5 ms·

I kinda feel like that is Gary Johnson... I mean I personally agree with a lot of what he says, but most people consider it a throw away vote. For me it's a v

by bargl 10y ago

I kinda feel like that is Gary Johnson... I mean I personally agree with a lot of what he says, but most people consider it a throw away vote. For me it's a vote that says, even though I do think one candidate is less bad than another. I strongly dislike Trump/Clinton. Please come back with better options next year. Also I'd love it if he would win, but I'm a realist mostly I'm just telling both parties they miss my vote.

karma_vaccum123 10y ago
Voting for Johnson isn't a wasted vote, if the Libertarian Party can start showing double-digits, they will start getting invited to debates etc. Until they are invited to televised debates, they will indeed remain a joke.
metaphorm 10y ago
that's still very semantically different than the suggested "vote of no confidence" option that OP proposed.
jhugg 10y ago
I’m sympathetic, but as someone who remembers the 2000 election and how it was clearly altered by a third party candidate, with actual serious ramifications (war, etc…), I can’t support this view (at least not in a state that might matter). If you don’t vote for a plausible candidate, then you lose the right to complain when you don’t like what happens. "I didn’t vote for him/her”, isn’t a valid excuse unless you voted against him/her. I recognize this is a dissapointing and compromised viewpoint, but there are literally lives on the line.
- EvanAnderson 10y ago
  Voting for a third-party candidate is a vote against Trump and Clinton. There are "serious ramifications", to my mind, under both a Clinton or Trump presidency. Neither is any worse to me. The best outcome of the upcoming US Presidential election, as I see it, is an eventual "major"-party winner having such weak popular support as to cause their party to distance itself from the President. A Trump or Clinton with no popular mandate and lack of support from their party is what I'd certainly like.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  I can't do that. I can't vote for someone that I feel is a terrible choice that will have serious ramifications without actually believing in them. I won't send the message that I want a candidate unless I actually want them. I'm not voting against a candidate, i'm voting for one. And if there is nobody that represents me, i'm not going to vote. I'm not going to show approval for one of the candidates that I don't actually support, and i'm not going to feel like it's "my fault" when one of them wins.
  - jhugg 10y ago
    Hypothetical: Candidate A is a genuine sociopath and serial killer. Candidate B was indicted for tax-fraud, but got off for BS reasons. Candidate C runs a non-profit and loves kittens, but has no chance in hell of winning. I don't want to vote for A or B. I want to vote for C. But if by not voting for B, A gets elected, that's partly on me. This isn't our exact situation, but if you genuinely believe one plausible candidate is better than the other (even if still bad) and you vote 3rd party, then you're wasting your vote. Whether Gary Johnson gets 5% or 12% of the vote isn't going to fix the two party system. If you want to do that, you need to start at the local and state levels. Just running a candidate for president every four years is for publicity and messaging, not because you're ever going to win.
    - Klathmon 10y ago
      I don't see it that way. It's not on me that 5X% of the people who voted voted for the serial killer. That's on them. If that is who the population wants, then that is what they will get. My vote is the voice I get in democracy. I'm not going to use it to vote in someone I don't agree with on most issues, just because the other guy is worse. Me withholding that voice (or using it to vote for someone I know won't win, but who i genuinely believe in) is the way that I can be heard. It's my way of telling future politicians that if they support X (or something close to X) that they can get a portion of those who voted for C last election. It's my way of sending a message that the next candidate shouldn't be a serial killer AND shouldn't be involved in tax fraud. It's my call for someone who better represents me and my beliefs.
- maratd 10y ago
  > how it was clearly altered by a third party candidate, with actual serious ramifications (war, etc…), I can’t support this view (at least not in a state that might matter). Nothing was altered. You vote your conscience. It's when people start playing games and vote for the less bad option because they don't want someone else to win that we get these kind of ridiculous candidates. Each candidate will take ridiculous positions and then essentially blackmail the electorate with "what are you going to do? vote for the other guy?". That is not a healthy recipe for a democracy. There are no 3rd party candidates. There are only candidates. Vote for the one you actually want. There's plenty to choose from.
  - jhugg 10y ago
    >Nothing was altered. You vote your conscience. Because people made a similar decision to what we're talking about now, a majority of voters saw their least favorite candidate win, which many found to be an unfortunate result. As others mention, this is fixable if you can rank your choices, but until then...
  - tangent128 10y ago
    Elections, especially under First-Past-The-Post voting, are coordination games- not opinion polls. If you can assemble a coalition of ~70 million voters for a third party within the next two months, sure, do that. Otherwise, you are abstaining as far as the outcome is concerned. It's very easy to dislike both candidates in play today, and certainly feels good to vote for neither. But they are not equally bad. One candidate views large swaths of Americans as inherently illegitimate, while the other is perhaps garden-variety corrupt. Your conscience is what stops you from doing things that feel good, but hurt others.
    - maratd 10y ago
      > Your conscience is what stops you from doing things that feel good, but hurt others. It also stops you from doing things that feel bad, but are rationalized backward to be the "right thing". I assure you, both Clinton and Trump in the White House will be equally bad. Just a different kind of bad. Vote for Gary (or Jill)!
- brainfire 10y ago
  It's ridiculous and patronizing to suggest anyone "loses the right to complain" because they've participated in the system in a way you don't personally approve of. I've always been irritated by this position as applied to people who don't vote, but it's even worse to suggest your choice of candidate can invoke it. What's next, you lose the right to complain if your candidate wins? If you vote Democrat? If you haven't consecutively voted in every election? If you didn't run yourself?
- protomyth 10y ago
  The 1992 election was most definitely altered by a third-party candidate. Without Perot, its unlikely Clinton would have been elected.
- int_19h 10y ago
  This analysis, like other similar ones, assumes that a vote for a third party is a vote "stolen" from one of the two major parties. Which implies that those two parties "own" votes, since you can't steal what someone else doesn't own. Which strikes me as a very disrespectful attitude, all in all. In my opinion, the mistake is here: "If you don’t vote for a plausible candidate, then you lose the right to complain when you don’t like what happens." You're placing the full responsibility on the person who, given the bad choices, with one slightly better than another, elected to not choose either. I think that responsibility in this case rests largely with those who proffer the choices. In other words, if you want, say, Jill Stein supporters to vote Democrat, well then, Democrats should 1) adopt a platform that clearly makes them a much better choice for Greens, and 2) offer a candidate that represents that platform in a convincing way. You don't "own" those voters - it's up to you to convince them to vote for you. If they aren't convinced and vote for someone else, and you lose, the fault is largely yours. And from their perspective, they are doing the rational thing - by rejecting your candidate for not doing enough to accommodate them, they're strategically voting to push you towards either offering a better choice next time, or reforming the electoral system such that they can express their preferences in a way that affects you less (e.g. by adopting some form of transferable vote). From their perspective, they sacrifice the chance to let the "lesser evil" block the "greater evil" in one particular electoral cycle, for a very long-ended play to try to change the rules of the game in their advantage, so that at some point they can actually get "good" elected. This isn't to say that there is a certain amount of responsibility for not anticipating indirect effect of your vote, given the constraints of the political system. Depending on how much is at stake, the strategy above is not always applicable, if the losses in the current electoral cycle would be more than anticipated long-term gains. Many people, myself included, believe that this cycle is one of those, and that the long-term goal requires allying with the "lesser evil" for the duration of the crisis.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
odbol_ 10y ago
Heck, I just want him to get into the debates. Having only two parties debate things they care about without a third voice means most of the TV-watching American public won't ever realize that there are better alternatives.
protomyth 10y ago
I don't think its a throwaway vote, but here's my logic. So, multiple states are probably going to go one way or the other without much likelihood of change. I'm in ND and it will go Trump and MN will go Clinton. There are certain states that might shift (the so called battle ground states) and partial split electoral votes (ME & NE). If you are in a battleground or split state, then they will miss your vote. If you're like me, they won't, but you really aren't voting for the win. You're voting for the next election. If a third party can get a decent percentage (like Perot in 1992), then they can get on the stage the election cycle and that will make a difference. You might actually get your better option.
adocracy 10y ago
"What is Aleppo?" = throwaway vote.

by bargl 10y ago

karma_vaccum123 10y ago

Voting for Johnson isn't a wasted vote, if the Libertarian Party can start showing double-digits, they will start getting invited to debates etc. Until they are invited to televised debates, they will indeed remain a joke.

metaphorm 10y ago

that's still very semantically different than the suggested "vote of no confidence" option that OP proposed.

jhugg 10y ago

I’m sympathetic, but as someone who remembers the 2000 election and how it was clearly altered by a third party candidate, with actual serious ramifications (war, etc…), I can’t support this view (at least not in a state that might matter). If you don’t vote for a plausible candidate, then you lose the right to complain when you don’t like what happens. "I didn’t vote for him/her”, isn’t a valid excuse unless you voted against him/her. I recognize this is a dissapointing and compromised viewpoint, but there are literally lives on the line.

EvanAnderson 10y ago
Voting for a third-party candidate is a vote against Trump and Clinton. There are "serious ramifications", to my mind, under both a Clinton or Trump presidency. Neither is any worse to me. The best outcome of the upcoming US Presidential election, as I see it, is an eventual "major"-party winner having such weak popular support as to cause their party to distance itself from the President. A Trump or Clinton with no popular mandate and lack of support from their party is what I'd certainly like.
Klathmon 10y ago
I can't do that. I can't vote for someone that I feel is a terrible choice that will have serious ramifications without actually believing in them. I won't send the message that I want a candidate unless I actually want them. I'm not voting against a candidate, i'm voting for one. And if there is nobody that represents me, i'm not going to vote. I'm not going to show approval for one of the candidates that I don't actually support, and i'm not going to feel like it's "my fault" when one of them wins.
- jhugg 10y ago
  Hypothetical: Candidate A is a genuine sociopath and serial killer. Candidate B was indicted for tax-fraud, but got off for BS reasons. Candidate C runs a non-profit and loves kittens, but has no chance in hell of winning. I don't want to vote for A or B. I want to vote for C. But if by not voting for B, A gets elected, that's partly on me. This isn't our exact situation, but if you genuinely believe one plausible candidate is better than the other (even if still bad) and you vote 3rd party, then you're wasting your vote. Whether Gary Johnson gets 5% or 12% of the vote isn't going to fix the two party system. If you want to do that, you need to start at the local and state levels. Just running a candidate for president every four years is for publicity and messaging, not because you're ever going to win.
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    I don't see it that way. It's not on me that 5X% of the people who voted voted for the serial killer. That's on them. If that is who the population wants, then that is what they will get. My vote is the voice I get in democracy. I'm not going to use it to vote in someone I don't agree with on most issues, just because the other guy is worse. Me withholding that voice (or using it to vote for someone I know won't win, but who i genuinely believe in) is the way that I can be heard. It's my way of telling future politicians that if they support X (or something close to X) that they can get a portion of those who voted for C last election. It's my way of sending a message that the next candidate shouldn't be a serial killer AND shouldn't be involved in tax fraud. It's my call for someone who better represents me and my beliefs.
maratd 10y ago
> how it was clearly altered by a third party candidate, with actual serious ramifications (war, etc…), I can’t support this view (at least not in a state that might matter). Nothing was altered. You vote your conscience. It's when people start playing games and vote for the less bad option because they don't want someone else to win that we get these kind of ridiculous candidates. Each candidate will take ridiculous positions and then essentially blackmail the electorate with "what are you going to do? vote for the other guy?". That is not a healthy recipe for a democracy. There are no 3rd party candidates. There are only candidates. Vote for the one you actually want. There's plenty to choose from.
- jhugg 10y ago
  >Nothing was altered. You vote your conscience. Because people made a similar decision to what we're talking about now, a majority of voters saw their least favorite candidate win, which many found to be an unfortunate result. As others mention, this is fixable if you can rank your choices, but until then...
- tangent128 10y ago
  Elections, especially under First-Past-The-Post voting, are coordination games- not opinion polls. If you can assemble a coalition of ~70 million voters for a third party within the next two months, sure, do that. Otherwise, you are abstaining as far as the outcome is concerned. It's very easy to dislike both candidates in play today, and certainly feels good to vote for neither. But they are not equally bad. One candidate views large swaths of Americans as inherently illegitimate, while the other is perhaps garden-variety corrupt. Your conscience is what stops you from doing things that feel good, but hurt others.
  - maratd 10y ago
    > Your conscience is what stops you from doing things that feel good, but hurt others. It also stops you from doing things that feel bad, but are rationalized backward to be the "right thing". I assure you, both Clinton and Trump in the White House will be equally bad. Just a different kind of bad. Vote for Gary (or Jill)!
brainfire 10y ago
It's ridiculous and patronizing to suggest anyone "loses the right to complain" because they've participated in the system in a way you don't personally approve of. I've always been irritated by this position as applied to people who don't vote, but it's even worse to suggest your choice of candidate can invoke it. What's next, you lose the right to complain if your candidate wins? If you vote Democrat? If you haven't consecutively voted in every election? If you didn't run yourself?
protomyth 10y ago
The 1992 election was most definitely altered by a third-party candidate. Without Perot, its unlikely Clinton would have been elected.
int_19h 10y ago
This analysis, like other similar ones, assumes that a vote for a third party is a vote "stolen" from one of the two major parties. Which implies that those two parties "own" votes, since you can't steal what someone else doesn't own. Which strikes me as a very disrespectful attitude, all in all. In my opinion, the mistake is here: "If you don’t vote for a plausible candidate, then you lose the right to complain when you don’t like what happens." You're placing the full responsibility on the person who, given the bad choices, with one slightly better than another, elected to not choose either. I think that responsibility in this case rests largely with those who proffer the choices. In other words, if you want, say, Jill Stein supporters to vote Democrat, well then, Democrats should 1) adopt a platform that clearly makes them a much better choice for Greens, and 2) offer a candidate that represents that platform in a convincing way. You don't "own" those voters - it's up to you to convince them to vote for you. If they aren't convinced and vote for someone else, and you lose, the fault is largely yours. And from their perspective, they are doing the rational thing - by rejecting your candidate for not doing enough to accommodate them, they're strategically voting to push you towards either offering a better choice next time, or reforming the electoral system such that they can express their preferences in a way that affects you less (e.g. by adopting some form of transferable vote). From their perspective, they sacrifice the chance to let the "lesser evil" block the "greater evil" in one particular electoral cycle, for a very long-ended play to try to change the rules of the game in their advantage, so that at some point they can actually get "good" elected. This isn't to say that there is a certain amount of responsibility for not anticipating indirect effect of your vote, given the constraints of the political system. Depending on how much is at stake, the strategy above is not always applicable, if the losses in the current electoral cycle would be more than anticipated long-term gains. Many people, myself included, believe that this cycle is one of those, and that the long-term goal requires allying with the "lesser evil" for the duration of the crisis.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

odbol_ 10y ago

Heck, I just want him to get into the debates. Having only two parties debate things they care about without a third voice means most of the TV-watching American public won't ever realize that there are better alternatives.

protomyth 10y ago

I don't think its a throwaway vote, but here's my logic. So, multiple states are probably going to go one way or the other without much likelihood of change. I'm in ND and it will go Trump and MN will go Clinton. There are certain states that might shift (the so called battle ground states) and partial split electoral votes (ME & NE). If you are in a battleground or split state, then they will miss your vote. If you're like me, they won't, but you really aren't voting for the win. You're voting for the next election. If a third party can get a decent percentage (like Perot in 1992), then they can get on the stage the election cycle and that will make a difference. You might actually get your better option.

adocracy 10y ago

"What is Aleppo?" = throwaway vote.