8 ms·

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

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.

mikeash 10y ago
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.
- ende 10y ago
  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.
- jkarneges 10y ago
  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.
allendoerfer 10y ago
Voting for the least worst option is the essence of democracy. You make a compromise and find a common ground.
hashkb 10y ago
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.
- ende 10y ago
  Sounds like votes don't mean anything one way or the other.
kingnothing 10y ago
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 http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml Also, why can't I reply to siblings of this post?
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  Click on "x minutes ago", reply there.
- mikeash 10y ago
  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.
  - lettergram 10y ago
    > 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/about.html http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/a...
    - 10y ago
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
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.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  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.
- gremlinsinc 10y ago
  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.
voidlogic 10y ago
>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.
bsbechtel 10y ago
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.
- dingaling 10y ago
  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.
- HelloMcFly 10y ago
  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.
wwweston 10y ago
Two words: Nash Equilibrium.
HelloMcFly 10y ago
> 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.
- lettergram 10y ago
  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/about.html http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/a...
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > 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.)
simonbh 10y ago
FYI, Edward Snowden is too young to qualify for president of the US, at least in this election season.
peatmoss 10y ago
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.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> 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.
snowwrestler 10y ago
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.
mark_l_watson 10y ago
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.
thomasfoster96 10y ago
> 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.

mikeash 10y ago

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.

ende 10y ago
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.
jkarneges 10y ago
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.

allendoerfer 10y ago

Voting for the least worst option is the essence of democracy. You make a compromise and find a common ground.

hashkb 10y ago

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.

ende 10y ago
Sounds like votes don't mean anything one way or the other.

kingnothing 10y ago

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 http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml Also, why can't I reply to siblings of this post?

allendoerfer 10y ago
Click on "x minutes ago", reply there.
mikeash 10y ago
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.
- lettergram 10y ago
  > 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/about.html http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/a...
  - 10y ago

PhasmaFelis 10y ago

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.

logfromblammo 10y ago
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.
gremlinsinc 10y ago
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.

voidlogic 10y ago

>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.

bsbechtel 10y ago

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.

dingaling 10y ago
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.
HelloMcFly 10y ago
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.

wwweston 10y ago

Two words: Nash Equilibrium.

HelloMcFly 10y ago

> 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.

lettergram 10y ago
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/about.html http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/a...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > 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.)

simonbh 10y ago

FYI, Edward Snowden is too young to qualify for president of the US, at least in this election season.

peatmoss 10y ago

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.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> 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.

snowwrestler 10y ago

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.

mark_l_watson 10y ago

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.

thomasfoster96 10y ago

> 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.