4 ms·

The American people have some decent choices. They just refuse to look past the big two parties.

by toolz 10y ago

danieltillett 10y ago
Well with the current voting system it is hard to make a change. A vote for for one of the non-big two is unfortunately equivalent to not voting at all.
- mikestew 10y ago
  A vote for for one of the non-big two is unfortunately equivalent to not voting at all. That's not true at all. Want your non-Big-Two party at the presidential debates? Vote, because last I looked the invites are sent based on how much of the popular vote the party got last time (15%, I think?). Maybe I'm wrong on that, or the rules changed, but it still matters. You tell your neighbor you're voting Libertarian and suddenly the Libs look like normal folk, not a bunch of pot heads who don't like to pay taxes. You think pols didn't pay attention when Perot garnered 19% even after he went all tin-foil hat and withdrew from the race at one point? No matter who you vote for, your vote makes a difference. It just probably doesn't make as much difference as you'd like it to.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Debate participation is based on the national polls. Federal election funds are scaled to the results of previous elections. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#General http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#General
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    It is actually a bit more complex provided you have an opinion as to which of the two major party candidates is worse. If you consider both equally bad then yes voting for a minor candidate has some small positive value, but if you consider one of the major candidates worse than the other then not voting for the other is a negative. I don’t vote for a candidate - I vote against my least favorite candidate. I find it much easier to decide who I like least than who I like most.
- ionised 10y ago
  > A vote for for one of the non-big two is unfortunately equivalent to not voting at all. That attitude is exactly why.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    Not really - it is a function of using a first past the post voting system. What would help is for people to campaign for a new voting system starting at the local level, progressing to the state level, and eventually national level. Fix the voting system and the candidates you have a choice of will change.

The American people have some decent choices. They just refuse to look past the big two parties.

by toolz 10y ago

The American people have some decent choices. They just refuse to look past the big two parties.

Well with the current voting system it is hard to make a change. A vote for for one of the non-big two is unfortunately equivalent to not voting at all.

mikestew 10y ago
A vote for for one of the non-big two is unfortunately equivalent to not voting at all. That's not true at all. Want your non-Big-Two party at the presidential debates? Vote, because last I looked the invites are sent based on how much of the popular vote the party got last time (15%, I think?). Maybe I'm wrong on that, or the rules changed, but it still matters. You tell your neighbor you're voting Libertarian and suddenly the Libs look like normal folk, not a bunch of pot heads who don't like to pay taxes. You think pols didn't pay attention when Perot garnered 19% even after he went all tin-foil hat and withdrew from the race at one point? No matter who you vote for, your vote makes a difference. It just probably doesn't make as much difference as you'd like it to.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Debate participation is based on the national polls. Federal election funds are scaled to the results of previous elections. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#General http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#General
- danieltillett 10y ago
  It is actually a bit more complex provided you have an opinion as to which of the two major party candidates is worse. If you consider both equally bad then yes voting for a minor candidate has some small positive value, but if you consider one of the major candidates worse than the other then not voting for the other is a negative. I don’t vote for a candidate - I vote against my least favorite candidate. I find it much easier to decide who I like least than who I like most.
ionised 10y ago
> A vote for for one of the non-big two is unfortunately equivalent to not voting at all. That attitude is exactly why.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  Not really - it is a function of using a first past the post voting system. What would help is for people to campaign for a new voting system starting at the local level, progressing to the state level, and eventually national level. Fix the voting system and the candidates you have a choice of will change.