5 ms·

> 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

> 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.)
  - anonbanker 10y ago
    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)?
- HelloMcFly 10y ago
  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.
anonbanker 10y ago
So, you're arguing for the real-world version of Douglas Adams' "Wrong Lizard"[0] parable? 0. http://www.writingsonthewall.net/the-wrong-lizard http://www.writingsonthewall.net/the-wrong-lizard
- HelloMcFly 10y ago
  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.
  - anonbanker 10y ago
    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.
    - HelloMcFly 10y ago
      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.

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.)
- anonbanker 10y ago
  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)?
HelloMcFly 10y ago
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.

anonbanker 10y ago

So, you're arguing for the real-world version of Douglas Adams' "Wrong Lizard"[0] parable? 0. http://www.writingsonthewall.net/the-wrong-lizard http://www.writingsonthewall.net/the-wrong-lizard

HelloMcFly 10y ago
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.
- anonbanker 10y ago
  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.
  - HelloMcFly 10y ago
    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.