4 ms·

A myth? We literally only have two choices. There is not a single chance that someone else will be elected unless someone within either of the parties does so

by capote 10y ago

A myth? We literally only have two choices. There is not a single chance that someone else will be elected unless someone within either of the parties does something. What do you seriously suggest the people do to get another person besides these two? Whether you like it or not, the fact remains that those who vote for a third party have always been a tiny minority and have ultimately caused elections to be lost to people even they think is the worse evil. Unless of course you respond with what your plan of action is and how it will work.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jessaustin 10y ago
Some people have already done something, and both of the candidates I mentioned by name in the parent comment will be on the ballot in your state. Please vote for one of them! Don't vote for what you know to be "evil"; that wouldn't be rational. No one will stop you from voting rationally, except yourself, by listening to the "literally only two choices" bullshit that the media spoon-feeds you. This is probably too political for HN, so I'll stop now.
- capote 10y ago
  I want to listen to you (I'd write in Bernie to be honest) but unfortunately it's not realistic. I've come to this conclusion by observation of reality, not from the media. I don't even consume much American media.
  - Hondor 10y ago
    You're saying you only want to vote for a party that could win. Why? For the satisfaction of feeling like you made a difference? If the polls showed that the "greater evil" party was winning by a large margin, would you vote for that too because the lesser evil one has zero chance? People who vote against their own interest and focus on over-emotional bipartisan feelings are exactly the reason America's government keeps doing things that people don't like. They're so afraid of the "greater evil" that they'll even kill the greater good in a futile attempt to avoid it. The republicans will still keep on winning every couple of cycles, just as they always have. Voting for one of the two major parties is really a vote for the status quo of alternating republican and democrat governments. It's like sports, no team is ever really going to win. They just keep switching places.
    - eru 10y ago
      Run some computer simulation. In a first-past-the-post system, voting for anything but one of the top two contenders is throwing away your vote. The strawmen about only voting for the winner doesn't apply. If you want to make voting your conscience easier, support something like eg Range Voting. http://www.rangevoting.org/ http://www.rangevoting.org/
      - ClayShentrup 10y ago
        Score Voting or Approval Voting, yes. It's the only way to ensure—like mathematically guarantee—it's safe to vote for your favorite candidate _always_.
        eru 10y ago
        > It's the only way to ensure—like mathematically guarantee—it's safe to vote for your favorite candidate _always_. I am not so sure. I think there are other systems that can achieve this too. Eg a proportional system perhaps? Anyway, yes, score voting is still a good idea if you can only elect a single candidate. People already understand how it works from sports.
    - capote 10y ago
      Why? Getting a bit political here, and I'm sorry, I just need to answer the question then I'll cut it out with the strong political views: Because I couldn't bear to be a citizen of a country that elects Donald Trump as president. I'd be too embarrassed in the face of my peers around the world. I already get made fun of enough for my country by my German, Swiss, and Korean friends for just the prospect of Trump winning. I couldn't live here anymore or represent this country when I travel. The people who surround me, my compatriots, would be too stupid, bigoted, and hateful in my view for me to continue living here. For any other election, I'd happily agree with you and might even try to change the status quo. But the risk of a Trump presidency has my insides sinking. But right now, I'm going to vote for anything to stop that guy from winning. Even if it means voting for a crook.
      - 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
refurb 10y ago
the fact remains that those who vote for a third party have always been a tiny minority Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992. I'd say that shows what a third party candidate can do.
- rspeer 10y ago
  It does. It shows a third party candidate can surpass expectations and still come nowhere close to winning a state.

by capote 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jessaustin 10y ago

Some people have already done something, and both of the candidates I mentioned by name in the parent comment will be on the ballot in your state. Please vote for one of them! Don't vote for what you know to be "evil"; that wouldn't be rational. No one will stop you from voting rationally, except yourself, by listening to the "literally only two choices" bullshit that the media spoon-feeds you. This is probably too political for HN, so I'll stop now.

capote 10y ago
I want to listen to you (I'd write in Bernie to be honest) but unfortunately it's not realistic. I've come to this conclusion by observation of reality, not from the media. I don't even consume much American media.
- Hondor 10y ago
  You're saying you only want to vote for a party that could win. Why? For the satisfaction of feeling like you made a difference? If the polls showed that the "greater evil" party was winning by a large margin, would you vote for that too because the lesser evil one has zero chance? People who vote against their own interest and focus on over-emotional bipartisan feelings are exactly the reason America's government keeps doing things that people don't like. They're so afraid of the "greater evil" that they'll even kill the greater good in a futile attempt to avoid it. The republicans will still keep on winning every couple of cycles, just as they always have. Voting for one of the two major parties is really a vote for the status quo of alternating republican and democrat governments. It's like sports, no team is ever really going to win. They just keep switching places.
  - eru 10y ago
    Run some computer simulation. In a first-past-the-post system, voting for anything but one of the top two contenders is throwing away your vote. The strawmen about only voting for the winner doesn't apply. If you want to make voting your conscience easier, support something like eg Range Voting. http://www.rangevoting.org/ http://www.rangevoting.org/
    - ClayShentrup 10y ago
      Score Voting or Approval Voting, yes. It's the only way to ensure—like mathematically guarantee—it's safe to vote for your favorite candidate _always_.
      - eru 10y ago
        > It's the only way to ensure—like mathematically guarantee—it's safe to vote for your favorite candidate _always_. I am not so sure. I think there are other systems that can achieve this too. Eg a proportional system perhaps? Anyway, yes, score voting is still a good idea if you can only elect a single candidate. People already understand how it works from sports.
  - capote 10y ago
    Why? Getting a bit political here, and I'm sorry, I just need to answer the question then I'll cut it out with the strong political views: Because I couldn't bear to be a citizen of a country that elects Donald Trump as president. I'd be too embarrassed in the face of my peers around the world. I already get made fun of enough for my country by my German, Swiss, and Korean friends for just the prospect of Trump winning. I couldn't live here anymore or represent this country when I travel. The people who surround me, my compatriots, would be too stupid, bigoted, and hateful in my view for me to continue living here. For any other election, I'd happily agree with you and might even try to change the status quo. But the risk of a Trump presidency has my insides sinking. But right now, I'm going to vote for anything to stop that guy from winning. Even if it means voting for a crook.
    - 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

refurb 10y ago

the fact remains that those who vote for a third party have always been a tiny minority Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992. I'd say that shows what a third party candidate can do.

rspeer 10y ago
It does. It shows a third party candidate can surpass expectations and still come nowhere close to winning a state.