5 ms·

And she still will be elected, because this year we had to have joke candidates on both sides. I guess it's probably the best time to vote 3rd party.

by takeda 10y ago

mindcrime 10y ago
I honestly can't understand how anybody is considering voting for Clinton or Trump. If this world was anything close to reasonable, Gary Johnson would win in a landslide. shrug
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- losvedir 10y ago
  As a Gary Johnson supporter myself, I freely admit that he has some extreme policies that can turn off a lot of voters. But what really frustrates me is how many people I've heard from that do prefer him but are afraid to vote for him because of the spoiler effect. I keep (wishful thinking) envisioning a scenario where he gets just enough votes that all of a sudden everyone on the fence realizes that maybe he could win and joins in, and then he launches ahead Wishful thinking and politics aside: there's a term for that phenomenon on the tip of my tongue, but I can't quite place it. Can anyone think of one? Where there's a slow growth until you get just enough of something and then it takes off?
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    But what really frustrates me is how many people I've heard from that do prefer him but are afraid to vote for him because of the spoiler effect. Yeah, I know what you mean. It's just that this time around, BOTH "major party" choices are SO bad, that you look at it and think "who cares whether Gigantic Douche or Turd Sandwich wins?" Ya know?
  - soemoea 10y ago
    Isn't this called a tipping point?
  - FragenAntworten 10y ago
    Critical mass?
    - losvedir 10y ago
      Aha, yeah, that was it! Thanks. soemoea's "tipping point" is close, too.
  - bcg1 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect
  - matt_m 10y ago
    Rather than just hoping for critical mass for one candidate, it would be nice to switch to something like ranked-choice voting (it's used at the local level already in some places like San Francisco I think). It's hard to advocate voting for 3rd parties with our current system, where causing the least-preferred candidate to win is by far the most likely outcome.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- int_19h 10y ago
  Realistically, given how little exposure third party candidates get, there's no chance of any third party winning this year. Most voters don't even know they're running. Thus, it becomes a choice of 1) making a symbolic vote for a third party to "show them", 2) helping Clinton win, and 3) helping Trump win. Given the potential outcomes of Trump vs Clinton, a lot of people believe (rightly, IMO) that this electoral cycle is not a good time to make symbolic gestures or long-term strategic voting games. Too much is at stake. Status quo sucks, but is still infinitely better than the alternative.
  - goatlover 10y ago
    Doesn't this get said every single election, though?
    - takeda 10y ago
      Yep, the thing different about this election that is that we really have two bad candidates that is hard to like. With previous elections even the candidates that were disliked and lost didn't seem as bad: - Obama vs Romney - Obama vs McCain - Bush Jr vs Kerry - Bush Jr vs Gore - Clinton vs Dole - Clinton vs Bush Sr
    - int_19h 10y ago
      Yes, it does. The difference is that this time it's actually true. And I say this as someone who was rooting for Ron Paul back in 2012. Unfortunately, because this argument was abused so many times before, it's hard to convince people that this time is different.
  - Dagwoodie 10y ago
    Curious, can anyone comment on how fair NPR is in terms of covering 3rd party candidates? How about covering all candidates during a primary? I'm sick of great candidates being steam rolled in the popularity contest we have in politics and I wonder if we have anyone that covers them all adequately.
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    Given the potential outcomes of Trump vs Clinton, a lot of people believe (rightly, IMO) that this electoral cycle is not a good time to make symbolic gestures or long-term strategic voting games. Too much is at stake. And a lot of us believe (rightly, IMO) that both Clinton and Trump are so equally bad, that there's no effective difference. Me personally, if Gary wasn't in the race, I wouldn't cast a vote for President at all. shrug
- minikites 10y ago
  The world is reasonable to reject him as a candidate. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/09/gary-johnson-libertarian-president-new-mexico-governor-record/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/09/gary-johnson-libertarian-... Prisons: >Johnson accepted at least $9,000 in campaign donations from a prison company that ultimately won a state contract. By the time he left office, New Mexico led the country in for-profit prisons, housing 44 percent of its inmates in private facilities. Only Alaska, with 31 percent, came close. >In 2000, after four inmates and a guard were killed in private facilities, Johnson vetoed an oversight bill and startled reporters by insisting that New Mexico had the best prisons in the nation. Poverty: >Within just a few months, the state had knocked more than 16,000 people off its welfare rolls, and its poverty rate had risen to first in the nation, according to a report from the state’s legislature. Schools: >For Democratic legislators, the trouble wasn’t just that Johnson wanted to divert money from the public system to private institutions. It was that his plan would privilege rich families in the long run, said Charles Bowyer, who served as government-relations director of the teachers’ union during Johnson’s tenure. Tuition at the most prestigious private schools often cost around $8,000 or $9,000 — meaning low-income families could never afford them, even with vouchers. And private schools would still be able to reject special-needs students.
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    Worth mentioning that Jacobin approaches things from a very left of center perspective. There may be many HN readers who are Libertarian and disagree ideologically with the Jacobin view of the world (I happen to agree with it)
- monochromatic 10y ago
  I usually do like the Libertarian candidate better than the other options... but not this year.
  - mi100hael 10y ago
    What's not to like about "What's Aleppo?" Gary and his RINO running mate?
    - mindcrime 10y ago
      That Aleppo thing is a total joke. If our foreign policy wasn't a complete joke, there would be no need for the President to know anything about Aleppo. As it is, it's still questionable if there's any reason for him/her to do so. Keep in mind, Johnson is running for President, not Chief Cartographer.
      - plandis 10y ago
        There's just something off putting about having a president that doesn't keep up with current events.
        witty_username 10y ago
        The president can just lookup what Aleppo is.
      - mi100hael 10y ago
        The civil war in Syria has been one of the most critical situations in US foreign policy for several years now. It has consequences for the stability of the region and the rise or fall of IS, it has consequences for the security of Israel, a key ally, and it has consequences for how our modern relationship with Russia continues to develop. You can call our foreign policy a joke, but it's inexcusable for someone running for the most powerful office in the world to not have even a cursory knowledge of it.
    - jpfed 10y ago
- icantdrive55 10y ago
  I really wanted to like Gary Johnson, but didn't. I was going to vote for Hillary, but after Sander's success, she started making promises that just mimicked his. She is not going to bring jobs back to the United States. I might not vote for a president this year. I feel kinda dizzy just writing that last sentance. There's a small part of me that thinks if the right third party candidate/person, back by a ton of money, jumped into the race this week, he/she might win. At this point, if Bill Maher jumped in; I would vote for him. Hell--if Jimmy Kimmel jumped in, I would vote for him. I don't even know these two guys, but I trust they would try to do the right thing, or at least delegate to the right people. I rember feeling a sence of doom when Regan was running, but the world was so different, and I was in high school. As someone said before, this election is beyond weird.
  - Pxtl 10y ago
    Bill Maher is an antivaxxer. Sorry.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    > She is not going to bring jobs back to the United States. And why is that important? The government can always lower the minimum wage to adjust the number of jobs if it decreases.
- jpfed 10y ago
  Easy- Duverger's Law. One of Clinton or Trump will be president. If you vote for one of those two people, you get to influence that outcome. I view voting as a strategic act, not a moral stand.
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    Easy- Duverger's Law. Keep in mind, "Duverger's Law" isn't a law in the same sense that gravity is. That is, it's more of an observation of how things usually are... it's not an inviolable fundamental principle of the universe. If you vote for one of those two people, you get to influence that outcome. You're not influencing the outcome when the outcome is the same in both cases.
    - jpfed 10y ago
      Obviously the outcome won't literally be exactly the same. Whether we consider them to be "the same" in a practical sense depends on what we care about. Different people care about different things, so different people will disagree about how different the candidates are.
      - tanderson92 10y ago
        Unless the vote is decided by a handful of ballots, one must consider whether their vote has more utility as a protest ballot against the status quo.
- throwaway2016b 10y ago
  What is Aleppo?
- jlj 10y ago
  I'm with you, Johnson all the way. Voting for someone who's positions I mostly align with, who would do the best job for our country with the least amount of drama. Not for the lesser of two evils, or to make sure the "other guy" doesn't win. That's not a protest vote. If you haven't heard of Johnson Weld, please hear them out and at least watch their 60 Minutes interview from last night: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-libertarian-candidates-gary-johnson-bill-weld/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-libertarian-candidate...
exception_e 10y ago
I like Johnson (I agree with him about 70% of the time and think he has good character). There's no way he has a chance now that he wasn't included in the debates. Effectively, there is no 3rd party this year :(
sctb 10y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12536086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12536086 and marked it off-topic.

And she still will be elected, because this year we had to have joke candidates on both sides. I guess it's probably the best time to vote 3rd party.

by takeda 10y ago

And she still will be elected, because this year we had to have joke candidates on both sides. I guess it's probably the best time to vote 3rd party.

mindcrime 10y ago

I honestly can't understand how anybody is considering voting for Clinton or Trump. If this world was anything close to reasonable, Gary Johnson would win in a landslide. shrug

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
losvedir 10y ago
As a Gary Johnson supporter myself, I freely admit that he has some extreme policies that can turn off a lot of voters. But what really frustrates me is how many people I've heard from that do prefer him but are afraid to vote for him because of the spoiler effect. I keep (wishful thinking) envisioning a scenario where he gets just enough votes that all of a sudden everyone on the fence realizes that maybe he could win and joins in, and then he launches ahead Wishful thinking and politics aside: there's a term for that phenomenon on the tip of my tongue, but I can't quite place it. Can anyone think of one? Where there's a slow growth until you get just enough of something and then it takes off?
- mindcrime 10y ago
  But what really frustrates me is how many people I've heard from that do prefer him but are afraid to vote for him because of the spoiler effect. Yeah, I know what you mean. It's just that this time around, BOTH "major party" choices are SO bad, that you look at it and think "who cares whether Gigantic Douche or Turd Sandwich wins?" Ya know?
- soemoea 10y ago
  Isn't this called a tipping point?
- FragenAntworten 10y ago
  Critical mass?
  - losvedir 10y ago
    Aha, yeah, that was it! Thanks. soemoea's "tipping point" is close, too.
- bcg1 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect
- matt_m 10y ago
  Rather than just hoping for critical mass for one candidate, it would be nice to switch to something like ranked-choice voting (it's used at the local level already in some places like San Francisco I think). It's hard to advocate voting for 3rd parties with our current system, where causing the least-preferred candidate to win is by far the most likely outcome.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
int_19h 10y ago
Realistically, given how little exposure third party candidates get, there's no chance of any third party winning this year. Most voters don't even know they're running. Thus, it becomes a choice of 1) making a symbolic vote for a third party to "show them", 2) helping Clinton win, and 3) helping Trump win. Given the potential outcomes of Trump vs Clinton, a lot of people believe (rightly, IMO) that this electoral cycle is not a good time to make symbolic gestures or long-term strategic voting games. Too much is at stake. Status quo sucks, but is still infinitely better than the alternative.
- goatlover 10y ago
  Doesn't this get said every single election, though?
  - takeda 10y ago
    Yep, the thing different about this election that is that we really have two bad candidates that is hard to like. With previous elections even the candidates that were disliked and lost didn't seem as bad: - Obama vs Romney - Obama vs McCain - Bush Jr vs Kerry - Bush Jr vs Gore - Clinton vs Dole - Clinton vs Bush Sr
  - int_19h 10y ago
    Yes, it does. The difference is that this time it's actually true. And I say this as someone who was rooting for Ron Paul back in 2012. Unfortunately, because this argument was abused so many times before, it's hard to convince people that this time is different.
- Dagwoodie 10y ago
  Curious, can anyone comment on how fair NPR is in terms of covering 3rd party candidates? How about covering all candidates during a primary? I'm sick of great candidates being steam rolled in the popularity contest we have in politics and I wonder if we have anyone that covers them all adequately.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  Given the potential outcomes of Trump vs Clinton, a lot of people believe (rightly, IMO) that this electoral cycle is not a good time to make symbolic gestures or long-term strategic voting games. Too much is at stake. And a lot of us believe (rightly, IMO) that both Clinton and Trump are so equally bad, that there's no effective difference. Me personally, if Gary wasn't in the race, I wouldn't cast a vote for President at all. shrug
minikites 10y ago
The world is reasonable to reject him as a candidate. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/09/gary-johnson-libertarian-president-new-mexico-governor-record/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/09/gary-johnson-libertarian-... Prisons: >Johnson accepted at least $9,000 in campaign donations from a prison company that ultimately won a state contract. By the time he left office, New Mexico led the country in for-profit prisons, housing 44 percent of its inmates in private facilities. Only Alaska, with 31 percent, came close. >In 2000, after four inmates and a guard were killed in private facilities, Johnson vetoed an oversight bill and startled reporters by insisting that New Mexico had the best prisons in the nation. Poverty: >Within just a few months, the state had knocked more than 16,000 people off its welfare rolls, and its poverty rate had risen to first in the nation, according to a report from the state’s legislature. Schools: >For Democratic legislators, the trouble wasn’t just that Johnson wanted to divert money from the public system to private institutions. It was that his plan would privilege rich families in the long run, said Charles Bowyer, who served as government-relations director of the teachers’ union during Johnson’s tenure. Tuition at the most prestigious private schools often cost around $8,000 or $9,000 — meaning low-income families could never afford them, even with vouchers. And private schools would still be able to reject special-needs students.
- tanderson92 10y ago
  Worth mentioning that Jacobin approaches things from a very left of center perspective. There may be many HN readers who are Libertarian and disagree ideologically with the Jacobin view of the world (I happen to agree with it)
monochromatic 10y ago
I usually do like the Libertarian candidate better than the other options... but not this year.
- mi100hael 10y ago
  What's not to like about "What's Aleppo?" Gary and his RINO running mate?
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    That Aleppo thing is a total joke. If our foreign policy wasn't a complete joke, there would be no need for the President to know anything about Aleppo. As it is, it's still questionable if there's any reason for him/her to do so. Keep in mind, Johnson is running for President, not Chief Cartographer.
    - plandis 10y ago
      There's just something off putting about having a president that doesn't keep up with current events.
      - witty_username 10y ago
        The president can just lookup what Aleppo is.
    - mi100hael 10y ago
      The civil war in Syria has been one of the most critical situations in US foreign policy for several years now. It has consequences for the stability of the region and the rise or fall of IS, it has consequences for the security of Israel, a key ally, and it has consequences for how our modern relationship with Russia continues to develop. You can call our foreign policy a joke, but it's inexcusable for someone running for the most powerful office in the world to not have even a cursory knowledge of it.
  - jpfed 10y ago
icantdrive55 10y ago
I really wanted to like Gary Johnson, but didn't. I was going to vote for Hillary, but after Sander's success, she started making promises that just mimicked his. She is not going to bring jobs back to the United States. I might not vote for a president this year. I feel kinda dizzy just writing that last sentance. There's a small part of me that thinks if the right third party candidate/person, back by a ton of money, jumped into the race this week, he/she might win. At this point, if Bill Maher jumped in; I would vote for him. Hell--if Jimmy Kimmel jumped in, I would vote for him. I don't even know these two guys, but I trust they would try to do the right thing, or at least delegate to the right people. I rember feeling a sence of doom when Regan was running, but the world was so different, and I was in high school. As someone said before, this election is beyond weird.
- Pxtl 10y ago
  Bill Maher is an antivaxxer. Sorry.
- witty_username 10y ago
  > She is not going to bring jobs back to the United States. And why is that important? The government can always lower the minimum wage to adjust the number of jobs if it decreases.
jpfed 10y ago
Easy- Duverger's Law. One of Clinton or Trump will be president. If you vote for one of those two people, you get to influence that outcome. I view voting as a strategic act, not a moral stand.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  Easy- Duverger's Law. Keep in mind, "Duverger's Law" isn't a law in the same sense that gravity is. That is, it's more of an observation of how things usually are... it's not an inviolable fundamental principle of the universe. If you vote for one of those two people, you get to influence that outcome. You're not influencing the outcome when the outcome is the same in both cases.
  - jpfed 10y ago
    Obviously the outcome won't literally be exactly the same. Whether we consider them to be "the same" in a practical sense depends on what we care about. Different people care about different things, so different people will disagree about how different the candidates are.
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      Unless the vote is decided by a handful of ballots, one must consider whether their vote has more utility as a protest ballot against the status quo.
throwaway2016b 10y ago
What is Aleppo?
jlj 10y ago
I'm with you, Johnson all the way. Voting for someone who's positions I mostly align with, who would do the best job for our country with the least amount of drama. Not for the lesser of two evils, or to make sure the "other guy" doesn't win. That's not a protest vote. If you haven't heard of Johnson Weld, please hear them out and at least watch their 60 Minutes interview from last night: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-libertarian-candidates-gary-johnson-bill-weld/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-libertarian-candidate...

exception_e 10y ago

I like Johnson (I agree with him about 70% of the time and think he has good character). There's no way he has a chance now that he wasn't included in the debates. Effectively, there is no 3rd party this year :(

sctb 10y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12536086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12536086 and marked it off-topic.