the name "Bernie Sanders" because he just wasn't given any attention in the media.
If the media doesn't give you a balanced description of what your options are, how can you even vote?
This is downright corruption - Just as wrong as the kind that happens China, only a lot more sophisticated.
As a foreigner not living in the US (but following the process nevertheless) I hardly even heard about Bernie Sanders until he lost the candidacy to Hillary Clinton - After that, I did a bit of research on him and he actually seemed like the perfect candidate to solve the US's current problems - If I could, I would definitely have voted for him.
Maybe it was different inside the US, but from outside, almost no one would even recognize the name "Bernie Sanders" because he just wasn't given any attention in the media.
If the media doesn't give you a balanced description of what your options are, how can you even vote?
This is downright corruption - Just as wrong as the kind that happens China, only a lot more sophisticated.
Why do you feel you have to vote for one of the two?
I just had a small debate about this with some friends of mine. Let's imagine you live in a battleground state, and for the sake of argument, let's also assume that you're in one of the 48 states that are "winner take all" in that they assign all of their electoral college votes to the overall popular vote winner in that state.
Say that state is Ohio. In 2012, the popular vote in Ohio was as follows (Source: Politico):
B. Obama 50.1%
M. Romney 48.2%
G. Johnson 0.9%
J. Stein 0.3%
Let's say you're much more aligned with the Green Party platform. Why wouldn't you vote for Jill Stein?
The answer is because your vote would likely otherwise go to Barack Obama, as the next closest candidate. So you're taking a vote away from Obama and putting it toward a candidate that has no chance of winning.
If enough people do this, the second place candidate would win, in this case Mitt Romney. As a Green supporter, this would likely be the worst case scenario result. And yet, unintuitive as it is, your vote contributed to the candidate on the opposite side winning.
"But if enough people voted Green, they would win," some cry. OK. Historically speaking, the Greens have averaged around this result... likely no more than 3% in any given state election. Do you really think that they're going to multiply their votes by several orders of magnitude by election day?
This isn't the case in every electoral system; for example, in a Parliamentary system such as Canada's, you vote for your local MP, who runs on the basis of a riding, for which there are usually several within a city. The party that wins the most MP seats gets to form a government (PM, etc.) So the election becomes a much more local affair, rather than being a winner-take-all battle among the entire province, and results in practice in a multi-party system. Unfortunately, that's just not how US presidential elections work. The ridings are the size of an entire state, so your vote has less of an impact.
Say that state is Ohio. In 2012, the popular vote in Ohio was as follows (Source: Politico):
B. Obama 50.1%
M. Romney 48.2%
G. Johnson 0.9%
J. Stein 0.3%
Let's say you're much more aligned with the Green Party platform. Why wouldn't you vote for Jill Stein?
The answer is because your vote would likely otherwise go to Barack Obama, as the next closest candidate. So you're taking a vote away from Obama and putting it toward a candidate that has no chance of winning.
If enough people do this, the second place candidate would win, in this case Mitt Romney. As a Green supporter, this would likely be the worst case scenario result. And yet, unintuitive as it is, your vote contributed to the candidate on the opposite side winning.
"But if enough people voted Green, they would win," some cry. OK. Historically speaking, the Greens have averaged around this result... likely no more than 3% in any given state election. Do you really think that they're going to multiply their votes by several orders of magnitude by election day?
This isn't the case in every electoral system; for example, in a Parliamentary system such as Canada's, you vote for your local MP, who runs on the basis of a riding, for which there are usually several within a city. The party that wins the most MP seats gets to form a government (PM, etc.) So the election becomes a much more local affair, rather than being a winner-take-all battle among the entire province, and results in practice in a multi-party system. Unfortunately, that's just not how US presidential elections work. The ridings are the size of an entire state, so your vote has less of an impact.
The problem with strategic voting arguments are several:
1) There is a clear value to voting Green in terms of building the party. The more people vote Green, the more visible the success of the party, the better they do in future elections. Not all of what happens in an election need be about winning the current contest.
2) The idea of a linear political spectrum with candidates neatly arranged from 'good' to 'worse' to 'bad' is bunkum. In particular Libertarians are an obvious divergence from this model (and often emphasize this), and this strategic voting argument makes zero sense in their case. Greens also are generally quite different from Democrats ideologically (notably on war); the idea that a Democrat is a 'better compromise' is vulgar to many.
3) If a party wants your votes, generally they should take up the positions you favor, not refuse to countenance them on the belief that duty requires you to vote for them.
4) Mitt Romney is looking pretty good right now, even compared to Clinton.
1) There is a clear value to voting Green in terms of building the party. The more people vote Green, the more visible the success of the party, the better they do in future elections. Not all of what happens in an election need be about winning the current contest.
2) The idea of a linear political spectrum with candidates neatly arranged from 'good' to 'worse' to 'bad' is bunkum. In particular Libertarians are an obvious divergence from this model (and often emphasize this), and this strategic voting argument makes zero sense in their case. Greens also are generally quite different from Democrats ideologically (notably on war); the idea that a Democrat is a 'better compromise' is vulgar to many.
3) If a party wants your votes, generally they should take up the positions you favor, not refuse to countenance them on the belief that duty requires you to vote for them.
4) Mitt Romney is looking pretty good right now, even compared to Clinton.
2) Answering first to set up some points. Political beliefs can't be neatly arranged on a linear spectrum, but certainly far fewer people who might really prefer Green are going to instead settle for Trump. I agree that it's less clear about the Libertarian party, as they seem to draw a bit from "both ends of the spectrum", but I think it's safe to say that the Green party isn't spoiling things for the GOP to the same extent that they are for the Dems.
1) I agree that there is value in building strong third parties, but that value comes at the cost of the risk of the spoiler effect as I described. If presidential elections happened every year, or if there was a bigger push from the bottom (State and Legislative elections) to elect more third parties, then maybe the risk would be worth it to establish the base, but that's not the case, and a President can do a lot of damage in 4 years.
3) I think both Trump and Bernie have demonstrated a more viable way to accomplish that this election. Both have moved the Overton Window in a direction that the entrenched party candidates were unwilling to prior to this election. For example, Bernie pushed the Dem platform adopt "raise the minimum wage to $12, or maybe more", when they weren't strongly pushing for it prior.
4) I think that 2016 Romney sounds pretty good, but pandering 2012 Romney still sounds pretty awful. Similarly 2000 McCain sounds great in retrospect, but 2008 or even 2016 McCain sounds pretty awful as well.
1) I agree that there is value in building strong third parties, but that value comes at the cost of the risk of the spoiler effect as I described. If presidential elections happened every year, or if there was a bigger push from the bottom (State and Legislative elections) to elect more third parties, then maybe the risk would be worth it to establish the base, but that's not the case, and a President can do a lot of damage in 4 years.
3) I think both Trump and Bernie have demonstrated a more viable way to accomplish that this election. Both have moved the Overton Window in a direction that the entrenched party candidates were unwilling to prior to this election. For example, Bernie pushed the Dem platform adopt "raise the minimum wage to $12, or maybe more", when they weren't strongly pushing for it prior.
4) I think that 2016 Romney sounds pretty good, but pandering 2012 Romney still sounds pretty awful. Similarly 2000 McCain sounds great in retrospect, but 2008 or even 2016 McCain sounds pretty awful as well.
I object to the whole term 'spoiler'. These people are not obliged to vote for you if they believe you to be the devil incarnate. For many the alternative to voting Democrat would be to not vote. Is this, also, unacceptable? Nay, any who doesn't vote to stop the dread spectre of Trump and advance the rule of Clinton is a traitor?
My feeling on Clinton is that she, and many of the other people in government, are horrifying murderers and traitors. Obama has two main roles: fundraise for the Democrats and sell weapons to Saudi Arabia. Clinton has been paid millions of dollars by Goldman Sachs, a company that had a major hand in constructing the housing bubble whose bursting blanked $24 trillion in wealth from America.
I am just giving you a bare illustration of my disagreements with Clinton. I held my nose and voted for Sanders in the primary. I probably won't even vote for Jill Stein. There is no way for someone like me to even begin to express my antipathy to the current form of American political process and system of government.
To many people like me, you are asking them to vote for Al Capone because John Wayne Gacy is worse.
Perhaps you think people like me don't matter. But the truth is there are probably a lot of people like me. And there are probably a lot of people of a similar bent on the right (though with different stories for why we should hate and fear the same elites). And this political system doesn't reflect our desires, and, as you're arguing in this thread, by design it cannot; it seems lunatic to me to attempt to engage with it.
So, I won't be voting Clinton, nor Trump. But I am not a spoiler; the barrel is fully rotten.
My feeling on Clinton is that she, and many of the other people in government, are horrifying murderers and traitors. Obama has two main roles: fundraise for the Democrats and sell weapons to Saudi Arabia. Clinton has been paid millions of dollars by Goldman Sachs, a company that had a major hand in constructing the housing bubble whose bursting blanked $24 trillion in wealth from America.
I am just giving you a bare illustration of my disagreements with Clinton. I held my nose and voted for Sanders in the primary. I probably won't even vote for Jill Stein. There is no way for someone like me to even begin to express my antipathy to the current form of American political process and system of government.
To many people like me, you are asking them to vote for Al Capone because John Wayne Gacy is worse.
Perhaps you think people like me don't matter. But the truth is there are probably a lot of people like me. And there are probably a lot of people of a similar bent on the right (though with different stories for why we should hate and fear the same elites). And this political system doesn't reflect our desires, and, as you're arguing in this thread, by design it cannot; it seems lunatic to me to attempt to engage with it.
So, I won't be voting Clinton, nor Trump. But I am not a spoiler; the barrel is fully rotten.
I am the one that originally asked the question, and my views are very much in line with yours. I left the US three years ago, largely out of utter contempt for the American political establishment, and what I consider to be genocidal foreign policy compelled by war profiteering.
I am normally quite chatty about this and other political topics online, but tonight I'm out of energy -- so thank you for summing up how I feel so well!
I am normally quite chatty about this and other political topics online, but tonight I'm out of energy -- so thank you for summing up how I feel so well!
I'm not trying to argue that you should never vote third party. If you are so ideologically opposed to the Democratic and Republican platforms that you truly see no difference between them in terms of the success of their governance, then sure, vote for a third party.
I don't personally think that way, and I believe there would be a huge difference between a Clinton and a Trump presidency, so I will vote strategically because I want to have an impact on the real election happening here, that between the two front-runners.
I don't personally think that way, and I believe there would be a huge difference between a Clinton and a Trump presidency, so I will vote strategically because I want to have an impact on the real election happening here, that between the two front-runners.
> 1) There is a clear value to voting Green in terms of building the party. The more people vote Green, the more visible the success of the party, the better they do in future elections. Not all of what happens in an election need be about winning the current contest.
That makes sense in the abstract. In concrete reality, Trump is going to do his best to persecute hundreds of thousands of Americans, notably Hispanics and Arabs. (I don't say "Muslims" because I don't think his policies, or the people carrying them out, will recognize a functional distinction.) Shall we tell those people as they're being persecuted and deported that their suffering is okay, because they're contributing to the Greens possibly having a chance at winning in 20 years?
I don't think we can reasonably ask that of people.
That makes sense in the abstract. In concrete reality, Trump is going to do his best to persecute hundreds of thousands of Americans, notably Hispanics and Arabs. (I don't say "Muslims" because I don't think his policies, or the people carrying them out, will recognize a functional distinction.) Shall we tell those people as they're being persecuted and deported that their suffering is okay, because they're contributing to the Greens possibly having a chance at winning in 20 years?
I don't think we can reasonably ask that of people.
This is exactly the same thing we hear every election. You can't climb a hill if you don't ever try to go up.
Of course I don't believe in elections so this whole debate is academic to me. In a world with ALEC and WPP, elections have nothing to do with governance.
Of course I don't believe in elections so this whole debate is academic to me. In a world with ALEC and WPP, elections have nothing to do with governance.
Presumably you're not Hispanic or Arab, so you don't have much to be afraid of personally? It's easy to tell other people to sacrifice for your goals.
I'm Indian, though not Muslim, but certainly frequently mistaken as such by racists. One of my close friends is a Muslim with three daughters she fears for daily. I have much to fear for personally.
But the idea that we have nothing to fear except Trump is bullshit. Trump didn't bring us here. Bush, Clinton and Obama did. Fifteen years of terror and violence in the Mideast did. Actually sixty years if you want.
I fought hard to stop the Iraq war that Clinton voted for. She has nothing to be afraid of personally. I've been afraid too long.
But the idea that we have nothing to fear except Trump is bullshit. Trump didn't bring us here. Bush, Clinton and Obama did. Fifteen years of terror and violence in the Mideast did. Actually sixty years if you want.
I fought hard to stop the Iraq war that Clinton voted for. She has nothing to be afraid of personally. I've been afraid too long.
You could say the same of Syrians and Libyans, who would have undoubtedly enjoyed a better fate under a 2012 Jill Stein presidency.
You have unstated assumptions embedded in your post.
You are not taking a vote away from Obama when you vote for Stein. It is far more likely that Obama is actually taking votes away from Stein, as Green party supporters vote strategically, because their 2nd choice is better than their 3rd or 4th choice.
Until such time as any US state implements a ranked-choice voting system, you have no way of knowing whether the candidate receiving the vote is actually someone's first choice, or a strategic vote for the second-to-last choice.
First-past-the-post voting essentially means that the 2 major parties are always stealing away almost all the votes that would have otherwise been cast for lesser parties. So a vote for Stein is actually "refusing to let Democrats steal your Green vote". You can't steal it away from the Democrats, because it wasn't theirs to begin with.
You are not taking a vote away from Obama when you vote for Stein. It is far more likely that Obama is actually taking votes away from Stein, as Green party supporters vote strategically, because their 2nd choice is better than their 3rd or 4th choice.
Until such time as any US state implements a ranked-choice voting system, you have no way of knowing whether the candidate receiving the vote is actually someone's first choice, or a strategic vote for the second-to-last choice.
First-past-the-post voting essentially means that the 2 major parties are always stealing away almost all the votes that would have otherwise been cast for lesser parties. So a vote for Stein is actually "refusing to let Democrats steal your Green vote". You can't steal it away from the Democrats, because it wasn't theirs to begin with.
This strategy makes sense in battleground states but what about in the opposite case (say hawaii (very D) or wyoming (very R)) - I'd argue that by voting for the third party candidate is the better option as you are unlikely to change the outcome of the election one way or the other - but you reduce the mandate of the winner that you are less aligned with, and by marginally improving the showing of the third party, make it more likely that mainstream candidates will want to address issues of concern to a newly visible voting block?
I would agree that it matters less in non-battleground states, and could have the effects mentioned. This, in general, causes one of the two parties to absorb some of the causes put forward by the third party, which is one of the reasons the system tends to centralize toward two parties.
To a degree, this has already happened. Some planks of Clinton's platform came directly from Sanders (I'm thinking of revamping college tuition and enhancing other social safety nets specifically).
Sanders is not a "third party", but a Democratic candidate. The effect unsuccessful major party campaigns have an on the major party despite failing to secure the nomination is a different issue than the effect of third parties on major parties.
Exactly. The general third party and independent share of the vote is a metric that should be tracked more visibly.
> This isn't the case in every electoral system; for example, in a Parliamentary system such as Canada's, you vote for your local MP, who runs on the basis of a riding, for which there are usually several within a city. The party that wins the most MP seats gets to form a government (PM, etc.) So the election becomes a much more local affair, rather than being a winner-take-all battle among the entire province, and results in practice in a multi-party system.
Parliamentary systems with FPTP also tend toward two-party systems locally, though there is somewhat more variation nationally sometimes. (The US also had some variation nationally, especially before the Missouri Farmer-Labor Party joined the national Democratic Party.)
IF you want multiparty elections locally as well as nationally -- if you want more than two meaningful choices when you go into the ballot box -- you need something better than FPTP as a voting system (IRV with single-seat constituencies is like the smallest and least meaningful step in a positive direction, but STV with multiseat constituencies does better.)
Parliamentary systems with FPTP also tend toward two-party systems locally, though there is somewhat more variation nationally sometimes. (The US also had some variation nationally, especially before the Missouri Farmer-Labor Party joined the national Democratic Party.)
IF you want multiparty elections locally as well as nationally -- if you want more than two meaningful choices when you go into the ballot box -- you need something better than FPTP as a voting system (IRV with single-seat constituencies is like the smallest and least meaningful step in a positive direction, but STV with multiseat constituencies does better.)
Agreed, and I would love to move to a more proportional voting system. Ontario had a vote a while back to move to mixed-member proportional but the folks behind it failed to explain it well enough for people to understand, in my opinion, so it failed.
> As a Green supporter, this would likely be the worst case scenario result.
Confined to a single election. I have a theory that lately we're seeing the longer-term consequences of limiting agency to large sections of the population.
Confined to a single election. I have a theory that lately we're seeing the longer-term consequences of limiting agency to large sections of the population.
The problem has more to do with the mechanics of plurality voting than presidential vs parliamentary systems. Parliamentary systems can and are subject to the same winner take all mechanics. The scenario you outline would best be remedied via a ranked voting method such as IRV or approval voting. The one thing I would incorporate from some parliamentary systems into the US system is proportional representation. PR + IRV = more equitable representation of non-gamified votes.
Spot on analysis. I tend to go with a concrete example: Florida in 2000.
537 votes. That was the official difference between Bush and Gore in Florida, out of almost 6 million votes cast. Nearly 100,000 people voted for Nader.
These Nader supporters of course had every right to vote how they wanted, but the prevailing argument at the time by Nader was that there was essentially no difference between Gore and Bush and it was time to send a message to the "establishment."
However you feel about Bush, I think history makes it plain that 1) there was likely a huge difference between a Bush and a potential Gore presidency, and 2) while it may be nice to simply send a message with your vote, we should remember that 0.0000895% of the electorate of a single state can determine the outcome.
These Nader supporters of course had every right to vote how they wanted, but the prevailing argument at the time by Nader was that there was essentially no difference between Gore and Bush and it was time to send a message to the "establishment."
However you feel about Bush, I think history makes it plain that 1) there was likely a huge difference between a Bush and a potential Gore presidency, and 2) while it may be nice to simply send a message with your vote, we should remember that 0.0000895% of the electorate of a single state can determine the outcome.
Right. I've engaged in a couple of such discussions on reddit. To say I'm unhappy with the two major candidates would be a huge understatement.
But no matter how strong our emotions are about such things, should be extremely clear-headed about what our vote means. And, the point I try to hammer home, that we each need to take full responsibility for the result of our vote.
If you want to vote to 'let the world burn', as quite a few Bernie supporters are talking, so be it.
If you want to vote to 'send a message', so be it.
If things go very badly after November, then you're not allowed to say "my vote didn't really matter" or "I had no choice but to vote the way I did."
Own your vote; make it, and accept responsibility for your portion of the outcome.
537 out of 100,000 Nader voters in 2000 changed the world, and not in a good way, in my strongly held opinion at least.
But no matter how strong our emotions are about such things, should be extremely clear-headed about what our vote means. And, the point I try to hammer home, that we each need to take full responsibility for the result of our vote.
If you want to vote to 'let the world burn', as quite a few Bernie supporters are talking, so be it.
If you want to vote to 'send a message', so be it.
If things go very badly after November, then you're not allowed to say "my vote didn't really matter" or "I had no choice but to vote the way I did."
Own your vote; make it, and accept responsibility for your portion of the outcome.
537 out of 100,000 Nader voters in 2000 changed the world, and not in a good way, in my strongly held opinion at least.
AKA: The Problem with First-Past-The-Post Voting
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Great explanation that I didn't have time to type up myself below. Thanks!
Because in the U.S. electoral system, voting outside of the two primary candidates selected by the system is effectively a wasted vote, and if there is one candidate you especially don't want, it is usually more effective to vote against them rather than for a candidate who cannot win under the system in place.
A third-party vote is wasted in the context of the current election. It is definitely not wasted in terms of ballot access and public credibility for the subsequent elections.
If you don't expect to die before the next election, it is never a waste to vote for the option closest to what you actually want.
If you are always voting between your worst choice and your second-worst choice, it may be wiser to reconsider strategic voting altogether, and just pick what you want every time.
If you don't expect to die before the next election, it is never a waste to vote for the option closest to what you actually want.
If you are always voting between your worst choice and your second-worst choice, it may be wiser to reconsider strategic voting altogether, and just pick what you want every time.
>
A third-party vote is wasted in the context of the current election. It is definitely not wasted in terms of ballot access and public credibility for the subsequent elections.
I think there is a pair of words reversed here: it is not definitely wasted in terms of ballot access and public credibility for subsequent elections (that is, it is possible for it to have some impact on those things), but its most likely also wasted for those purposes, so "definitely not" is not accurate.
I think there is a pair of words reversed here: it is not definitely wasted in terms of ballot access and public credibility for subsequent elections (that is, it is possible for it to have some impact on those things), but its most likely also wasted for those purposes, so "definitely not" is not accurate.
I don't understand why you are being downvoted. You are pointing out the biggest issue with the current political system in the US. It's de-facto a two party system. We could fix this by making it either a parliamentary system or changing the voting method to approval voting. With approval voting we wouldn't even need a primary and neither Trump nor Hilary would be anywhere near the Whitehouse, since they both had negative approval ratings during the primary.
Do you though? There are more than 2 candidates...
Of all of the candidates only two have a chance of winning. If I vote for someone other than those two, the one that I think is the worst may get elected.
This perspective is self-fulfilling. Vote for your best candidate, Dr. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are real candidates, and could win, just like Bernie Sanders (which no one expected).
We need to force the two parties to loosen their grip on the political machine in the US. The only way we do that is by supporting third party candidates.
If you want to vote Green, go convince a conservative to vote Libertarian. I did this just last week in PA, a conservative that I don't agree with is completely upset about Trump and is going to vote for Gary Johnson.
We need to force the two parties to loosen their grip on the political machine in the US. The only way we do that is by supporting third party candidates.
If you want to vote Green, go convince a conservative to vote Libertarian. I did this just last week in PA, a conservative that I don't agree with is completely upset about Trump and is going to vote for Gary Johnson.
> We need to force the two parties to loosen their grip on the political machine in the US. The only way we do that is by supporting third party candidates.
May I suggest that you guys explore elections reform as an option to get fresh faces on the political stage and rejuvenate the whole political process?
May I suggest that you guys explore elections reform as an option to get fresh faces on the political stage and rejuvenate the whole political process?
What better way to do that then make the two primary parties afraid of losing ground to third parties?
In a race where two third party candidates can siphon votes off the two primary parties, it's finally in the interests of the main parties to move towards something like Ranked Choice.
In a race where two third party candidates can siphon votes off the two primary parties, it's finally in the interests of the main parties to move towards something like Ranked Choice.
>This perspective is self-fulfilling.
Unless you can massively convince everyone to do vote for their actual best candidate, it's also very pragmatic.
From experience from other countries, the way shifts that allow a third party/candidate break a "duopoly" happen is slowly -- they incresingly get 5, 10, 15% of the vote, until a momentum builds and people start (rightly) feeling than voting for them doesn't just waste their vote and lets their least favorite of the 2 major candidates elected.
Unless you can massively convince everyone to do vote for their actual best candidate, it's also very pragmatic.
From experience from other countries, the way shifts that allow a third party/candidate break a "duopoly" happen is slowly -- they incresingly get 5, 10, 15% of the vote, until a momentum builds and people start (rightly) feeling than voting for them doesn't just waste their vote and lets their least favorite of the 2 major candidates elected.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/28985...
This is the year to do it. There is enough general dissatisfaction with the two parties that there is an opening for both the Green and Libertarian Parties to actually do something that's never been done before.
Which instead of spoiling one major party (Perot and Nader), they would spoil both.
Your wasting your vote if you don't use it to vote your mind.
This is the year to do it. There is enough general dissatisfaction with the two parties that there is an opening for both the Green and Libertarian Parties to actually do something that's never been done before.
Which instead of spoiling one major party (Perot and Nader), they would spoil both.
Your wasting your vote if you don't use it to vote your mind.
The perspective may well be self-fulfilling, but it's a perspective held by nearly all voters, so it will self-fulfill whether or not I personally believe it.
Yes, if the entire electorate would just wake up and realize they can vote for anyone they want, then it would no longer be a two-party system. And if a benevolent immortal dictator spontaneously materialized in the White House, we wouldn't need to mess about with this democracy nonsense at all anymore. The second one is not substantially less likely to happen than the first, so it's pointless to consider.
Yes, if the entire electorate would just wake up and realize they can vote for anyone they want, then it would no longer be a two-party system. And if a benevolent immortal dictator spontaneously materialized in the White House, we wouldn't need to mess about with this democracy nonsense at all anymore. The second one is not substantially less likely to happen than the first, so it's pointless to consider.
The odds of you vote changing that is tiny. IMO, convincing others to vote for a 3rd party is a bad idea, but voting for them is just as 'meaningless' as any other vote in terms of changing who win. However, the power of voting is in the message not just who wins.
Defacto third party's scare the primary party's so they are quick to gain the talking points as soon as those party gain any traction. Most recently Libertarian message was somewhat co opted by Tea Party Republicans. Though in a very mutated form that for example ignored their drug stance.
Defacto third party's scare the primary party's so they are quick to gain the talking points as soon as those party gain any traction. Most recently Libertarian message was somewhat co opted by Tea Party Republicans. Though in a very mutated form that for example ignored their drug stance.
Here's a suggestion, for you and everyone suggesting you don't vote: Get over it.
(Content intended for voters in a US-style FPTP system. Mileage in IRV and other systems may vary.)
No one will see your vote. The structure of elections is not such that you can state your ideals. The question is about your preference for the actual outcome of the contest.
In programming terms, you're not being asked to return the largest integer; you're given a choice of two integers, and asked to return the larger. It doesn't matter if neither one looks objectively "large"-- refusing to return anything will not help this algorithm generate larger numbers.
Maybe it's a stupid algorithm, but that's not relevant, either.
To stay HN-neutral I'll leave this generic, though it really isn't: Regardless of your feelings about the candidates in this election in an objective sense, you should have a strong dispreference for one candidate under the other. In a proper decision theory, that should translate into a strong relative preference for the other candidate to be the actual winner of the contest.
That doesn't mean you support them absolutely, or morally. It just means you're voting in line with rather than against your true preference for outcome.
And that should translate into strong support in the voting booth, though of course that doesn't and shouldn't have to translate into strong support in public opinion.
If you don't vote for the candidate you strongly relatively prefer because your absolute preference for them is low -- you don't want to send a message that "this candidate is objectively good" -- you are using a different protocol than the election, and what will be received is "the relative preference for this candidate is fairly low". What you should expect is for the election to perceive that you support your dispreferred candidate significantly more than you actually do.
And that's what should make you sick.
(Content intended for voters in a US-style FPTP system. Mileage in IRV and other systems may vary.)
No one will see your vote. The structure of elections is not such that you can state your ideals. The question is about your preference for the actual outcome of the contest.
In programming terms, you're not being asked to return the largest integer; you're given a choice of two integers, and asked to return the larger. It doesn't matter if neither one looks objectively "large"-- refusing to return anything will not help this algorithm generate larger numbers.
Maybe it's a stupid algorithm, but that's not relevant, either.
To stay HN-neutral I'll leave this generic, though it really isn't: Regardless of your feelings about the candidates in this election in an objective sense, you should have a strong dispreference for one candidate under the other. In a proper decision theory, that should translate into a strong relative preference for the other candidate to be the actual winner of the contest.
That doesn't mean you support them absolutely, or morally. It just means you're voting in line with rather than against your true preference for outcome.
And that should translate into strong support in the voting booth, though of course that doesn't and shouldn't have to translate into strong support in public opinion.
If you don't vote for the candidate you strongly relatively prefer because your absolute preference for them is low -- you don't want to send a message that "this candidate is objectively good" -- you are using a different protocol than the election, and what will be received is "the relative preference for this candidate is fairly low". What you should expect is for the election to perceive that you support your dispreferred candidate significantly more than you actually do.
And that's what should make you sick.
There's another option (though scantily mentioned and likely unpopular): not voting at all. At least then you won't bare any responsible for putting a Trump or Clinton in the White House.
[deleted]
>sick that I have to vote for the least worst one.
Of course you dont, There are 2 Other people on the ballot in Most states given you 4 options.
I personally will be voting for Gary Johnson this year. (as i did in 2012)
Of course you dont, There are 2 Other people on the ballot in Most states given you 4 options.
I personally will be voting for Gary Johnson this year. (as i did in 2012)
We really ought to shift to a rank based voting system where you can list your first choice, second choice, third etc. (Which Jill Stein wants to implement btw.) This system would reflect the average of preferences and the best candidates would emerge.
There's no way Trump would have secured the Republican nomination in a rank based voting system because he is so polarizing. Instead they'd probably have Kasich, who was everyone's second best.
Do your liberal friends know about this? https://citizensagainstplutocracy.wordpress.com/
> Talk about a role reversal with the party of the people and the party of the establishment
I follow you up to here. The Democratic party has always been for centralized control of policy decisions.
> My conservative friends are irked because the RNC did not do more to stop Trump.
Mine don't really care about the party leadership. They are irked at the other primary voters more than the party leaders. Rubio, Paul, and Cruz were Tea Party candidates, so considering them establishment and voting for Trump screams ignorance more than anything.
I follow you up to here. The Democratic party has always been for centralized control of policy decisions.
> My conservative friends are irked because the RNC did not do more to stop Trump.
Mine don't really care about the party leadership. They are irked at the other primary voters more than the party leaders. Rubio, Paul, and Cruz were Tea Party candidates, so considering them establishment and voting for Trump screams ignorance more than anything.
You may certainly boycott the farce— among other options.
[deleted]
How many people in the UK chose Theresa May as Prime Minister?
The same number who voted for Gerald Ford.
How many people have chosen any Prime Minister of the UK? Its just their constituents that vote for them, so ~50000 people at most.
You don't need to be a member of the commons to be prime minister though, you could be a peer instead, so you don't need to have constituents.
Only in theory. No recent PM hasn't also been an MP (last one was 1830–1903, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil).
I cannot imagine in this day and age that someone would be selected as PM without also being an MP. Now, I can imagine them losing their MP seat during their term as PM and staying on.
The Tories and Labour know that the way the PM is selected isn't exactly Democratic, and they know that if they were to select someone who hasn't had a single vote that would be politically disastrous and likely result in a change to the way PMs are even selected.
The UK's whole political system only works because of mass voter apathy and ignorance (see the AV vote for examples).
I cannot imagine in this day and age that someone would be selected as PM without also being an MP. Now, I can imagine them losing their MP seat during their term as PM and staying on.
The Tories and Labour know that the way the PM is selected isn't exactly Democratic, and they know that if they were to select someone who hasn't had a single vote that would be politically disastrous and likely result in a change to the way PMs are even selected.
The UK's whole political system only works because of mass voter apathy and ignorance (see the AV vote for examples).
Unless this is an argument for literally direct democracy why do we need to vote separately for the prime minister? Do you want to vote for every minister individually? There are more than a hundred so it may take a while. Instead, we elect a representative, who groups together with like-minded representatives to form a government and run the country. Keep it simple.
I think in UK politics talking about apathy and ignorance is often a nice way to talk about other people's ignorance of your better opinions, and their apathy for your better ideas.
I think in UK politics talking about apathy and ignorance is often a nice way to talk about other people's ignorance of your better opinions, and their apathy for your better ideas.
> Unless this is an argument for literally direct democracy why do we need to vote separately for the prime minister? Do you want to vote for every minister individually? There are more than a hundred so it may take a while.
This is a textbook example of a "False Dilemma"-type fallacy. Either don't vote for the PM or vote for "more than a hundred" ministers. Those aren't the only two options and you know that.
A vote for a PM could, implicitly, be a vote for the ministers that the PM would select. You select the PM, the PM selects their ministers and cabinet, that gives the public more Democratic power.
> I think in UK politics talking about apathy and ignorance is often a nice way to talk about other people's ignorance of your better opinions, and their apathy for your better ideas.
Three quarters of people 'cannot name their local MP'[0].
[0] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-22555659
This is a textbook example of a "False Dilemma"-type fallacy. Either don't vote for the PM or vote for "more than a hundred" ministers. Those aren't the only two options and you know that.
A vote for a PM could, implicitly, be a vote for the ministers that the PM would select. You select the PM, the PM selects their ministers and cabinet, that gives the public more Democratic power.
> I think in UK politics talking about apathy and ignorance is often a nice way to talk about other people's ignorance of your better opinions, and their apathy for your better ideas.
Three quarters of people 'cannot name their local MP'[0].
[0] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-22555659
> A vote for a PM could, implicitly, be a vote for the ministers that the PM would select. You select the PM, the PM selects their ministers and cabinet, that gives the public more Democratic power.
That's called a 'presidential system'.
That's called a 'presidential system'.
Well I didn't actually present any dilemma - you're imagining that. I just asked if you thought we should also vote for all other ministers to see how many votes you thought we should have. I didn't say those were the only two options.
I'm in favour of regularly electing a representative and then letting them get on with it. I favour simplicity and I think too many votes on different issues gets in the way of a coherent government.
If people can't name their MP then that's their business. Perhaps they're focusing their time and energy on something they believe is more important. Maybe they're curing cancer while we argue politics. Who knows.
I'm in favour of regularly electing a representative and then letting them get on with it. I favour simplicity and I think too many votes on different issues gets in the way of a coherent government.
If people can't name their MP then that's their business. Perhaps they're focusing their time and energy on something they believe is more important. Maybe they're curing cancer while we argue politics. Who knows.
Membership choose the leader of a party and would have done so in the Tory party had Leadsom not dropped out.
My pint is that far less than 9% of the U.K. Chose any given prime minister or had the opportunity to.
According to the polls, it's more like 60-65%. Only somewhat fewer than 70-80% would be willing to vote for either, and less than half of those who would vote for either candidate are voting in support of that candidate, rather than in disgust with the other one.
The picture is dark. Voters are choosing between dynastic plutocracy and a carnival barker.
The picture is dark. Voters are choosing between dynastic plutocracy and a carnival barker.
91% are not engaged supporters of the two candidates that were nominated. Each nominee can claim no more than 9% of the population as having demonstrated engagement with their campaign.
In addition to that it should be pointed out that the number of engaged voters who voted for a different candidate for nomination is almost as large as the number of engaged voters who voted for the winning nominee.
There is a fundamental problem with the nominating process. Neither nominee has solid ground to claim that they represent the preferences of anything besides a small fraction of the electorate.
In addition to that it should be pointed out that the number of engaged voters who voted for a different candidate for nomination is almost as large as the number of engaged voters who voted for the winning nominee.
There is a fundamental problem with the nominating process. Neither nominee has solid ground to claim that they represent the preferences of anything besides a small fraction of the electorate.
It's a problem in the current context of how U.S. elections work, where those 91% of the people feel "forced" into voting one of these two parties or candidates, even though 50% of them are registered Independent.
If the U.S. electoral system easily allowed for other parties to exist and thrive (such as with a proportional representation voting system for Congress, which drastically increases how well people are represented in Congress, and could lead to much less "gridlock") then this wouldn't be an issue. Because those 91% of the people could easily ignore the Democratic and Republican candidates if they were terrible (which seems to be the case this year), and just vote for another party's candidate in the general election.
And they could very much still do that. The problem is there's both a legal and unofficial collusion between the two main parties to control the elections in various ways (such as making the rules for who gets to debate), and between them and the media, who normally completely ignore other candidates, and don't treat them nearly as fairly, so their chances greatly diminish.
There are a lot of things that could be done to fix this. But people need to support politicians willing to overhaul this system.
Larry Lessig (on who the DNC changed the rules mid-game so he doesn't get to make his case in a debate) had some great ideas [1], and so does the Green Party [2].
Jill Stein also supports ranked choice voting, and I believe multi-winner ranked choice voting, too, which is a form of proportional representation [3].
Unfortunately, you're not going to hear about all of these ideas from a media that has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and you'd have to rely heavily on the Internet and social media to grow this movement (and do it before Google/Facebook/Twitter start ramping up their censorship to help their favorite candidates, as we've already started seeing them do).
[1] https://lessig2016.us/the-plan/
[2] http://www.gp.org/democracy#demFreeSpeech
[3] http://www.fairvote.org/proportional_representation
If the U.S. electoral system easily allowed for other parties to exist and thrive (such as with a proportional representation voting system for Congress, which drastically increases how well people are represented in Congress, and could lead to much less "gridlock") then this wouldn't be an issue. Because those 91% of the people could easily ignore the Democratic and Republican candidates if they were terrible (which seems to be the case this year), and just vote for another party's candidate in the general election.
And they could very much still do that. The problem is there's both a legal and unofficial collusion between the two main parties to control the elections in various ways (such as making the rules for who gets to debate), and between them and the media, who normally completely ignore other candidates, and don't treat them nearly as fairly, so their chances greatly diminish.
There are a lot of things that could be done to fix this. But people need to support politicians willing to overhaul this system.
Larry Lessig (on who the DNC changed the rules mid-game so he doesn't get to make his case in a debate) had some great ideas [1], and so does the Green Party [2].
Jill Stein also supports ranked choice voting, and I believe multi-winner ranked choice voting, too, which is a form of proportional representation [3].
Unfortunately, you're not going to hear about all of these ideas from a media that has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and you'd have to rely heavily on the Internet and social media to grow this movement (and do it before Google/Facebook/Twitter start ramping up their censorship to help their favorite candidates, as we've already started seeing them do).
[1] https://lessig2016.us/the-plan/
[2] http://www.gp.org/democracy#demFreeSpeech
[3] http://www.fairvote.org/proportional_representation
> Because those 91% of the people could easily ignore the Democratic and Republican candidates if they were terrible (which seems to be the case this year), and just vote for another party's candidate in the general election.
Israel had proportional voting with a 1% electoral threshold (given there are 120 seats in the Knesset it's almost the natural threshold). They eventually raised the threshold more and more (3.25% now I think) because of the hyper-fragmentation which meant niche parties holding the coalition hostage.
The degree to which a given electoral system represents voter preferences is highly election-specific. People are also usually not polled on their detailed preferences so it's hard to empirically determine which one is most likely to maximize the representation of voter preferences in a given country.
Also the complexity of optimal voting strategies across electoral systems is different. An argument can be made that the simplest is the best. Say last year in Poland the mainstream consensus was that there's going to be a big coalition of all the parties against the biggest one. But some of the minority parties under-performed while the big one overperfomed giving the big one majority rule with just 37.58% of votes. If you'd redo the elections even the same week you'd probably end up with a much different result.
Israel had proportional voting with a 1% electoral threshold (given there are 120 seats in the Knesset it's almost the natural threshold). They eventually raised the threshold more and more (3.25% now I think) because of the hyper-fragmentation which meant niche parties holding the coalition hostage.
The degree to which a given electoral system represents voter preferences is highly election-specific. People are also usually not polled on their detailed preferences so it's hard to empirically determine which one is most likely to maximize the representation of voter preferences in a given country.
Also the complexity of optimal voting strategies across electoral systems is different. An argument can be made that the simplest is the best. Say last year in Poland the mainstream consensus was that there's going to be a big coalition of all the parties against the biggest one. But some of the minority parties under-performed while the big one overperfomed giving the big one majority rule with just 37.58% of votes. If you'd redo the elections even the same week you'd probably end up with a much different result.
In Australia or the UK, you can run without being a billionaire, and legislators who aren't members of major parties still have influence (sometimes disproportionate) on who is chosen as head of state.
> you can run without being a billionaire
It sure helps though, for example Clive Palmer in Aus in 2013.
> legislators who aren't members of major parties still have influence (sometimes disproportionate) on who is chosen as head of state.
Australia and the UK still have the same monarch, so the head of state is not chosen by anyone in either country - but if you mean the Prime Minister, then you are correct.
It sure helps though, for example Clive Palmer in Aus in 2013.
> legislators who aren't members of major parties still have influence (sometimes disproportionate) on who is chosen as head of state.
Australia and the UK still have the same monarch, so the head of state is not chosen by anyone in either country - but if you mean the Prime Minister, then you are correct.
I most of the reason is that in a lot of countries, you don't get as much choice in who leads the country. The prime ministerial candidate isn't chosen by a primary, and the PM can be deposed by parliament without much trouble (as we've seen with Australia).
In New Zealand, you're considered a bit of a loon if you're a card holding party member. I think that a lot more of the population is flexible in who they vote for as well. An MP told me once that 1/3 of voters are independent.
In New Zealand, you're considered a bit of a loon if you're a card holding party member. I think that a lot more of the population is flexible in who they vote for as well. An MP told me once that 1/3 of voters are independent.
> The prime ministerial candidate isn't chosen by a primary
Depends on the party. None of them have three or four months of primaries like America, but the Labour Party in the UK and the Labor Party in Australia both have the whole membership voting for the leader now. Others only have elected party members voting (equivalent to US super delegates).
> In New Zealand, you're considered a bit of a loon if you're a card holding party member. I think that a lot more of the population is flexible in who they vote for as well. An MP told me once that 1/3 of voters are independent.
I'd agree to an extent with Australia as well. Those who are party members are, in my experience, older, well connected within the community, more upper class and often involved in some sort of non-partisan activism. Unless someone is trying to be elected, they do avoid showing their colours.
Depends on the party. None of them have three or four months of primaries like America, but the Labour Party in the UK and the Labor Party in Australia both have the whole membership voting for the leader now. Others only have elected party members voting (equivalent to US super delegates).
> In New Zealand, you're considered a bit of a loon if you're a card holding party member. I think that a lot more of the population is flexible in who they vote for as well. An MP told me once that 1/3 of voters are independent.
I'd agree to an extent with Australia as well. Those who are party members are, in my experience, older, well connected within the community, more upper class and often involved in some sort of non-partisan activism. Unless someone is trying to be elected, they do avoid showing their colours.
I don't see how this would be different from any other election with new candidates from both parties.
I was sort of thinking the same thing - though more about how I hope they extend this visualization to past presidential elections.
the implication is that given interest / participation of a greater percent of the population, the candidates would be different. unlikely.
Our voting system really needs to change, it's completely absurd that it hasn't just moved to a weekend or received special treatment as holidays.
Both solutions are less effective than mail in ballots, online voting, or extending the vote duration (e.g. 7 days).
People just bring up a "voting holiday" because they want an extra holiday. The reality is that many people would use the holiday to relax, go out of town, or get stuff done and voting percentage wouldn't improve.
Ditto with weekends. People go out of town on the weekends, do you think they're going to stop because of a pesky vote? Even if they did for one year word would quickly spread that that is a "quiet" weekend and everyone would go for that reason.
If you really want to improve voting: Drive through voting, like McDonald's, that takes the same amount of time as McDonald's to do, and that you have a seven day week within which to do. Literally make it a 5 minute job where you don't even need to exit your vehicle.
People might scoff at that, call it lazy, but people ARE lazy. They want minimum hassle, minimum time, and maximum value. That's why drive-through places even exist.
People just bring up a "voting holiday" because they want an extra holiday. The reality is that many people would use the holiday to relax, go out of town, or get stuff done and voting percentage wouldn't improve.
Ditto with weekends. People go out of town on the weekends, do you think they're going to stop because of a pesky vote? Even if they did for one year word would quickly spread that that is a "quiet" weekend and everyone would go for that reason.
If you really want to improve voting: Drive through voting, like McDonald's, that takes the same amount of time as McDonald's to do, and that you have a seven day week within which to do. Literally make it a 5 minute job where you don't even need to exit your vehicle.
People might scoff at that, call it lazy, but people ARE lazy. They want minimum hassle, minimum time, and maximum value. That's why drive-through places even exist.
Good points. A 7-day duration would be hopefully flexible enough with everyone and would be the most easy to implement.
> People might scoff at that, call it lazy, but people ARE lazy.
Or they're just tired because they have two part time jobs (while looking for something more regular), kids, and a pile of chores they've been putting off.
Or they're just tired because they have two part time jobs (while looking for something more regular), kids, and a pile of chores they've been putting off.
I think what's absurd is that we have a highly polarized political landscape that combined wit the voting system leads to a two party system. That could be easily changed by switching to approval voting. Neither Hilary nor Trump would be close to being viable candidates, since they both had bad approval ratings. As it is now everyone is just voting against the candidate they are most scared of.
What's even more absurd is that the actual votes are being counted on a per-state basis. If someone where to design the system from scratch nowadays nobody would even come up with a system that dumb. Just count all the votes. What's the point of involving states at all in a federal election? It shouldn't matter in a federal election if I live in California or Georgia. It's absurd that it does!
What's even more absurd is that the actual votes are being counted on a per-state basis. If someone where to design the system from scratch nowadays nobody would even come up with a system that dumb. Just count all the votes. What's the point of involving states at all in a federal election? It shouldn't matter in a federal election if I live in California or Georgia. It's absurd that it does!
The polarized political landscape is probably a result of the voting system though. In a winner take it all systems, you can get a vote at "any cost" since you won't have to make any coalition later.
The only thing in favor of the system is that it creates a clear winner, proportional systems might be more fair, but if parties fail to create a majority coalition you are back to square one.
An ideal system might need to mix these two approaches (and some other like vote ranking, lists, etc)
The only thing in favor of the system is that it creates a clear winner, proportional systems might be more fair, but if parties fail to create a majority coalition you are back to square one.
An ideal system might need to mix these two approaches (and some other like vote ranking, lists, etc)
OR and WA are exclusively vote by mail. It's really convenient.
I agree!
If I recall, employers are required to allow some time-off during the day for people to vote. Practically, however, this doesn't happen because a: some districts don't have nearly enough polling places and staff, resulting in hours-long wait times (around where I live, I've never had this problem, but it's a real issue in other (often more poverty-stricken) areas), and b: not many low-wage workers are willing to 'rock the boat' with their employer and would rather just not vote than face any hassle or retaliation.
At the very least, we need smoother process where people can go to their city hall and vote over a period of a week or so, or vote by mail/online
If I recall, employers are required to allow some time-off during the day for people to vote. Practically, however, this doesn't happen because a: some districts don't have nearly enough polling places and staff, resulting in hours-long wait times (around where I live, I've never had this problem, but it's a real issue in other (often more poverty-stricken) areas), and b: not many low-wage workers are willing to 'rock the boat' with their employer and would rather just not vote than face any hassle or retaliation.
At the very least, we need smoother process where people can go to their city hall and vote over a period of a week or so, or vote by mail/online
It depends on the state. Some allow early voting and some encourage voting by mail which is pretty convenient. It will have to be up to the states because the federal government is pretty strictly disallowed from interfering with how the elections are run.
Almost every state allows for early voting, and some like CA allow permanent voting by mail selection.
Do this on some weekend. Before the election date, why wait for the actual Election Day at all?
Do this on some weekend. Before the election date, why wait for the actual Election Day at all?
pretty good piece on some possible changes
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12202705
Theoretically this isn't an issue as this is just two political parties choosing the candidate that want to support for the general election. Political parties may choose their candidate however they like; they could pick a name from a hat if they wanted to. The issue is these two parties are so entrenched in the government as to essentially be legitimized as the only viable parties.
On a side note: I think this page is really well done.
It's rare that that much (programming) effort is put into a simple newspaper article.
Anyone agree?
It's rare that that much (programming) effort is put into a simple newspaper article.
Anyone agree?
Definitely, although the New York Times develops a lot more than other newspapers do: http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/category/interactive/
They are one of the few newspapers that can possibly afford it, I guess.
Definitely the best I've seen in any online news media websites.
Their election tracker and real-time update of votes in the primaries were very well done.
Even the summary after the vote looks neat:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary...
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/california
After some digging, found out they have open-sourced this library:
https://github.com/sjwilliams/scrollstory
MIT license, so we can use it for ourselves!
Their election tracker and real-time update of votes in the primaries were very well done.
Even the summary after the vote looks neat:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary...
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/california
After some digging, found out they have open-sourced this library:
https://github.com/sjwilliams/scrollstory
MIT license, so we can use it for ourselves!
I also really enjoyed the presentation of the information. The information was presented gradually in an easily digestible format.
I don't see a problem. They are the Republican and Democratic party candidates. The members of those parties can nominate whomever they want. There's nothing in the constitution that says anything about how political parties chose their candidates. Primaries didn't always exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_pri...
Monopolies are considered to be very bad in business, as they use their leverage to prevent competition and stifle innovation, ending up with negative consequences for the public. Monopolies in politics are far worse for the public, especially when the system is set up to make it nearly impossible for any other parties to break through. The First Past the Post voting system leads to monopolies (or a duopoly in this case).
I don't understand how business monopolies are considered bad, but political monopolies, which strongly affect the lives of over 300 million people who have little choice, are OK.
I don't understand how business monopolies are considered bad, but political monopolies, which strongly affect the lives of over 300 million people who have little choice, are OK.
>I don't see a problem. They are the Republican and Democratic party candidates. The members of those parties can nominate whomever they want.
If there's no legal constraint on how the parties select candidates for office, why should the parties have a legal monopoly on ballot-line presence?
If there's no legal constraint on how the parties select candidates for office, why should the parties have a legal monopoly on ballot-line presence?
> why should the parties have a legal monopoly on ballot-line presence
I didn't think they did. Do they? Can't anyone apply to be on the ballot as long as they demonstrate a reasonable level of support?
I didn't think they did. Do they? Can't anyone apply to be on the ballot as long as they demonstrate a reasonable level of support?
>Can't anyone apply to be on the ballot as long as they demonstrate a reasonable level of support?
Yes, but the two parties don't have to demonstrate that level of support. That is, they don't actually have to send organizers to every district to gather N signatures to get their candidate on the ballot. They're just on it, without investing even the proportionally smaller effort.
Yes, but the two parties don't have to demonstrate that level of support. That is, they don't actually have to send organizers to every district to gather N signatures to get their candidate on the ballot. They're just on it, without investing even the proportionally smaller effort.
Yes, but the parties allegedly have used the legal system to harm other candidates' efforts at ballot access:
> In 2004, Democratic operatives were especially zealous in their efforts against my campaign. They hired private investigators to harass my campaign’s petition circulators in their homes in Ohio and Oregon and falsely threatened them with criminal prosecution for fake names that saboteurs had signed on their petitions, according to sworn affidavits from the workers and letters containing threats that were presented in court. Our petitions were also disqualified on arbitrary grounds: In Ohio, complaints submitted in court and to the office of the Secretary of State by groups of Democratic voters led officials there to invalidate our petitions. They disqualified hundreds of signatures on one list, for instance, because of a discrepancy involving the petition circulator’s signature. In Oregon, Democratic Secretary of State Bill Bradbury retroactively applied certain rules in a way that suddenly rendered our previously compliant petitions invalid.
> Democrats and their allies (some later reimbursed by the DNC, according to both campaign finance reports and a party official in Maine who testified under oath) enlisted more than 90 lawyers from more than 50 law firms to file 29 complaints against my campaign in 18 states and with the Federal Election Commission for the express purpose of using the cost and delay of litigation to drain our resources. “We wanted to neutralize his campaign by forcing him to spend money and resources defending these things,” operative Toby Moffett told The Washington Post in 2004.
> Democrats falsely accused my campaign of fraud in state after state. In Pennsylvania, they forced us off the ballot after challenging more than 30,000 signatures on spurious technical grounds. My running mate, Peter Camejo, and I were ordered to pay more than $81,000 in litigation costs the plaintiffs, a group of Democratic voters, said they incurred. In an effort to collect, their law firm, Reed Smith ,which the DNC also hired in that cycle, froze my personal accounts at several banks for eight years. A criminal prosecution by the state attorney general later revealed that Pennsylvania House Democrats had, illegally at taxpayer expense, prepared the complaints against our campaign, and several people were convicted of related felonies. A federal court in Pennsylvania ultimately struck down the state law used against me that had led to the order that I pay the litigation costs. But Reed Smith was still allowed to keep $34,000 it withdrew from my accounts, because state courts wouldn’t let me present evidence that could have permitted me to recover the money.
By Ralph Nader https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/25/...
> In 2004, Democratic operatives were especially zealous in their efforts against my campaign. They hired private investigators to harass my campaign’s petition circulators in their homes in Ohio and Oregon and falsely threatened them with criminal prosecution for fake names that saboteurs had signed on their petitions, according to sworn affidavits from the workers and letters containing threats that were presented in court. Our petitions were also disqualified on arbitrary grounds: In Ohio, complaints submitted in court and to the office of the Secretary of State by groups of Democratic voters led officials there to invalidate our petitions. They disqualified hundreds of signatures on one list, for instance, because of a discrepancy involving the petition circulator’s signature. In Oregon, Democratic Secretary of State Bill Bradbury retroactively applied certain rules in a way that suddenly rendered our previously compliant petitions invalid.
> Democrats and their allies (some later reimbursed by the DNC, according to both campaign finance reports and a party official in Maine who testified under oath) enlisted more than 90 lawyers from more than 50 law firms to file 29 complaints against my campaign in 18 states and with the Federal Election Commission for the express purpose of using the cost and delay of litigation to drain our resources. “We wanted to neutralize his campaign by forcing him to spend money and resources defending these things,” operative Toby Moffett told The Washington Post in 2004.
> Democrats falsely accused my campaign of fraud in state after state. In Pennsylvania, they forced us off the ballot after challenging more than 30,000 signatures on spurious technical grounds. My running mate, Peter Camejo, and I were ordered to pay more than $81,000 in litigation costs the plaintiffs, a group of Democratic voters, said they incurred. In an effort to collect, their law firm, Reed Smith ,which the DNC also hired in that cycle, froze my personal accounts at several banks for eight years. A criminal prosecution by the state attorney general later revealed that Pennsylvania House Democrats had, illegally at taxpayer expense, prepared the complaints against our campaign, and several people were convicted of related felonies. A federal court in Pennsylvania ultimately struck down the state law used against me that had led to the order that I pay the litigation costs. But Reed Smith was still allowed to keep $34,000 it withdrew from my accounts, because state courts wouldn’t let me present evidence that could have permitted me to recover the money.
By Ralph Nader https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/25/...
Right well that does sound like unfair behaviour, but it's not a legally enforced monopoly is it? Which is what was claimed.
I mean, apart from how they used (abused) the legal system to ensure their monopoly on voters continued, no there is no legally enforced monopoly...
I think 'legal monopoly' implies that there is some legal ruling which enforces the monopoly. You said yourself that what they are doing is an abuse. Just because it involves lawyers doesn't make it 'legal'.
But ultimately the fact that there are independents on ballot papers proves clearly that there is no monopoly, legal or otherwise, by any definition at all.
But ultimately the fact that there are independents on ballot papers proves clearly that there is no monopoly, legal or otherwise, by any definition at all.
That may be clear to you, but to others the fact that the legal system was utilized to leverage the existing parties' power over smaller parties' ability to reach voters is what indicates a legal monopoly.
Besides all that, I don't understand how you say there wasn't a legal ruling which enforced the monopoly, when I just presented several examples in which there were.
Besides all that, I don't understand how you say there wasn't a legal ruling which enforced the monopoly, when I just presented several examples in which there were.
You and I must simply have different understanding of the word monopoly and what it means to legally enforce one, so I guess we're not going to convince each other.
Gary Johnson is standing in fifty states isn't he? He's not doing that illegally is he? So there is no monopoly. If there is then it's not being enforced, legally or illegally.
Gary Johnson is standing in fifty states isn't he? He's not doing that illegally is he? So there is no monopoly. If there is then it's not being enforced, legally or illegally.
I didn't claim there was a monopoly this year, though, did I. In fact the GOP establishment would want Johnson to stand in 50 states as many of them oppose Trump and resent that he has taken over their party.
Some would call that a straw man argument: establishing a fact I never disputed.
On the other hand, there is evidence presented above that that occurred in previous elections (2004, 2000).
Some would call that a straw man argument: establishing a fact I never disputed.
On the other hand, there is evidence presented above that that occurred in previous elections (2004, 2000).
> why should the parties have a legal monopoly on ballot-line presence
That was the original question (from someone else). It sounds like we've agreed that the answer is 'they shouldn't' and 'this year they don't'.
That was the original question (from someone else). It sounds like we've agreed that the answer is 'they shouldn't' and 'this year they don't'.
I don't agree with that. What I agree with is 'they shouldn't' and 'this year they haven't exercised the option that they have to do so'. As I said earlier, Johnson poses no threat to the GOP, and Stein isn't seen as a significant threat (and isn't).
> Can't anyone apply to be on the ballot as long as they demonstrate a reasonable level of support?
Yes, they can, no that won't change anyone's mind.
This election year is showing that internet-borne conspiracy theories are just as powerful than facts, if not more powerful.
Yes, they can, no that won't change anyone's mind.
This election year is showing that internet-borne conspiracy theories are just as powerful than facts, if not more powerful.
Personally, being more familiar with European parliamentary systems, I find it quite astounding that the canidate selection is such an open an public process.
In many countries, the parties select candidates internally and then present them to the public. Letting non-party members vote or register just before voting would be unthinkable there.
Then again, this is probably a necessary result of the US political system: majority voting rules, therefore (basically) only two parties, and of course, the US is huge and diverse.
The whole process is ridiculously long and expensive. But it's also a way to get people familiar with the candidates early on.
In many countries, the parties select candidates internally and then present them to the public. Letting non-party members vote or register just before voting would be unthinkable there.
Then again, this is probably a necessary result of the US political system: majority voting rules, therefore (basically) only two parties, and of course, the US is huge and diverse.
The whole process is ridiculously long and expensive. But it's also a way to get people familiar with the candidates early on.
We did it that way until the early to mid twentieth century, when a populist backlash against that good ol' boys system led to more or less the primary setup we have now. It still varies a lot year to year and party to party.For instance, the Republicans' system was quite a bit more democratic than the Democrats' this year. (You can draw your own conclusions from that on the relative value of the two models.)
It's an odd hybrid where the parties are private organizations that can make their own decisions and rules, but their leadership elections are run by state apparatus. This (understandably) confuses people, to the point that most people seem to think of the parties as almost part of the governmental system.
As others have noted, this all goes back to our winner-take-all elections, which are a kind of original sin in our system, which we'll probably never be able to change. In other systems, which encourage more parties, it is much easier to abandon a party if you don't like the leaders they pick, so it is not as important to be invested in the actual process of picking those leaders.
The Atlantic had a really good article on some of these topics recently: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-amer...
It's an odd hybrid where the parties are private organizations that can make their own decisions and rules, but their leadership elections are run by state apparatus. This (understandably) confuses people, to the point that most people seem to think of the parties as almost part of the governmental system.
As others have noted, this all goes back to our winner-take-all elections, which are a kind of original sin in our system, which we'll probably never be able to change. In other systems, which encourage more parties, it is much easier to abandon a party if you don't like the leaders they pick, so it is not as important to be invested in the actual process of picking those leaders.
The Atlantic had a really good article on some of these topics recently: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-amer...
Looking at things from Canada, I feel the same way.
These primaries, from what I can gather, are roughly the equivalent of the leadership selection process that happens with the political parties here. There is media coverage of those, but not to the extent that the US has. They're also run by the parties themselves, whereas the voting process seems to be handled by the individual states' election authorities.
In Canada, Elections Canada doesn't really get involved in the process that the parties use to select their leader. It just does the general election, by-elections, etc.
These primaries, from what I can gather, are roughly the equivalent of the leadership selection process that happens with the political parties here. There is media coverage of those, but not to the extent that the US has. They're also run by the parties themselves, whereas the voting process seems to be handled by the individual states' election authorities.
In Canada, Elections Canada doesn't really get involved in the process that the parties use to select their leader. It just does the general election, by-elections, etc.
>But it's also a way to get people familiar with the candidates early on.
That is largely what it is all about. It is basically theater. All the rules are made by the political parties themselves whether their own rules or by the state laws they have voted for. In the 1800s they just nominated whomever they wanted (and this is basically what the smaller political parties do since they are so small they don't have the money to do these long extended campaigns) but then they started doing the primaries and caucuses to give people input.
That is largely what it is all about. It is basically theater. All the rules are made by the political parties themselves whether their own rules or by the state laws they have voted for. In the 1800s they just nominated whomever they wanted (and this is basically what the smaller political parties do since they are so small they don't have the money to do these long extended campaigns) but then they started doing the primaries and caucuses to give people input.
Edit (re: reply by dagss): I seem to have misunderstood the comment, but can't delete anymore.
This is referring to who becomes candidate og Republican or Democratic parties. I am sure anyone can become presidential candidate in just the same way in the US - but not representing those parties.
In Portugal it's just 7500, though our President doesn't really have that much power, he's more of a figurehead.
The article implies an indictment of Clinton & Trump. As if they were nominated inspire of the will of the vast majority of the people. But it's actually an indictment of the American public for failing to vote.
No, you have to be registered to a political party to vote in primaries in most states. If you're registered independent you don't get a chance to vote unless that state has open primaries.
That's why this is called "primaries", not election. The primaries are supposed to chose candidates, not the president. Assuming that they're not representative just because of that is trying to stretch reality.
Exactly zero people voted for the UK's new prime minister.
I would expect it to be an order or magnitude smaller than the general, just on the pure physics of it. If it were <1% this would be a story.
Trump got the most votes of any Republican candidate in history. It probably would have been lower than 9% if Trump hadn't run.
Is it pertinent to point out that he also garnered the most votes against him than any Republican candidate in history?
How many people really voted against him, though?
The media thought that everyone not voting for him was voting against him. They assumed that once the field narrowed voters would rally around another candidate and defeat Trump. That never happened. If the voters' goal was to beat Trump, they would have done it.
By that logic, Obama had a record number of votes "against" him too, with 19,585,539 (53%) "against" him in a 3 man race, compared to Trump with 17,151,110 (55%) "against" him in a 5 man race.
The media thought that everyone not voting for him was voting against him. They assumed that once the field narrowed voters would rally around another candidate and defeat Trump. That never happened. If the voters' goal was to beat Trump, they would have done it.
By that logic, Obama had a record number of votes "against" him too, with 19,585,539 (53%) "against" him in a 3 man race, compared to Trump with 17,151,110 (55%) "against" him in a 5 man race.
So what? if Americans focused more on congressional elections then things could change. There's only so much a president can do.
That's true. People act like the President has all the power. But that's now how our government work. Power is divided between all the three branches of the government. The President does not have all the power.
Those that fear Trump will become a dictator does not understand the checks and balances of our government.
Those that fear Trump will become a dictator does not understand the checks and balances of our government.
I'm opposed to Trump, possibly to an unreasonable degree, but I agree he's not going to turn into a dictator. He can still screw things up royally, and destroy what little civility in the political discourse there is in this country by pandering to the alt-right, conspiracy theorist, nihilist fringe and legitimizing them, but a President Trump would probably face more scrutiny and intransigence than even Obama has. Both parties would be trying their hardest to discredit him for a second term, and discredit his attempts at a legacy.
Of course people said the same thing about Obama... I'm still waiting for that inevitable socialist coup he's supposed to pull off. Unfortunately, both the Democrats and Republicans have made an art out of convincing people that the Presidency is the only part of the government they should be engaged with.
Of course people said the same thing about Obama... I'm still waiting for that inevitable socialist coup he's supposed to pull off. Unfortunately, both the Democrats and Republicans have made an art out of convincing people that the Presidency is the only part of the government they should be engaged with.
Agreed. Even if Trump wins, both parties and Congress, as well as Obama's appointed Supreme Court judge will try their hardest to prevent Trump from doing anything unconstitutional.
> Those that fear Trump will become a dictator does not understand the checks and balances of our government.
Or they recognize that the checks and balances of our government are not magic, and that Trump being elected as the nominee of a major party would also reflect a shift in the political landscape which would be reflected, particularly, in the actions of other politicians in that party, especially in the other elected branch -- and that those two branches together have the power to reshape the remaining branch.
Or they recognize that the checks and balances of our government are not magic, and that Trump being elected as the nominee of a major party would also reflect a shift in the political landscape which would be reflected, particularly, in the actions of other politicians in that party, especially in the other elected branch -- and that those two branches together have the power to reshape the remaining branch.
But isn't that what the voters wanted? A political shift to conservatism? Otherwise, the voters would have voted against Trump.
And a political shift doesn't mean Trump can become a dictator. It's still unconstitutional and Congress, no matter which side they are on, would never allow that. The well-armed people would never allow that. The armed military would never allow it. The armed police forces would never allow it. The well-regulated armed militia like the Minute Men would never allow it. The armed National Guard would never allow it.
And a political shift doesn't mean Trump can become a dictator. It's still unconstitutional and Congress, no matter which side they are on, would never allow that. The well-armed people would never allow that. The armed military would never allow it. The armed police forces would never allow it. The well-regulated armed militia like the Minute Men would never allow it. The armed National Guard would never allow it.
> But isn't that what the voters wanted? A political shift to conservatism?
Yes, electing Trump means that a substantial portion of the voters wanted conservative authoritarianism.
> And a political shift doesn't mean Trump can become a dictator.
A shift in favor of the type of authoritarianism Trump proposes means that the structural mechanisms which permit one branch to check the actions of the others are unlikely to be used to prevent the institution of conservative authoritarianism.
> It's still unconstitutional and Congress, no matter which side they are on, would never allow that.
The Constitution, in practice, means what people in positions to act decide it means at the time; Congress allows things that are arguably unconstitutional all the time (sometimes later being checked in real time by other institutions, like the Supreme Court, sometimes not.)
> The armed military would never allow it.
This conclusion is based on...what?
> The armed military would never allow it.
This conclusion is based on...what?
> The well-regulated armed militia like the Minute Men would never allow it.
The idea that the "Minute Men" (presumably, referring to the Minuteman Project [0]) are "well-regulated" in any sense is amusing; the idea that they would, as an organized mass, oppose a conservative authoritarian dictatorship with a strong flavor of anti-immigrant white nationalism is even more amusing, and the idea that they would be a substantial check on a dictatorship in any case is perhaps the most amusing element of the inclusion of this claim in your post.
> The armed National Guard would never allow it.
This conclusion is based on...what?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_Project
Yes, electing Trump means that a substantial portion of the voters wanted conservative authoritarianism.
> And a political shift doesn't mean Trump can become a dictator.
A shift in favor of the type of authoritarianism Trump proposes means that the structural mechanisms which permit one branch to check the actions of the others are unlikely to be used to prevent the institution of conservative authoritarianism.
> It's still unconstitutional and Congress, no matter which side they are on, would never allow that.
The Constitution, in practice, means what people in positions to act decide it means at the time; Congress allows things that are arguably unconstitutional all the time (sometimes later being checked in real time by other institutions, like the Supreme Court, sometimes not.)
> The armed military would never allow it.
This conclusion is based on...what?
> The armed military would never allow it.
This conclusion is based on...what?
> The well-regulated armed militia like the Minute Men would never allow it.
The idea that the "Minute Men" (presumably, referring to the Minuteman Project [0]) are "well-regulated" in any sense is amusing; the idea that they would, as an organized mass, oppose a conservative authoritarian dictatorship with a strong flavor of anti-immigrant white nationalism is even more amusing, and the idea that they would be a substantial check on a dictatorship in any case is perhaps the most amusing element of the inclusion of this claim in your post.
> The armed National Guard would never allow it.
This conclusion is based on...what?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_Project
Based on the idea that the all these groups still cares about the Constitution, democracy, and freedom.
Why would the military disregard the Constitution and start killing all the members of Congress just because Trump order them to? Though the military take orders from the President, the military has to uphold the Constitution. The President can't just order the military to disband Congress. The military would never do that. What would actually happen is that the military will instead arrest Trump and Congress will put Trump to trail to impeach him.
Again, the scenario where Trump become a dictator of the United States is never going to happen, because there is just too many groups and too much opposition to him.
There is no way the military will kill their own family members just to satisfy Trump's order.
Cops are NOT under the control of the federal government. Cops are under the control of the 50 states. Why would the 50 states give control of the police force to the President? Why would the 50 states just sit back and let Trump become a tyranny without fighting back? Why would cops go against their own cities, just so Trump can become a dictator?
Why would armed people joined up with Trump, especially arms Black people?
Why would the National Guard, who's duty is to protect the country, why would they go against the country just so Trump can become a dictator?
Again. Never gonna happen. There are too many groups who value democracy and freedom. And they will all oppose Trump if Trump decides to do something unconstitutional.
And you seem to be under the assumption that Trump supporters want a dictatorship. That's ridiculous. Trump supporters do not support a dictatorship. Trump supporters supports conservatism (aka, less government), which is the opposite of a dictatorship (total government control).
ALSO: Minutemen was just an example. Now-a-day, it's the NRA and other militia groups. And Minutemen actually refers to these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen
Obviously, all these doesn't matter if everyone in the United States (that means, all the people, Congress, judges, police forces, etc. everyone) agrees that Trump should be a dictator and voted to turn the government into a dictator. But that's never gonna happen. People come from other countries into the United States because of its democracy. Why would they allow the government to turn into the same dictatorship they ran away from?
Why would the military disregard the Constitution and start killing all the members of Congress just because Trump order them to? Though the military take orders from the President, the military has to uphold the Constitution. The President can't just order the military to disband Congress. The military would never do that. What would actually happen is that the military will instead arrest Trump and Congress will put Trump to trail to impeach him.
Again, the scenario where Trump become a dictator of the United States is never going to happen, because there is just too many groups and too much opposition to him.
There is no way the military will kill their own family members just to satisfy Trump's order.
Cops are NOT under the control of the federal government. Cops are under the control of the 50 states. Why would the 50 states give control of the police force to the President? Why would the 50 states just sit back and let Trump become a tyranny without fighting back? Why would cops go against their own cities, just so Trump can become a dictator?
Why would armed people joined up with Trump, especially arms Black people?
Why would the National Guard, who's duty is to protect the country, why would they go against the country just so Trump can become a dictator?
Again. Never gonna happen. There are too many groups who value democracy and freedom. And they will all oppose Trump if Trump decides to do something unconstitutional.
And you seem to be under the assumption that Trump supporters want a dictatorship. That's ridiculous. Trump supporters do not support a dictatorship. Trump supporters supports conservatism (aka, less government), which is the opposite of a dictatorship (total government control).
ALSO: Minutemen was just an example. Now-a-day, it's the NRA and other militia groups. And Minutemen actually refers to these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen
Obviously, all these doesn't matter if everyone in the United States (that means, all the people, Congress, judges, police forces, etc. everyone) agrees that Trump should be a dictator and voted to turn the government into a dictator. But that's never gonna happen. People come from other countries into the United States because of its democracy. Why would they allow the government to turn into the same dictatorship they ran away from?
I call this "agonizingly slow runoff voting", the opposite of instant runoff voting. The French presidential election is similar, although the first round all the candidates are considered as a single pool rather than two party-orientated pools.
IRV and proportional systems produce 'external' coalitions at the government level. FPTP produces 'internal' coalitions, which is why the Republican party looks so strange from the outside.
IRV and proportional systems produce 'external' coalitions at the government level. FPTP produces 'internal' coalitions, which is why the Republican party looks so strange from the outside.
Don't see why folk don't vote for Gary Johnson. He appeals to both Bernie Sanders voters and disenfranchised Republicans.
Gary Johnson stated that he would eliminate the Board of Education. That is the opposite position from Bernie Sanders' push to expand access to public education. Don't take that as an endorsement of the status quo; right now schools are locally funded, with wealthier districts providing higher quality experiences and fighting vehemently against out-of-district access to those resources. [0] However, the market-based solution that GJ and the Libertarians propose looks like a step backwards, furthering the stratification between rich and poor. A stronger national education system is necessary to enable sensible resource allocation and equitable access to quality schools.
0. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/562/t...
0. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/562/t...
i agree he is a brilliant middle of the road honest candidate with much to offer both sides
https://www.reddit.com/r/GaryJohnson/comments/4vq33l/choose_...
If people are like me they will probably not be voting for someone but against someone. I really don't want candidate Y to win so I'm going to vote for candidate X because that candidate has a better chance of winning than Johnson (or my pick Stein).
Although my state usually goes pretty solidly for one political party so I might vote for Stein anyway because my anti-vote won't be enough.
Although my state usually goes pretty solidly for one political party so I might vote for Stein anyway because my anti-vote won't be enough.
If more people were supporting Johnson he'd get on the debate stage and actually stand a shot. It's non-sense that people are saying they won't vote for him now when they don't have to decide till Nov 7th. Support him now and if he doesn't poll well enough after the debates go do your never X vote.
Sanders and Johnson couldn't be more far apart on economic policy. It's a false equivalence to say that they are similar.
One is inherently for welfare the other vehemently against it in most forms.
One is inherently for welfare the other vehemently against it in most forms.
There should be a way in the general elections to reject both candidates.
Vote libertarian?
I rather thought of:
- Clinton
- Trump
- None (give me someone else)
In case 3rd option gets most votes parties have to re-pick candidates in a week.
- Clinton
- Trump
- None (give me someone else)
In case 3rd option gets most votes parties have to re-pick candidates in a week.
>In case 3rd option gets most votes parties have to re-pick candidates in a week.
How about not having the parties choose one and only one candidate? Maybe let it be a competition between the top three?
How about not having the parties choose one and only one candidate? Maybe let it be a competition between the top three?
Johnson is not a very good libertarian, ironically.
Arguably that makes him an even better choice for non-libertarians who are fed up with both of the major parties.
I desperately want to see a third option on the debate stage.
I desperately want to see a third option on the debate stage.
He is still far more so than the other candidates.
The remaining candidates? Sure, but that's a pretty low bar. There were others vying for the libertarian nomination. I'd argue that Rand Paul is a better libertarian than Johnson, even.
Can we just find someone reaaally moderate or even someone who contractually obligates themselves to doing literally nothing in office and then vote for them? Literally any 3rd party candidate we can all agree on to vote for instead of these two.
I'm curious about what, in the current state of America, screams "we can just do nothing for the next 8 years and it'll all be good"
I think nothing is objectively better than the results we'd get from either candidate.
We will not improve our situation, but I don't believe we'll devolve into chaos either. With Trump he might bomb someone or aggravate existing problems or something else unimaginably stupid. With Hillary we'll just see an increase in corruption and an expansion of the rights of corporations at the costs of the individual.
We will not improve our situation, but I don't believe we'll devolve into chaos either. With Trump he might bomb someone or aggravate existing problems or something else unimaginably stupid. With Hillary we'll just see an increase in corruption and an expansion of the rights of corporations at the costs of the individual.
I think the argument is against doing something especially rash or corrupt because of the current state of America. What would happen if another Watergate occurred in the next few years?
what is the appeal of "reaaally moderate" to you? 8 years of moderate, ineffectual government has been the Obama administration exactly.
just because Fox News accuses Obama of being a radical leftist doesn't make it even remotely close to true. Obama is precisely the kind of moderate you're asking for. It's gotten us nowhere.
just because Fox News accuses Obama of being a radical leftist doesn't make it even remotely close to true. Obama is precisely the kind of moderate you're asking for. It's gotten us nowhere.
Better than blatantly corrupt or blatantly racist?
that doesn't really make sense as a response to my comment. the OP article is a summary of how NEITHER candidate (the corrupt one or the bigot) can claim to represent the electorate. they are both appointees of un-representative minority factions.
your post, which I was replying to, was advocating for some kind of moderate politician as an alternative. I pointed out that Obama has already been that politician. I'm questioning your notion that what we need is a moderate.
In other words, your suggestion made no sense to me. Why did you suggest it?
your post, which I was replying to, was advocating for some kind of moderate politician as an alternative. I pointed out that Obama has already been that politician. I'm questioning your notion that what we need is a moderate.
In other words, your suggestion made no sense to me. Why did you suggest it?
Because thats the only way of appealing to "both" demographics enough to make it work. Right now voters are just siding with whoever they can stomach easiest.
>Better than blatantly corrupt or blatantly racist?
Come on. That's just typical election year rhetorics. Try to focus on the policies of each candidate.
Come on. That's just typical election year rhetorics. Try to focus on the policies of each candidate.
What, you think that won't/hasn't informed their policies?
They both just want what's best for their country.
I found funny that there are more non-citizens than Hillary or Trump voters
Not very funny for them, because their polling stats are extremely skewed politically, resulting in amnesty turning into a political football. If illegals voted perfectly 50:50 D:R they would have gotten amnesty decades ago and everything would have been reformed and sensible for generations, but its seen as an automatic source of "D" votes therefore as long as we have "D" and "R" they'll fight over it rather than fix it. A one line summary of why our immigration system is all screwed up, is most people who want to come here want to vote "D" and that riles up both the "D" and "R" parties therefore nothing can ever be fixed.
Except undocumented cannot vote
So why does the USA still have first past the post presidential voting? Is someone, anyone, in the government pushing for this to change? It seems painfully obvious to anyone paying attention that switching to a better voting system where you can still vote for 3rd party candidates and not have your vote go to waste would be a huge improvement.
The electoral college is defined in the Constitution, and changing that is never easy. Anybody with the power to change things from the top is probably up there because of taking advantage of the way things currently work.
Friendly reminder: Not voting can be a vote in and of itself. A vote of "no confidence".
True, voting for an alternative candidate will take a percentage of the votes away from Clinton or Trump, and having them win by a lower percentage would be a satisfying way to sock it to the system and send a message. (Although, knowing the media, if the stats started to look bad they would probably start reporting Clinton and Trump vote percentages only as percentages of the Clinton+Trump votes, rather than as percentages of all votes...)
But wouldn't it be wonderful if one of them "wins" the job by receiving support from only a small fraction of eligible voters? I think having a President elected by only 15-17% of eligible voters would send a pretty good message.
True, voting for an alternative candidate will take a percentage of the votes away from Clinton or Trump, and having them win by a lower percentage would be a satisfying way to sock it to the system and send a message. (Although, knowing the media, if the stats started to look bad they would probably start reporting Clinton and Trump vote percentages only as percentages of the Clinton+Trump votes, rather than as percentages of all votes...)
But wouldn't it be wonderful if one of them "wins" the job by receiving support from only a small fraction of eligible voters? I think having a President elected by only 15-17% of eligible voters would send a pretty good message.
> Friendly reminder: Not voting can be a vote in and of itself. A vote of "no confidence".
No, it can be a form of non-voting protest, which is very different from a vote, including a vote of no confidence where such is an actual, meaningful thing.
And its a fairly weak form of protest, given that its protesting by doing exactly what lots of political actors expend considerable effort to get people that disagree with them to do (if you can't be convinced to vote the way they want, not voting or voting for an irrelevant option is exactly what political campaigns try to get you to do.)
> But wouldn't it be wonderful if one of them "wins" the job by receiving support from only a small fraction of eligible voters?
It likely would be almost completely unnoticed.
> I think having a President elected by only 15-17% of eligible voters would send a pretty good message.
Sure, it would be a few percent less than Clinton in 1992 (23%) or Bush in 2000 (24%). So what? Why do you expect that there is a magic threshold where suddenly it would be a "strong message" somewhere below the sub-25% of those elections and 15-17%?
No, it can be a form of non-voting protest, which is very different from a vote, including a vote of no confidence where such is an actual, meaningful thing.
And its a fairly weak form of protest, given that its protesting by doing exactly what lots of political actors expend considerable effort to get people that disagree with them to do (if you can't be convinced to vote the way they want, not voting or voting for an irrelevant option is exactly what political campaigns try to get you to do.)
> But wouldn't it be wonderful if one of them "wins" the job by receiving support from only a small fraction of eligible voters?
It likely would be almost completely unnoticed.
> I think having a President elected by only 15-17% of eligible voters would send a pretty good message.
Sure, it would be a few percent less than Clinton in 1992 (23%) or Bush in 2000 (24%). So what? Why do you expect that there is a magic threshold where suddenly it would be a "strong message" somewhere below the sub-25% of those elections and 15-17%?
Even if the President was elected by only 15-17% of eligible voters, they would still wield 100% of the power of the presidency.
Send a message to who? The newly elected President from the 15% win? Some message. Get out and look for a candidate you believe in and spread the word.
>True, voting for an alternative candidate will take a percentage of the votes away from Clinton or Trump
No it won't. The only wasted vote is voting for someone you don't believe in. Google Gary Johnson.
> President elected by only 15-17% of eligible voters would send a pretty good message
This would be largely ignored and not covered my mainstream media. It would go completely un-noticed by the vast majority.
No it won't. The only wasted vote is voting for someone you don't believe in. Google Gary Johnson.
> President elected by only 15-17% of eligible voters would send a pretty good message
This would be largely ignored and not covered my mainstream media. It would go completely un-noticed by the vast majority.
The politicians don't care. Vote third party and get someone in there who will actually enact change.
I'd argue that deliberately spoiling your ballot sends a more powerful message.
Not voting cannot be distinguished between abstinence on principle versus apathy. However making the effort to go to vote and then making a protest is much clearer.
Not voting cannot be distinguished between abstinence on principle versus apathy. However making the effort to go to vote and then making a protest is much clearer.
Agreed. Right now my vote is for a specific major party candidate as possibly the least terrible that could win vs. an empty ballot in the presidential race.
Many will say vote for a third party; but because that vote will be purely symbolic, any third party candidate that I might vote for has a higher bar to reach than a major party candidate: the party and candidate stand to gain more from a decent showing than any abstract message of protest disconnected from the party/candidate. So, a third party candidate is not a sensible default when the major party choices suck... not voting is the sensible default in that case.
Many will say vote for a third party; but because that vote will be purely symbolic, any third party candidate that I might vote for has a higher bar to reach than a major party candidate: the party and candidate stand to gain more from a decent showing than any abstract message of protest disconnected from the party/candidate. So, a third party candidate is not a sensible default when the major party choices suck... not voting is the sensible default in that case.
Great Data-Visualization Narrative, despite the bad news . . .
Rephrased another way, relatively few voters actually (1) register and (2) vote in the party primaries. These registered voters apparently represent the "most politically involved" 10% of the overall population. (It's also somewhat misleading to include minors or non-citizen residents in the denominator when they aren't able to vote - it makes the result artificially small.)
The primary system, while still susceptible to party insiders, is a lot more democratic than a system where political parties pick their candidates and say to the electorate "these are your choices, take it or leave it". (I won't address whether "more democratic" is a good thing, as that's a whole different can of worms.)
The primary system, while still susceptible to party insiders, is a lot more democratic than a system where political parties pick their candidates and say to the electorate "these are your choices, take it or leave it". (I won't address whether "more democratic" is a good thing, as that's a whole different can of worms.)
This is the same percentage that chose Obama and McCain.
T-shirt link is relevant to discussion. So i'll leave this here.
https://www.teepublic.com/show/496947-i-already-hate-our-nex...
https://www.teepublic.com/show/496947-i-already-hate-our-nex...